Talk:Taiwan/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Taiwan and Transnistria comparison notes.

When i take a look at both articles i find huge differences that reflect an obvious bias to western point of view.

in Transnistria article the first thing you read is that Transnistria “is an unrecognised breakaway state that is internationally recognised as a part of Moldova.”, while in Taiwan article which is literally in the same exact case as Transnistria the first thing you see is that “it is a country in East Asia.”, not to mention the other contradictions in the articles

I wonder why is this difference or should i say obvious bias ?

both Taiwan and Transnistria can be said to be “de facto sovereign state”, both have full functioning government and full control over their territory, and both have no legal stances regarding their claim, and both don’t lack official UN recognition or even US or EU recognition and lack international recognition, both are running by illegal separatists and militias and both are supported by foreign nations against the territorial integrity and sovereignty of china and moldova.

This is obvious contradiction and Eurocentric bias.

I suggest either changing the Taiwan article to make it like Transnistria or changing Transnistria article to make it like Taiwan, personally, i support the former suggestion. In both cases the two articles can’t remain as they are now. Stephan rostie (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

The status of Taiwan (island) is still in dispute and is not internationally recognized as a part of China. Therefore, it's different from the other case you mentioned. Matt Smith (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The status of Taiwan (island) is still in dispute and is not internationally recognized as a part of China. That’s not anyway close to truth or reality, the entire world including US and EU recognize taiwan island as integral part of china almost all world countries including EU and US and all international organizations including UN don’t recognize Taiwan as a state, and the overwhelming majority of all world countries and international organizations consider Taiwan as integral part of china , only 13 UN member from all the 193 very insignificant members don’t recognize taiwan’s statehood, by no way this makes it “in dispute” or “not internationally recognized as a part of China, the UN and the entire world except 13 very insignificant UN members that you might have never heard of like Honduras, nauru, tuvalu, etc. heck even the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic is recognized by 45 UN members it’s article says that it’s a “partially recognized state”, the article of Donetsk People's Republic which is also recognized by Russia, a permanent member of UNSC with VETO power is written “is an unrecognised republic”, taiwan, in the eyes of UN and the entire world (except Hondura and nauru) is not recognized as a state and integral part of sovereign Chinese territory, hence, putting it as a “in dispute” or claiming that it is “not internationally recognized as a part of China” is completely void. Taiwan’s state is exactly like Donetsk People's Republic (before russian annexation), Transnistria, Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Perhaps the only difference is that Taiwan is politically and militarily supported by US and europe while the others are not. Stephan rostie (talk) 09:18, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"the entire world including US and EU recognize taiwan island as integral part of china". That can hardly be true. A number of Western governments, including the U.S., already protested to the U.N. back in 2007 to force the global body to stop using the reference “Taiwan is a part of China”. Please see this source. Matt Smith (talk) 10:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

That’s just an unofficial proposal/request by european and ex-british colonies (now countries) governments to the UN regarding their wishes, non of it is official, even the information in the source you cited is using WikiLeaks as a reference. officially the US, EU and more importantly UN officially don’t recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state, read more about One China. These are the only 13 countries that recognize Taiwan as a state, ironically enough, one of these only 13 state (Honduras) decided to withdraw Taiwan recognition recently Stephan rostie (talk) 11:58, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Officially, the U.S. also does not recognize Taiwan as a part of China. The U.S regards the status of Taiwan as an unsettled issue. Matt Smith (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

officially neither US nor almost the entire world nor UN recognize Taiwan as a state. That should be mentioned in the article intro by noting that Taiwan is “unrecognized by international community” or “partially recognized state”. Please respond to this point first because this is what the article needs to include.

regarding US, US doesn’t deny that Taiwan is part of china neither. the United States "acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China" and "does not challenge that position.". The People’s Republic of China (PRC) claims sovereignty over Taiwan. The U.S. “acknowledges” but does not “endorse” PRC’s position.

Apart from US, the overwhelming majority of world countries and all international organizations recognize the Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan and consider it an integral part of china. Stephan rostie (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning Taiwan's controversial status in the intro.

Yes, the U.S. does not recognize nor deny that Taiwan is part of China. The "acknowledges..." remark merely means that the U.S. is aware of the view of all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait and that the U.S. does not challenge the view. Again, the U.S. does not recognize nor deny that.

It's not just the U.S., the source I provided before already says there are also a number of major countries that hold the same view. Matt Smith (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with mentioning Taiwan's controversial status in the intro.. Great !, so you agree on mentioning the fact that Taiwan is a “partially recognized state” in the intro ?

It's not just the U.S., the source I provided before already says there are also a number of major countries that hold the same view. Perhaps saying “western” instead of “major” will be more accurate, either way, they are a small minority in the international community and are not anywhere close to being a majority. Stephan rostie (talk) 15:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, something like that is fine to me.

"major countries" means well-known and influential countries. It does not mean the majority of countries. Matt Smith (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@LilianaUwU do you realize that the recent disruptive editing by @Seabourn101 had nothing to do with the content you removed in your last edit in this article which we have reached consensus about here ? Seabourn101 was arguing about other thing than the one you just removed. May i know why did you remove it ? Stephan rostie (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Stephan rostie I didn't remove it per se, I simply reverted to a version before the dispute. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 16:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The dispute wasn’t even about the content you reverted. it was about @Seabourn101’s disruptive editing which wasn’t about the content you reverted. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

The situation is different, because Taiwan did not "breakaway", instead it was the other way around. So we don't have to add confusion by making the two articles alike. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Without arguing about this “breakaway” point, just leave it for now. It should be said that the Republic of China is “is an unrecognised state that is internationally recognised as a part of China (People's Republic of China).”, or at bare minimum it should be said that it’s a partially recognized state in the first two lines in the article just like Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Kosovo, and South Ossetia Stephan rostie (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The following response is to make clear about some previous comments you left, hope this would help you understanding the decision why "country" is favoured by the community:

Taiwan aka the ROC is never a "breakaway state" or "renegade Province" as the communist China favour to use, which constitutionally regarded itself as a continuation of the original Chinese Republic dates back to its establishment in 1912 with its own sovereignty that never ceases to exist even after the end of Chinese Civil War, plus the fact that the Communist regime in Beijing never have actual rule in its history over any part of Taiwan, the PRC actually has no ground for pursuing the political propaganda about Taiwan as any form of "renegade Province" seceded from the communist China. This is the basic factual and historical difference about your comparison with breakaway states of Transnistria, Kosovo, and South Ossetia which were established from secession, nothing is similar between them.

What I was mentioning about is that you used false analogy to deliberately confuse Taiwan (ROC) with other breakaway states, which means you tend to oversimplify the situation to categorise them all together and disregard the historical context while making your own judgement about the use of "country" in this article as an unfair treatment upon other states also with lesser universal recognition. Hence I explained to you bluntly about why your description is even more "unfair" to paint them all with the same brush for Taiwan when its government and sovereignty have existed long before the current communist regime ever bornt.

I concured that the ROC itself can be defined as an ethinic Chinese state, but this does not make Taiwan/ROC less to be its own sovereign country. The cross-strait relations are basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China", so it's in fact more similar to the current situation of Two Koreas, in which both Koreas are regarded as "countries" as well, and by your criterion, neither of them enjoy universal recognition. The terminology in referring the ROC as a "country" is based on the essence of history, which is also in conformity with the standard of other existing rival states. Even in Chinese Wikipedia, the main article of Taiwan also gave the first sentence as 中華民國是位於東亞的民主共和制國家 ("The ROC is a republic and democratic state located in East Asia").

