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.
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.
In line with partially recognized states such as Kosovo, Abkhazia, etc, can we please include the line "is a country in East Asia with partial recognition"? The ROC is not officially a legitimate state of China anymore by a vast majority of nations including the G20 and EU but most also consider the status of Taiwan unclear after the Treaty of San Francisco remains in force. I also want the status on the infobox added up again. ---Silence of Lambs (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that distinction is helpful on its own, but it does lend towards Taiwan being not like Kosovo or Abkhazia, as has been discussed before. CMD (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This issue has been brought in multiple occasions and people should realise that the equation of the ROC/Taiwan with other breakaway states is a false analogy, as the historical context are totally different on how these political entities came into being.
1. Taiwan/ROC is never a breakaway state as Abkhazia or Kosovo, which did not secede from the communist China and has been a sovereign state in its own right since 1912, they were basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China", so it's more similar to present-day North/south Korea relations, despite competing each other in overlapping territorial claims, they're generally two states co-existed who exercise sovereignty in their respective actual-controlled territories
2. Taiwan have satisfied all the criterian of four pillar elements that constitute a sovereign state, not to mention that it used to attend as a full member state in the UN. The declarative theory outlined in the 1933 Montevideo Convention describes a state in Article 1 as:
Having a permanent population
Having a defined territory
Having a government
Having the ability to enter into relations with foreign states
Last but not least, the creation and continuity of a state is only a factual issue, not a legal question. Declarations and recognition by other states is unable to impact on their existence of statehood. According to the declaratory theory of recognition,the act of recognition signifies no more than the acceptance of an already-existing factual situation— i.e., conformity with the criteria of statehood, the recognition of third states is not a requirement for being a state. Most of the cited declarations by politicians from other states are not legal statements but solely political intents based on their own interest.
It's not that factually wrong, but it's already covered in the lower section that few states have diplomatic ties with Taiwan. These states recognize the ROC as the government of all of China, not merely as an island nation separate from the rest of China. For better context, I propose to add: Taiwan maintains official diplomatic relations with 11 out of 193 UN member states and the Holy See, which recognize the ROC as the legitimate government of all of China, instead of the PRC.NewYearGOT (talk) 06:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
There is still controversy over whether Taiwan is a country, even though Wikipedia has reached a consensus. I think "with limited recognition" should be added as a compromise to ease the controversy and let readers understand the complexity of Taiwan. This modification itself does not contain any factual errors.ZeehanLin (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't really think America is a "real country", but that's a societal rather than a political commentary on my part. States and counties are distinct entities and we would be remiss to conflate the two, which is what this phrasing does.
Also, we are all literate here, and can largely tell when you agree with something without an attention-grabbing green "agree" header. Remsense诉14:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
The political disagreement over whether or not to recognize the ROC as a state or the societal question of whether to recognize Taiwan as a country is not really helpful in the first sentence. The former is discussed in the intro and extensively in its own article Political status of Taiwan, and the latter is purely academic and theoretical. Factually speaking, there is little question. As a matter of recognition, there are differing views. But to add it in the first sentence unnecessarily blurs the topic in my view. Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:14, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the change