LVTW2 (talk) 16:19, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan aka the ROC is never a "breakaway state". Let’s just put aside the “breakaway” debate for now, we will come back to it after we finish this point, my main focus is about the fact that Transnistria , Kosovo , Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic and formerly Donetsk People's Republic before joining the Russian federation are written as either “ unrecognized state by international community” or “partially recognized state”, why is taiwan article hiding this information in the intro unlike all the other partially recognized states ? Why isn’t that mentioned ? That’s not a false analogy, Taiwan is not recognized as a state by either UN or international community . This should be mentioned in the first two lines in the article just like all other similar states.

The Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which was never under moroccan sovereignty (didn’t secede), have UN support, recognized by 45 UN member states is written as “partially recognized state”, while Taiwan which neither have international community (except 13 insignificant states) and UN recognition nor support is written as “a country in east Asia” without mentioning anything about it’s recognition statue ? By what sense does this work ?

so it's in fact more similar to the current situation of Two Koreas, in which both Koreas are regarded as "countries" as well, and by your criterion, neither of them enjoy universal recognition. Not true, both North Korea and South Korea are UN members recognized as sovereign states by UN and the greatest majority of world countries, with north Korea being recognized by all UN members except 7 UN members and south Korea being recognized by all UN members except North Korea, neither have any significant lack of international recognition. That’s nothing compared to Taiwan lack of recognition that must be mentioned in the article intro just like all other internationally unrecognized state wiki pages. Stephan rostie (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

The United Nations itself does not have the power to recognize individual state, directly from the United Nations [1]: "The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government."

And for your information, Taiwan a.k.a the ROC was a former member before 1971 and even a founding member of the United Nation, UN Resolution 2758 in 1971 removed Chiang Kai-shek (although technically he quit the UN before the vote) and thus the ROC discontinued as the representative of "China", but it did not determine a final position of territorial sovereignty or representation over Taiwan within the resolution. Just that the KMT-dominated ROC government no longer represents the seat for "China". If it matters so much to you to stress on the acknowledgement by the UN recognition, should you add additional information over China's article highlighting about the historical fact that "the PRC was not recognised by the United Nation and the majority of the world states as legitimate government of China from 1949 to 1971" to make more consistent on both sides? By your definition, the People's Republic China only came to be a "country" from 1971 onward, before the United Nations said so, isn't it?

LVTW2 (talk) 23:16, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

and for your illogical comparison of SADR,the four-fifths western Sahara is effectively occupied by Morocco, and SADR only controlled Eastern fringes of the area, completely different with Taiwan, so what aspect it could be a relevant example to compare? The PRC has never controlled Taiwan even for one second, that's the fact. LVTW2 (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Notice that you divert from the main point which is the fact that Taiwan is not recognized as a state by the (international community) and UN.it’s only recognized as a state by only 13 insignificant states among all world countries. which should be mentioned in the intro as either “unrecognized state by international community” or “partially recognized state”. Again i am not talking about the statehood of Taiwan or it’s legitimacy here, i am talking about mentioning the fact of lacking international recognition just like in the articles of all other states that lack international recognition.

You are now diverting from the main point by questioning the weight of UN and it’s recognition which is not the core of my argument rather than the fact that taiwan lack international recognition in general by both ≈ all world countries and international organizations.

This is the main topic i am talking about. Please respond to it first before reading any other thing i write. Stephan rostie (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

now regarding the UN,

UN is the largest and most influential international organization in the whole world. It’s represents the international community and comply the UN charter and international law for no personal goals.

The same UN page you cited also says: “The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold.”

the reason why SADR despite having full legitimacy according to the international law and moroccan occupation have no legal stances, and UN doesn’t even grant SADR observer status is because as you said UN doesn’t recognize states, the general assembly and UNSC who does that, all UN can do is just condemn the moroccan violation of international law by occupying lands outside it’s recognized sovereignty. It doesn’t recognize SADR as a state simply because two thirds of it’s members don’t despite having full legitimacy.

thus the ROC discontinued as the representative of "China", but it did not determine a final position of territorial sovereignty or representation over Taiwan within the resolution. Neither said that any territory of the chinese state will no longer be part of the new government, it’s just as if the unofficial haftar government in libya ousted the official sarrag government after the libyan civil war, if haftar won and became recognized as the legitimate government and representative of libya by UN and international community, sarrag government won’t have any legitimacy over any Libyan territory it still militarily hold and don’t have the legitimacy to establish country on it and divide libya.

should you add additional information over China's article highlighting about the historical fact that "the PRC was not recognised by the United Nation and the majority of the world states as legitimate government of China from 1949 to 1971" to make more consistent on both sides? By your definition, the People's Republic China only came to be a "country" from 1971 onward, before the United Nations said so, isn't it?. Yes no problem, PRC was an illegitimate government (i said government not a country) of china in that period, but after winning the civil war, overthrowing the ROC regime and gaining the recognition of the international community and UN, it became the sole legitimate government of ALL chinese territory including the chinese territory that the ousted illegitimate regime still occupying (i.e taiwan island). Stephan rostie (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

For the record, the State of Palestine, a non-UN member, despite little recognition, is described as a "state" in its lead sentence.

And "legitimacy", as defined at Legitimacy (political), indicates the "right and acceptance of an authority, usually a governing law or regime". By that definition, the PRC is the legitimate government of mainland China, while the ROC/Taiwan is the legitimate government of the Free Area. Given Wikipedia's neutral point of view, we should go off of the de facto situation in most cases (as well as that supported by reliable sources): that Taiwan independent and legitimate country (see the sources in the article for sources describing and providing evidence that Taiwan fits the definition of "country"). DecafPotato (talk) 23:32, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

For the record, the State of Palestine, a non-UN member, despite little recognition

State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by UN, it has a non-member observer status, it’s as a state as the Vatican city, it’s also recognized as a state by 138 UN members worldwide (over 70% of all world countries), the overwhelming majority of world countries, by what sense do you call that “little recognition” ?

on the other hand Taiwan is recognized by only 13 UN member (less that 7% of world countries) and no recognition by UN or any international organization !, how does that even compare anywhere close to palestine ?

even the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which is recognized by 45 UN member with more international recognition than taiwan is written on it’s page as “partially recognized state”, Kosovo which is recognized by 101 UN member states is written as “partially recognized state”, by what sense can Taiwan which is recognized by only 13 insignificant UN members that you probably have never heard of like hondorus, belize, nauru, etc and have no recognition of any international organization should be written as just “country” without mentioning anything about lack of international recognition and at least saying that it’s a “partially recognized country” ? One can even argue that it “unrecognized country by international community” in the first place. Stephan rostie (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

State of Palestine is recognized as a sovereign state by UN – The United Nations does not have the power to recognize a state. DecafPotato (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps you don’t get it. “Recognized” doesn’t mean that UN decided to recognize the state of Palestine on it’s own, it’s the international community that recognized the statehood of Palestine first, then palestine admitted to UN observer status, then the overwhelming majority of UN members (international community) accepted it, thus Palestine became recognized as sovereign state by UN. This recognition wasn’t granted by UN on it’s own rather than by the UN member states (the international community). It’s a sovereign state in the eyes of UN and regarded as such. While Taiwan lack any international recognition from the international community and consequently from UN, beside the fact that Taiwan island is recognized as integral part of Chinese territory by the overwhelming majority of the world and (consequently) UN and other international organizations because in the past century they recognized PRC as the sole legitimate representative of china (all china including Taiwan) instead of the overthrown ROC government.

anyway, Taiwan doesn’t compare to palestine by any mean regarding international recognition simply because the overwhelming majority of international community and international organizations (like UN), while Taiwan lack almost any recognition from the international community, that’s not something debatable. It’s facts and numbers. Stephan rostie (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan isn't fully recognized as a state, yes, so we don't describe it as such. But it is nevertheless a country (which includes Scotland, Basque Country, and Greenland, none of which are recognized as either independent nor sovereign by anyone. DecafPotato (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan at one time was China, it is not a break-way state. Slatersteven (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it’s just an illegitimate government ruling Chinese land after being ousted and losing most of it’s territory in the Chinese civil war, it’s exactly like GNA front in the second Libyan civil war against Khalifa Haftar front, both are Libya and both claim to be the ruler and representative of the same territory of state of Libya,however if GNA was officially ousted and hafter front became recognized as the official political entity and representative of the state of Libya, the GNA will no longer have any legitimacy over any Libyan territory it is still occupying and have no legitimacy to claim being a sovereign state independent from Libya on that territory. Stephan rostie (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

An RFC decided we call it a country, so even if we accept there is consensus to change it to "partially recognised" (is there?) it is "partially recognised country". But I think to overturn an RFC, we need a new RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 19:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the RfC, where options like "partially recognized state" were discussed and decided against. And I agree that to override the consensus of the RfC, we should have a broader discussion that builds upon that RfC. DecafPotato (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy link to the Rfc, where options like "partially recognized state" were discussed and decided against. Not true, are you intentionally trying to give us misinformation to mislead us ? The entire Rfc talk that you are citing have only one word “partially”, the sentence only sentence in the talk saying the word “partially” is “and might get partially subsidised by their employer”, saying that the Rfc rejected stating the fact of taiwans’s partial recognition or lack of international recognition is simply intentional misleading. It wasn’t discussed and wasn’t even the topic of the Rfc. not once in the RfC it was said that taiwan’s lack of international recognition or that it’s partial recognition shouldn’t be mentioned. Ironically enough the same Rfc even says in the conclusion “We have agreement that most nations don't recognize Taiwan as an independent country”. Stephan rostie (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

A quick search saw proposals that include "de facto state" or "largely unrecognized state". I said "options like" for a reason. DecafPotato (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Users keep talking about having wp:consensus, I am not seeing it. Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

there is no objection to stating the fact of Taiwan’s lack of international recognition. Both I and @Matt Smith agreed that it should be mentioned just as how it is mentioned in all other states that lack international recognition on wikipedia (some of which even have more international recognition than taiwan itself) like Kosovo, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, South Ossetia, and all others. No one objection about this was received except from @DecafPotato to which i replied to and didn’t show up again. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I count at least 4 other users here, did they agree (well 1 did not, as I did not, and indeed have reverted you)? Slatersteven (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

At this stage, I have said all I can say. Do not take further silence to be agreement, until I say I agree with this change I do not. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I would oppose such a change. These situations are not similar. If you want to use the prose from a different wiki page as a source to argue for a change to another Wikipedia article, please be aware we should avoid original research. Very Average Editor (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023

change: Ma also made an official apology for the White Terror; a foundation to compensate the victims had been established by law in 1998 and over 20,000 people were compensated until it's cessation in 2014.[263][264]

to: Ma also made an official apology for the White Terror; a foundation to compensate the victims had been established by law in 1998 and over 20,000 people were compensated until its cessation in 2014.[263][264] Silamandoran (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Actualcpscm (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Individuals living in Kinmen and Matsu do not refer to themselves as "Taiwanese"

Why is the demonym for the Republic of China (ROC) only "Taiwanese"? The island of Taiwan is as much foreign to those living on Kinmen and Matsu, under the control of the ROC, as the People's Republic of China (PRC) is. The demonym "Chinese" was present on this article as recently as 2021, before it got removed. The term "Chinese" is not synonymous to mean a citizen of the PRC but rather as an ethnic Han Chinese with ROC citizenship. These include thousands of individuals who live in these islands that are not Taiwan geographically.

Furthermore, the state is literally officially called the "Republic of China" and not the "Republic of Taiwan". Until the ROC officially renames itself and formally drops anything "China" or "Chinese" entirely from its documents, having the demonym specifically being stated as merely "Taiwanese" is incomplete and erroneous. 211.185.2.79 (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Nonsense. Yue🌙 20:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The demonym has been discussed multiple times. See Archive 34 for the thread from 2021. Phlar (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Not all Northern Irish favour to be called "British", plenty of Ryukyuans (Okinawans) oppose to be called "Japanese", also many Hawaiians do not consider themselve "Americans", hence do we have to decline these use of "British", "Japanese" or "American "as demonym to entire nation just because of the objection of certain group of peoples as "not considered "Taiwanese" geographically"?? your opinion is illogical and make no sense. LVTW2 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 March 2023 (2)

Honduras recently officially withdrawn it’s recognition of ROC and recognized PRC

The Honduran Foreign Ministry said that its government recognizes “only one China in the world” and that Beijing “is the only legitimate government that represents all of China.” And that “Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory.” [2]

• My suggestion is to replace:

- Taiwan maintains official diplomatic relations with 13 out of 193 UN member states and the Holy See

With

- Taiwan is officially recognized by 12 out of 193 UN member states and the Holy See

Basically “ maintains official diplomatic relations with” and “is officially recognized by” are the same thing, but the latter is shorter, more summarative, and is exactly what the reliable source say, the reliable source say: “Only 12 countries and the Holy See now recognize Taiwan” Stephan rostie (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done with adopting the first proposal, as the ROC once retain widespread formal diplomatic relations with most of nations in globe but have gradually diminished since 1970s, thus "maintaining relations" is a more relevant phrase as it did not obtain most of its existing diplomatic relations after its withdrawal of the UN.

LVTW2 (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

Change the title from "Taiwan" to "Taiwan (Republic of China)" or "Taiwan (ROC)"

This will better reflect the actual political status of the nation in question and it's legal name Warmonger82 (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

If change of the title were right, in my opinion, we should change to "Republic of China (1949-)".--とんずらする豚 (talk) 08:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done by longstanding overwhelming consensus, the common name is Taiwan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

EC Edit Revert

I'm asking for a review and possible revert of this diff (I believe I have linked it correctly). The changes made in this edit are to alter a link from Holy See to a misspelled version of Vatican City ("Vantican City state"). I don't agree with the change; firstly the misspelled version of Vatican, nor the claim that "Vantican City state" is a more formal or recognizable designation.

Apologies for the edit request on something this simple - I'm not EC, however. King keudo (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Pinging LVTW2 who made the edit in question and  Reviewing... ––FormalDude (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Partly done: Citation 49 says "Holy See" while citation 51 says "Vatican City". Solution for this is to say "Holy See, which governs Vatican City". As for the numbers, none of the citations currently used explicitly say how many UN countries maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan, though citation 49 says indirectly that it is 14. Additionally I found this source which also states 14 so I've changed it to that. ––FormalDude (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

  I have no problem with that change. LVTW2 (talk) 05:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sanctions proposal

I am inviting all of you to participate regarding the sanctions related to the PRC-ROC articles. Hope this helps! 174.89.100.7 (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Distinguishing

The distinguishing of "Thailand" from "Taiwan" seems slightly unnecessary. The names are similar in some ways, but I don't think it's enough to warrant a {{distinguish}} template. To clarify: this is not an edit request, simply a discussion, as I would like to hear more well-rounded users' thoughts. ChocolateAvian (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Distinguish templates should be used for fairly reasonable and common mistakes, not to account for the most ignorant readers out there. Yue🌙 06:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yep... totally unnecessary addition. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2023

change its a country to not a country MuchoMango83 (talk) 01:30, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done ....join chat above if you likeMoxy- 01:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2023

Typo: change "purchasing power party" to "purchasing power parity". Tilkax (talk) 21:13, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 21:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding "sovereign" to the renew description

I noticed the recent changes that arised by one particular IP who disputed and challenged the longstanding consensus which referring Taiwan as country. If the community really decide to accept the change, the description should give a full picture that the ROC/Taiwan is its own sovereign country for over seven decades with no association with the communist government in Mainland China. At least it need to be emphasised that the country possesses its own sovereignty and has never been a subordinate region of the People's Republic of China, with its de facto embassy independently conducting diplomatic affairs in more than 80 countries, and Taiwan Passport is generally accepted by international community as a valid identity document except for only China and Georgia. The references attach to the first sentence also support the due fact. Seabourn101 (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

We have to conform to the WP:Neutral point of view policy. Undeniably, there are reliable sources which consider Taiwan as a part of China, therefore we cannot simply assert in the intro that Taiwan is a sovereignty country. Also, a sovereign country has its nearly undebatable territory; just because a regime has de facto embassies and issues passports does not necessarily mean it has territorial sovereignty over a territory. And please avoid adding new content into your message like this after other editors have replied you so that other editors don't need to adjust their replies accordingly. When you have something new to say, publish it below. Matt Smith (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

As which part of China? Also countless sources regard the ROC is a comtemporary sovereign country, does those info deserve to be disregarded? Per above discussing topic, just one particular IP pursues a dispute to the longstanding version and I see no consensus has reached as well, in which part of the discussion made by @Stephan rostie had met the overall consensus to the community which gave him the authority of an "automatic allowing edit" to the stable version? May I ask? Seabourn101 (talk) 03:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add that there are also reliable sources which consider Taiwan to be neither a part of China nor a sovereign country. In other words, they consider the status of Taiwan to be unsettled or undetermined. Therefore, we cannot favor only one of the point of views in the intro. Matt Smith (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

And by the way, I suggest that you do a self-revert to your addition of the "sovereign" word. Any other editor's edits, be they have consensus or not, do not change the fact that your addition has been challenged and has no consensus. You can also revert User:Stephan rostie's edit if you think his edit contradicts the long-standing consensus. Matt Smith (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I won't bother to do the reversions by myself, when the other editor's changes remain in the article. My purpose of adding the additional wording is to present the balanced weight of both divergent views which would stimulate the Wiki community to join and give attention to this issue and creat a broader consensus rather than a POV from a few particular IPs. Seabourn101 (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

I noticed the recent changes that arised by one particular IP who disputed and challenged the longstanding consensus which referring Taiwan as country. Can you point out to these changes that “challenged the longstanding consensus which referring Taiwan as country” ?

Regarding your recent edit proposal and edit warring,

• I disagree. There is no country wiki page on wikipedia is written as “sovereign” before “country” in all wikipedia because it’s meaningless. Even US doesn’t have this “sovereign” title in it’s wiki page intro.

At least it need to be emphasised that the country possesses its own sovereignty and has never been a subordinate region of the People's Republic of China, with its de facto embassyindependently conducting diplomatic affairs in more than 80 countries, and … these are all mentioned in the article and intro already, so what is the point ? Stephan rostie (talk) 07:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

At least it need to be emphasised that the country possesses its own sovereignty

no it’s not sovereign, the official Chinese government (PRC) periodically practice it’s sovereignty over proclaimed territories by the ousted chinese regime (ROC) as in here when china practiced it’s sovereignty by making military drills in the territory proclaimed by ROC, thus you can’t call it “sovereign”, since it’s proclaimed territorial sovereignty doesn’t exist and the sovereignty of many parts of it’s proclaimed territory is practiced by PRC. (Edit: i forgot that i replied to this already in the past Lol) Stephan rostie (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

The disputed status of Taiwan should be the very first thing explained when someone looks it up in Wikipedia. Otherwise Wikipedia is picking sides and is no better than a propaganda site! 2604:9D80:A200:268D:2BDE:DBAB:B0E9:8099 (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

My point is, your edits which present to your sole personal point of view, when the past discussions of the change over the term in use have given the decision that "country" as the terminology referring to Taiwan. I saw only objection from you and kept running around in circles for the numbers of diplomatic recognition in which states have achieved. Politics are power struggle, the only reason that Taiwan cannot achieve widespread diplomatic recognition only because the communist China's aggressive attitude coerces any nation whom defy to comply with its political propagenda, set prerequisite to any party who intend to establish somewhat relations with them, even in a pure non-political activity as business or sporting aspects. And you deem it as a normal behaviour that is be considered as a "generally accepted docstrine" by nations in globe??

As many IPs pointed out in previous topic. The rule of the PRC on Mainland does not automatically grant them the rights to domineer the self-determination of Taiwan. The sovereignty of the ROC/Taiwan is long existed before the PRC ever created. Over 23 millions Taiwanese people residing on the island nowadays still represented by the nation and a democratically elected president, which evidence the sovereignty the country is now possessing. Does their opinion towards their own home country deserve to be disregarded?

The current version has been stable since 2020 when the society decided to change from simply "state" to "country" through a general discussions among participants in Wikipedia to form a commonly accepted consensus (a.k.a RfC), how is it not to be "longstanding"? If you strongly want to change the current version, please go through the conventional procedure of consensus formation like any other editor used to do before!

Seabourn101 (talk) 10:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@Stephan rostie: You say that "as in here when china practiced it’s sovereignty by making military drills in the territory proclaimed by ROC" but the linked source says that China only operated in Taiwan's ADIZ which is not sovereign territory, it specifically says that Taiwan's territory was not breached. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:38, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Seabourn101, sovereign country is such an awkward pairing of non-compatible words. Why don’t you use the proper term, sovereign state?

English language sources use “country”, not “state”, not “nation”, for Taiwan, probably because “country” means something ill-defined, and verging on the land as distinct from humans. Chinese seems to lack word to distinguish the English “country” from “nation”.

If you want to talk in terms of “sovereign country”, can you please explain what it means relative to “sovereign state”? - SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

My point is, your edits which present from your sole personal point of view. No it’s not my point of view, it’s the fact of taiwan’s lack of international recognition, it’s only recognized by 13 UN members. it’s a number.there is no point of view in that. In addition to this. We reached consensus to mention this important fact in the talks.

when the past discussions of the change over the term in use have given the decision that "country" as the terminology referring to Taiwan. Did we refer to Taiwan by anything other than a “country” ? Did we deny or remove that ?

If you strongly want to change the current version, please go through the conventional procedure of consensus formation like any other editor used to do before!. I did, that’s why i made it to the talks page and reached consensus before making any edit.

the only reason that Taiwan cannot achieve widespread diplomatic recognition only because the communist China's aggressive attitude coerces any nation whom defy to comply with its political propagenda. I won’t get in taiwan’s legality because it is irrelevant and will consume a lot of time. But assuming you are right, So what ? That doesn’t change the facts on the ground. It’s also the same reason why does US get to invade, occupy, divide, make economic sieges and destroy other nations, engineer coups, and in certain cases support dictators and apartheid states, all without facing consequences. Is it good for the west and bad for the east ? That’s how things is, so ? Stephan rostie (talk) 10:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Why not keep it as is, it is a country, as it is distinct and separate from the PRC. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No one is discussing or changed taiwan’s status as a “country” here in the first place. no one is even arguing about that. Stephan rostie (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Odd then how your edit changed country to state. Maybe we need to see what the suggested text will be here. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Simply because I wasn’t aware of the RFC that says that we should mention Taiwan as a country rather than state. After i noticed i changed it to a “partially recognized country” instead of “partially recognized state” as i did in all my next edits like this [1] and this [2] Stephan rostie (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

In the diff provided you appear to have made the target of the link partially recognized state. Was that intentional? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

No, I didn’t make the title of that wiki page, that’s how it is named on wikipedia, it’s just the list of countries with limited recognition, you can argue there about why is the article title is “List of states with limited recognition” instead of “List of countries with limited recognition” if you want or ask them to move the article to another title. But that’s something to discuss there on that wiki page not here. Either ways the RFC was not violated because i called Taiwan a “country”, not a “state”. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Its odd that so many of those in that list are not called "partially recognized countries" in their article intro's. So why should Tawain be any different? Slatersteven (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Those who are not called “partially recognized countries” and exist on the list are recognized by UN and other international organizations and recognized by the overwhelming majority of world countries except a small minority. They can be said to be “partially unrecognized countries”, it’s silly and not informative at all to write a such thing because few countries don’t recognize PRC or north korea. South Korea is recognized by all world countries and international organizations except North Korea, it’s on the list because of North Korea’s unrecognition only. On the other hand Taiwan lack international recognition Of UN and any international organization and have the recognition of all world countries excluding roughly all world countries.

by using just simple logic. SADR that has the recognition of 45 UN members is written as “partially recognized”, Kosovo that have the recognition of 101 UN members is written as “partially recognized”, then by what sense Taiwan which have the recognition of only 13 UN members not have the mention of it’s lack of international recognition ? Stephan rostie (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Problem is the RC was a member of the UN. What happened was a change in who is "officially" China, politically. It is not the same, as has been pointed out it is more analogous the North and South Korea. It is not a region in revolt. Slatersteven (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

That was in the past, you can mention and explain that it once recognized in the 50s and 60s in the past if you want, i have no problem with that. but we are writing the facts of our present and facts on the ground today. The facts today is that Taiwan is not recognized by the international community. Both Korean states today have wide international recognition by all international organizations and are almost universally recognized. While Taiwan is almost universally unrecognized by the international community. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

So then we could say "Taiwan,[II][n] officially the Republic of China (ROC),[I][o] is a formally recognized sovereign country", how about that or "Taiwan,[II][n] officially the Republic of China (ROC),[I][o] is a partially recognized country, that at one time had been formally recognized as sovereign", or we can just leave it, as this is the lede and we do not need to go into uneeded detail. It is too complex to discuss in the lede. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan,[II][n] officially the Republic of China (ROC),[I][o] is a partially recognized country. No problem, Just mention it’s lack of international recognition, and mention that it is recognized by only 13 UN members. Just like all other countries that lack international recognition including those who have even more international recognition. After that, you are free to write whatever more details you want discuss with the community where and how to mention that ROC was once recognized as a country.

we do not need to go into uneeded detail.. uneeded ?. There is no doubt that this fact is of significance and importance. That’s why it’s mentioned in the lead of all articles of the countries that lack intentional recognition like Taiwan, and That’s why some people here removed it with no argument at all and some say anything even if it’s flawed like that guy who said that “partially recognized country” is not calling it a “country” to argue that it goes against an RFC to avoid the inclusion of this fact in the lead.

either ways i have nothing to lose here. if taiwan’s lack of international recognition wasn’t included then i am providing more evidence of wikipedia’s Eurocentricity and double standards, if it got included then i helped getting rid of Eurocentric bias and spread factual awareness to the readers. Stephan rostie (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

One quarter of the lead is dedicated to discussion Taiwan's political status. DecafPotato (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

You called Taiwan a "partially recognized country" not a "country" which is what consensus is for. You clearly linked to partially recognized state not country. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

So you believe if i (for example) called Taiwan an “east asian country” that would violate the consensus and in that way i am not calling Taiwan a “country” ?

It’s your opinion and logic anyway, who am i to argue with that :) Stephan rostie (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes [2]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Then you should really remove the “in east asia” in the article now, because Taiwan is a “country” not a “country in east Asia”.honestly I won’t even argue with your impressive logic, all i am going to say is that the title of that RFC is “Taiwan, "country" or "state"”. Stephan rostie (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

What we have now appears to work, not seeing how the proposed addition is an improvement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

At this stage, I have said all I can say. Do not take further silence to be agreement, until I say I agree with this change I do not. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

What we have now is longstanding consensus and changing it with sovereign or partially recognized does not make it better. For a long long while it was simply a "state in east Asia"... some occasionally added "sovereign state in east Asia" but it was usually put back to rights quickly as simply a "state." Then after lots of discussion and another huge rfc the term "state" was finalized as "country." That is how it has stood and how it should remain unless another huge rfc takes place. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

But Taiwan legally isn't a state, let alone a country.[3] What exactly is the criteria for a country here? Because Australia’s most distinguished international lawyers, the late James Crawford, former Judge of the International Court of Justice, concluded Taiwan was Chinese territory, with governance disputed. As long as Taiwan lacks the official capacity to enter with the international community. As of Current, it is very dubious to announce Taiwan as a country. It is more accurately a partially recognised soverign state who claims all of China, and recognised by very few.Tudor89manners (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

"As long as Taiwan lacks the official capacity to enter with the international community..." – It does not. In fact, it has formal diplomatic relations with 13 states, informal relations with many others, is a member in some international organizations and an observer in others. Yes, it is less integrated with the international community than the PRC, but it very much is still a part of the community.

(And "partially recognized sovereign state" still includes 'sovereign state'). DecafPotato (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, Taiwan legally isn't a state, let alone a country is a misinterpretation of the source. The article says "Legally, Taiwan isn’t a state", however it makes no comment about the legal status of Taiwan being a country (a looser and more inclusive definition), other than saying that Taiwan sees itself as one. DecafPotato (talk) 20:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Here you used false analogy to deliberately categorize Taiwan (ROC) with other breakaway states, which means you tend to oversimplify the situation to sort them all together and disregard the historical context while making your own judgement about the use of "country" in this article as an unfair treatment upon other states also with lesser universal recognition. The other comments have bluntly explained about why your description is even more "unfair" to paint them all with the same brush for Taiwan when its government and sovereignty have existed long before the current communist regime ever bornt. LVTW2 (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Didn't misinterpret the source. They're very clear and wasn't trying to offend but you should really read the articles yourself. It's not an opinion but a fact that it doesn't fully satisfy the 4th criteria. Yes a very small like less than one percent of global population, which is small. I quote, The fourth criterion, a capacity to enter into legal relations with other states, is more problematic, precisely because most other states don’t accept that Taiwan enjoys the legal rights of a state. The rights Taiwan lacks include full diplomatic representation, the capacity to enter into multilateral treaties, and membership of international organisations like the UN. Decisively, though, an entity can’t be a state if the entity itself doesn’t claim to be a state. Taiwan does not make that claim. - Taiwan hasn’t formally declared itself to be a new, legally independent state.[4] So you can censor my quote or call it a lie whatever. Despite what media hides, it's just a legal fact that Taiwan never declared independence from China, doesn't claim to be a seperate new state on its own and lacks recognition to be the government of China. So yes legally the author is right. Because you can't have TWO CHINAS when the One China policy is still active yet disregarded on Wikipedia. It's not even legally a state, let alone a full fledged one.Tudor89manners (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Britannica encyclopaedia is far more professional and neutral in their article on Taiwan as they doesn't explicitly call it a country but describes the territorial conflict which is active. Wikipedia should understand why they do that.[5] because legally they are all one country and disputed domestically. But it doesn't matter if Wikipedia recognise. As long as UN and most countries legally recognise PRC and not ROC. It wouldn't matter if PRC doesn't control Taiwan. Just like how Crimea or Donbas is not controlled by Ukraine, it's still ukranian territory. Similarly Taiwan is legally Chinese territory, via UN Charter or global community consensus, as long as the one China policy is active as explained by one of Australia’s most distinguished international lawyers, the late James Crawford, former Judge of the International Court of Justice. I didn't write those articles but it spits the truth. However I know how people are on this topic and I don't really care as much. So this is going to my final reply here but telling you to read the article as they're just facts that contradicts OP saying Taiwan is its own sovereign country, and more specifically "not part of China" despite even ROC still agrees with the One China policy and Never declared independence. So they are still legally part of China as long as those two conditions are still current. So overwhelming global consensus should outweigh some anonymous editors on Wikipedia in terms of legal weight on the official designation of Taiwan as under one China policy, there cannot be officially two countries and today only one government of PRC satisfies the fourth criteria majorly, unlike the republic of China. [6]Tudor89manners (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I concured that the ROC itself can be defined as an ethinic Chinese state, but this does not make Taiwan/ROC less to be its own sovereign country. The cross-strait relations are basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China", so it's in fact more similar to the current situation of Two Koreas, in which both Koreas are regarded as "countries" as well, and by your criterion, neither of them enjoy universal recognition, claiming each other as integral part of its own territory and simultaneously position themselves as the legitimate government in either of their own constitutions, same as the ROC and the PRC. Well... despite of these similarities, both Korean states are still identified as two distinct sovereign countries. The terminology in referring the ROC as a "country" is based on the essence of history, which is also in conformity with the standard of other existing rival states. Even in Chinese Wikipedia, the main article of Taiwan also gave the first sentence as 中華民國是位於東亞的民主共和制國家 ("The ROC is a republic and democratic state located in East Asia") in Chinese speaking community.

LVTW2 (talk) 02:37, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the legal status of Taiwan (island) is complicated and the assertion of "Taiwan is legally Chinese territory" is not neutral because opposing opinions exist (such as [7]). Matt Smith (talk) 02:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. What we have now is the most reasonable per sourcing and consensus and it took a large rfc to do it. Nothing has changed since the rfc to warrant making it different. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan

• What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}): I believe the wording of the “Taiwan” article should be changed to “the self-governing island of Taiwan”. This change should be made both within the article itself, and on the pop-up when you search for the article.
• Why it should be changed: Taiwan as a “self-governing island” is its legal status, and it is an objective and neutral stance. The assertion that “Taiwan is a country” is a politically motivated stance, and not representative of its actual status internationally.
• References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button): https://treaties.un.org/doc/source/publications/fc/english.pdf

“ regarding the Taiwan Province of China, the Secretary-General follows the General Assembly’s guidance incorporated in resolution 2758 (XXVI) of the General Assembly of 25 October 1971 on the restoration of the lawful rights of the People’s Republic of China in the United Nations. The General Assembly decided to recognize the representatives of the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations. Hence, instruments received from the Taiwan Province of China will not be accepted by the Secretary-General in his capacity as depositary”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6913020.stm

75.155.178.17 (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Tollens (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 addresses only UN representation of China and does not touch upon the sovereignty of Taiwan. The PRC, since replacing the representative of Chiang Kai-shek and obtaining a permanent seat on the Security Council, has exercised its significant political and economic power to wield tremendous influence on various aspects of UN systems. This influence has translated into all sorts of measures that prevent Taiwan from having a presence, or participating, in the UN system and elsewhere.

Therefore your argument of using UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to support the narrative of Taiwan being a "self-governing island" is not valid. Asoksevil (talk) 09:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes but my point in suggesting the term “self-governing island” was an attempt to reduce arguments/debates about Taiwan’s status. There is people arguing for the inclusion of terms like “sovereign” and also people arguing for the exclusion of the term “country”. This seemed like a good compromise to me. 2001:569:5667:5500:382F:33A2:6126:D827 (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Pedantic wording. Wikipedia is not the United Nations trying to appease the Chinese government. Yue🌙 22:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Change ethnicity to Han Chinese

I am a Taiwanese. The sources in sub-entries cited in the entry for "Han Taiwanese" lack neutrality and do not provide reliable reference links. Additionally, the academic community in here don't use no such term as "Han Taiwanese" in English. Moreover, it is generally understood that the correct term is "Han Chinese," which refers to an ethnic group rather than a country. This does not conflict with the identity of Taiwanese people. Sub-entries based on ethnicity on the right may be misleading, and I believe that they should be revised. Sixkwnp (talk) 12:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can tell we only use the term as a wikilink, so you would need to take your complaint to that article. Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for reply. Sixkwnp (talk) 12:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"타이완" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 타이완 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § 타이완 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"대만" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 대만 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § 대만 until a consensus is reached. BangJan1999 18:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2023

A recent edit [8] has targeted the political status of Taiwan once again without any prior consensus on the issue, which has been stated clearly in the head note of the talk page that any change of the terminology must reach a consensus before making change. Also the editor attempted to equate the political status of Taiwan along with secession states when Taiwan a.k.a the Republic of China has been a sovereign state dated back to 1912 which existed long before the communist Chinese regime, and neglected the fact that the PRC as a claimant has never had actual control of Taiwan and the ROC used to be a UN member state. My point is, such significant change of the status must be made by a consensus before publication. Seabourn101 (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Reverted. Kanguole 09:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 June 2023

Edit Request: The line "{{Coord|24|N|121|E|type:country_region:TW|display=title}}" should be moved from its present position as the fourth line of the source to near the end of the article, immediately following "{{Authority control}}".

Reasoning: At present, when someone on another page hovers over a link to this page (example: Taiwan), the text portion of the page preview, below the flag, is blank (tested in Chrome on Windows and in Firefox on Linux — obviously this isn't a problem on mobile). I believe this is because the coordinates incorrectly appear before the lead. Per MOS:ORDER, geographical coordinates belong in the end matter, following authority control templates.

Thanks. WallAdhesion (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Yue🌙 00:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Length

At nearly 17k words of readable prose, this article is too long to read and navigate comfortably. Detailed information should be migrated to specific subarticles, and this article kept as a broad overview per WP:DETAIL. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

• A lot of countries end up with this problem. See United States for another example. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:35, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

• A big issue here is the >5k history section, but perhaps that's a blessing compared to the almost 27k main article. CMD (talk) 02:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

some new informartion

taiwan's area is now 36197 square kilometers, so please edit it Enoch0112358 (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

How did it increase in size? Slatersteven (talk) 11:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Obviously we need a source... But Taiwan does have a number of large land reclamation projects etc so some single digit sized change in square kilometers could happen annually. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No, the actual-control territories are 36193 square kilometers, I did make a research about it, the governmental figure add the landmass of Senkaku Islands to the total area. LVTW2 (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2023

nationa = national 2603:8000:D300:D0F:D519:5FC2:81A5:4A0B (talk) 10:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done, assuming you were referring to the typo in the "National Diet Library" reference. --Belbury (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Spelling of "rebelled"

@Yue regarding this reversion, if I’ve understood correctly, you are claiming that the US English spelling of the past tense of "rebel" is "rebeled" with one L. Webster’s and AHD both list it with two L’s ("rebelled"). Do you have a RS that says it’s spelled with one L in the US? Phlar (talk) 02:00, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

@Phlar: Self-reverted. Brain fart, my mistake. Yue🌙 04:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, no worries Phlar (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Republic of China (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Republic of China (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republic of China (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Status as a country

Taiwan has its own government, military, constitution, and elections which many argue is why it is a country. However on an international level, the vast majority of countries stick towards the one-China policy and don’t recognize Taiwan as a country. In my opinion, labeling Taiwan as a country shows bias. With an unbiased approach, would it be more appropriate to label Taiwan as a “self-governing entity”? I would really like to see further discussions. 2600:1700:3190:7640:E5A9:3411:CCE1:7717 (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion about this already. Please see the top of this talk page. There are certain boxes. The topmost box informs you that this has been discussed before. The same box has a search bar. Enter "country" there, and check out what the consensus has been thus far.—Alalch E. 00:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more neutral just to use the word island to describe taiwan rather than country or self governing entity? Huaxiazidi (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

No, As that takes a side. Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

“Taiwan” in this topic refers to not merely one single “island”, which include all 168 island ruled by an effective government has been running independently for over 75 years, so what are you talking about? 123.195.224.196 (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

75 years, it used to rule China, which puts in a rather unique place. Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2023

add "is a partially recognized state in East Asia." Khrom3ium (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Where would this be added? In the lead? There is already an entire paragraph in the lead dedicated to Taiwan's complicated status Cannolis (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 October 2023

In the page it says multiple times that Taiwan is a part of China. It is in fact NOT a part of China. As stated by Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“ Taiwan is “not for sale,” and neither is it part of China, said Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The message was in response to a comment made by Elon Musk during the All-In Summit, which had said that Taiwan is an integral part of China.”

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2023/09/14/taiwan-slams-elon-musk-says-its-not-for-sale-nor-part-of-china.html 2601:801:480:1A20:6DA7:EEC1:4D95:14B1 (talk) 03:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. CMD (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 October 2023

"please change Country to State" Experimental User (talk) 13:37, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Why?, and please do not repeat all the same arguments we have seen before (see tAlk pag archive), Slatersteven (talk) 13:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Addition of precolonial material

@Nikkimaria I've come to this page as someone wanting to go to Taiwan and I'm interested in learning about it (a typical end-user).

As it is now there's very little information about pre-colonial or Indigenous Taiwan. I added 223 words covering early Indigenous and Paleolithic life and you removed them. This is compared to the existing 5,600 words on all of Taiwanese history very little of which acknowledges any Indigenous history. This is a 4% increase in the section. Why do you think this is an inappropriate addition? Poketama (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The existing 5,600 is already in need of decreasing, not adding more. As per WP:DETAIL, a high-level article like this one should provide only a quick summary of the various subtopics, which are treated in more depth in their respective subarticles. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

While the article is bloated I don't think that it warrants this deletion. At present 29,000 years of history makes up 2% of the history page while the last 30 years make up 18.3%. This gives the article an unbalanced perspective that the modern ROC state is vastly more important than everything that came before it. I would ask that you please accept my edits and pursue cuts to the article elsewhere. Poketama (talk) 03:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest you pursue rebalancing of the history page, and I'll look at reducing some of the recentism here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I've requested a third opinion. I don't think it's appropriate that the Indigenous people and pre-colonial history of Taiwan should be a footnote, especially given the large ongoing Indigenous population there. For comparison, the Australia article has 10% of the history as precolonial, the USA is 7.6%, and Singapore has 10.3%. 2% is far too little. Even if you were to increase the percentage by making cuts to the rest of the History section, the current content on pre-colonial life is extremely non-specific and is only 146 words - and 50 of those are specifically about the Philippines jade trade for some reason. To increase the percentage to 10% which is closer to other articles, you would have to cut out 4/5ths of the entire History section which would make the whole thing far too small.

Again, I would ask that you accept my edits and find cuts elsewhere. The additions that I added actually note the names of pre-colonial cultures and how they lived and provide a lot of succinct detail. Poketama (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of Indigenous populations is not limited to the history section - for example, the list of peoples you added in this edit largely already exists, in the Ethnic groups section. I see no reason why that same list should also appear in a pre-colonial history section, when it is specifically peoples "existing today". Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Additionally the weighting appears reasonably consistent with external sources, particularly once the recentism is addressed. For example this book devotes roughly 6 pages out of 330 (1.8%) to pre-colonial history. This one, 4 pages of 246 (1.6%). Here, 17 out of 500 (3.4%). In fact, the official government history timeline focuses entirely on the last 400 years, with only a single sentence acknowledging anything before that. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm happy to have a seperate list of ethnic groups that were there in the pre-colonial period and remove the ones that may have developed in modern times. Its pretty important to say who are the people that were living there. Citing old books that also unreasonably footnote the history of Indigenous peoples is not a good reason for doing so on Wikipedia, it would just perpetuate systemic bias. Poketama (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it makes absolutely no sense to advocate removing the Indigenous peoples that exist now in the name of eliminating systemic bias. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:12, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You said you want to remove the whole list from the history section, my compromise is to remove the ones that were not around at that point in the timeline. Poketama (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I have done some work on rebalancing the section. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi guys, how are you feeling about balance now at this point? It seems there is a concern about systemic bias, and about which indigenous histories to include in the main article here and to what extant? I have only spent a bit of time in Taipei, but would be delighted to help here if possible.

I saw the request for third opinion listed, but thought I would check in first here (first time on Project Third Opinion) before fully committing to taking this on and deleting your prior listing on the Active Disagreements page. Thanks. SamwiseGSix (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi there, I appreciate your advice and Nikki's work in trimming the article. I think it's still heavily imbalanced at present for the reasons I've described before.

At present 2.7% of the history section is pre-colonial, so we've moved up .7%.

There is no information about pre-colonial lifestyle, settlements, development, what happened to the Paleolithic inhabitants, political organisation, names of cultures, regions. Really anything, except that they existed, the Aboriginal people came from ancient China, they traded jade, and they spoke Austronesian languages. There is also no information about the Kingdom of Middag or other later settlements.

On the other hand, there is extensive information about every stage of colonial history. This says to me that Taiwan Aboriginal people are not viewed as part of the history of the Taiwan state or the island, and instead are a footnote to colonial civilization. This can't be the real situation, because Taiwanese Aboriginals are a large population today, citizens of Taiwan with officially recognised languages, ongoing settlements within Taiwan today, and advanced and well-developed civilizations pre-colonisation. They and the paleolithic peoples are a core part of the history of Taiwan stretching back 30,000 years.

For this reason, the article needs to add content here. Trimming is not enough to make up for the imbalance. Poketama (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What you describe is in broad strokes not too far off the real situation; historically their presence in Taiwan has been narratively and actually marginalised and they are today a very small population with endangered and extinct languages. CMD (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Looking around the relevant articles, there does appear to be a huge gap around this topic. Prehistory of Taiwan is undeveloped and peters out long before approaching the timeframe of other relevant articles. Early Chinese contact with Taiwan is very topic-specific in a way that specifically excludes a detailed coverage of those on the island, yet is currently used as the infill article for this missing period. The next focused article is Dutch Formosa, which does cover the topic more than I expected. Nonetheless, I agree with Nikkimaria that simply adding here is not a way to address the issue, which oddly seems in line with our current articles. There are historical and political reasons some external sources might not be engaging with this period of history, compounded with the normal problems of a lack of written records and other historical knowledge, which is no at least part of the explanation for our covered content. At the same time though, "Indigenous history" is not limited to just the pre-1600s, and we do have some good coverage (Taiwanese indigenous peoples is well-developed, and includes some historical detail not present elsewhere). CMD (talk) 04:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I think the Changbin and Wangxing articles need to be made, and Kingdom of Middag expanded. What we have needs expansion, but there's still a fair amount to work with. I appreciate you pointg out Early Chinese contact with Taiwan so I can read it further.

I'm not sure if it was clear, but the work I did expanding this article was not writing new content but briefly summarising the Taiwanese indigenous peoples and Prehistory of Taiwan pages. I think it's appropriate to have a small summary of these articles. At the moment the History section is 2.7% precolonial which I'm proposing to increase to a very modest 5.1%. Poketama (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not about raw numbers, but whether the details and topics of precolonial Taiwan have sufficient notability and verifiability. How much historical evidence exists, and the quality of that evidence, will likely be the main determinant of how long such a section should be. Styx (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a huge amount of historical evidence, so I don't know what you're referring to or where you're coming from. Nikki's argument has been purely that the content is too lengthy. I've reduced my edit to adding 90 words, about 20 seconds of reading. Poketama (talk) 03:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

My argument is that detail belongs in a subarticle rather than here. But this change does a lot more than add 90 words; it also involves changes to the organization, citation format, and more. Why? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

This detail belongs in the article. Every country article has a much larger section than this on its Indigenous history (where applicable) and it's prehistory, as I've already stated. As I've said, choosing to enforce that almost all information about pre-colonial history be scrubbed from the article, while maintaining extensive detail on every aspect of colonial history is a serious act of systemic bias. As an employee of WIkipedia I'd expect you to be aware of these issues. That's why I added subsections. The citation formatting was a mistake. I'm asking you to do the right thing and not enforce the omission of an entire history and group of people. Poketama (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Country articles often have very long History sections, this is generally a result of WP:main article fixation and is not a model to follow. Your accusation of scrubbing is poor, and is not a productive reflection of any of the replies that have been received above. CMD (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm a volunteer editor here just like you, and unfortunately I don't agree that your edits have improved the situation. Indigenous peoples are represented in this article with and without your changes - throughout the article, not just in ancient history. Overemphasizing archeology and adding detail related to modern Indigenous peoples in the early history sections is in my view the wrong approach to take to address systemic bias, as it tends to further misconceptions (on top of the general issue noted by CMD). Reducing the amount of detail related to colonial history is better - I've done some of that and welcome more. Ensuring there are well-written articles focused on aspects of Indigenous history is essential, and you've identified some opportunities for article creation above. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

To veer slightly off-topic, another missing article this conversation has raised is an article on the Indigenous Languages Development Act (English translation). In addition to news reports at the time (eg.), it appears to have also received some scholarly attention (eg.) and seems like it would pass WP:GNG. Heading back towards the topic, coverage of the Formosan languages on this article is out of date, perhaps improvement on that would help the issues being raised? CMD (talk) 14:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that trying to force this material in here is the wrong way to go. Adding material about the current situation to the History section is particularly inappropriate. Kanguole 21:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If you're looking for something to trim, the paragraph about early Chinese contacts is a long pointy list. Kanguole 22:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree it is a list, and could be summarised in a sentence. Some of the Dutch era detail could be removed too, and it seems there is a related gap (if anyone has a source to hand) on the limited extent of Dutch control, which would provide better context regarding the rest of the island's people. CMD (talk) 01:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I would hope this verging-on-a-revert-war can settle out. What I would suggest is for Poketama to work on the deeper historical-period articles to make sure that they include all the pertinent and properly sourced material that they need, that Nikkimari work on "concision-izing" the article in general in the interim, including with an eye to excessive recentism. Then, at some point, every section tagged with a {{Main}} should be overhauled one-by-one to be a proper but concise WP:SUMMARY of the main article about that section's sub-subject. I think that would be much more practical that continuing to try to inject lots of detail into various sections here and then fighting over which details if any should be kept, and getting testy with each other on the talk page. It's often much more productive to take a structural approach to such matters: get all the information where it most needs to be, to be included in Wikipedia at all, then work on compressing subtopical material into summarizations for more general/overview article contexts.

Something more opinional: I think, as a practical matter, that it does have to be recognized that the top-level article about a country is necessarily going to be "top-heavy" with modern-history material, since this is what most readers are after, and the article is really about a modern nation state not so much about a segement of the earth's crust. That a nation-state will often coincide with a clearly definable geographic region with a deep history (more so when it's an island nation) isn't of no importance, but also isn't the driving force behind the article's existence and purpose. Probably the further back in time a side-article is covering, the shorter the summary of it in the main article should be. Personally, I like how Japan is done. There are very compressed sections on prehistory, feudal era, and modern era (with that last section being a super-compressed overview, for people looking to get just a sense of "the history of Japan"; then the bulk of the article is about modern-era material (government, economy, infrastructure, demographics, culture), plus a discrete section on the geography (including climate, biodiversity, environment), which aren't really "historical" though necessarily tied in a sense to the modern era (we don't have or need to present a great deal of information on the climate or plant and animal population of Japan 3,000 years ago or whatever). That seems like a reasonable model to follow, even if the article, like all of them, is imperfect. (Aside: Yes, there are some complicated cases, like Ireland which today is mostly but not entirely the Republic of Ireland. There, the modern nation-state article is devoid of ancient-history material, and it's all in summary sections in the geographic article. But that doesn't seem needed in a case like Taiwan, where the nation-state and the geographical place align. There is no Taiwan (island) article equivalent to Ireland and there shouldn't be one; that title redirects to Geography of Taiwan, which is equivalent to Geography of Ireland.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Not really an appropriate comparison, it is worth to note that the island of Ireland is partitioned by the Irish Republic and the Great Britain, the Republic does not possess the whole island hence it cannot represent the entire geographical sense of Ireland. Therefore an additional topic is created referring to the island as a whole. This is not even similar to Taiwan which is constituted 99 percent of the ROC countrolled territories. LVTW2 (talk) 19:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

States of Taiwan

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.

---

Taiwan is not a country according to United Nations, just a de facto country. Please change the description. 2405:4803:FE99:4E70:18F5:2286:F5AD:C838 (talk) 15:04, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Please read the talk page archives. Slatersteven (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

United Nations isn't a country; it doesn't have the ability to decide who is and isn't a country. Eclipsed830 (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia’s purpose to serve the United Nations’ definitions or policies. 2600:1702:1790:1AE0:E9D5:7743:E0C0:F6A0 (talk) 15:26, 30 December 2023 (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.

Inconsistency between Palestine and Taiwan

Why is Palestine, an observer to the United Nations (UN) recognized by 138 other UN member states, referred to as a "partially recognized state with a "status" parameter on its infobox over its recognition, while Taiwan, which has no representation to the UN and is recognized by 12 other UN member states, is referred to as a "country" with no "status" parameter present on its infobox over its recognition? Why the inconsistency? 175.198.165.9 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Becasue they are not the same place. Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Excellent point. 65.31.85.139 (talk) 11:39, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Why don't you ask on the Palestine page? This is the Taiwan page, where the situation is more linked with China and has nothing to do with Palestine. China's Wikipedia lead states that China "is a country in East Asia." So the Taiwan article is consistent with other east Asian countries, including China which is also partially recognized. Eclipsed830 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the UN that is being inconsistent? May be worth noting that in the UN article? Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

About this section, if I'm not wrong this matter was closed as there's no activity from that anonymous IP since last 2 months. Even if they come back here, they plus non-extended confirmed users can only request an edit and cannot discuss --- there's recent changes to (WP:ECP) (WP:ARBECR) last month on November 11. So only extended confirmed user can discuss in Talk page (and edit in Article page), those over 30 days and over 500 edits. (WP:XC) can check the status (there are other ways to check status too) --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that you should bring the issue to the main page of the state of Palestine for the reason of the current status, which is more appropriate, not here AyunaKawai (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to say...actually the matter was closed.
My bad I didn't said it straight to the point.

Also actually non-WP:ECP and all anonymous IP are only allowed to make a request to edit, and can't really comment at all WP:ARBECR, so this comment may be deleted by other (I would just comment only). --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 16:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Link

I think there is no need to add a link with the word "country" at the beginning of the article. Newwikinguser (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It does seem a bit obvious what it means. Slatersteven (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Since it is for whatever reason a contentious statement for some, perhaps fine to leave as a link? Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that link will help anyone concerned with usage here. It's mostly an etymology article noting how the word has no clear meaning. CMD (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Point taken. I agree now and think removing the link would be more WP:CONSISTENT with other articles. Butterdiplomat (talk) 02:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I've implemented that change. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2024 (2)

hi think you forgot the Austronesian languages in taiwan Roshisannn (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Question: Where was it forgotten? CMD (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you please specify which specific section or article you believe has omitted the Austronesian languages in Taiwan? This will help us address your request more effectively. 207.96.13.213 (talk) 19:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It is mentioned several times in the article. The term Formosan languages is also used on this page. So since not specific change is proposed, no change made. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2024

Hi, this is a very minor issue, but the infobox has a capitalisation issue in the form of putting "indigenous" as an ethnic group, when it should be "Indigenous". 三葉草 San Ye Cao 04:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Since it is a descriptor of several ethnic groups, rather than the name of a group, it is fair enough to be lower case, as "other" is in lower case. So I propose not to change the infobox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There was a move request discussion in Talk:Taiwanese indigenous peoples about this and ultimately it was decided that indigenous was not to be capitalized. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)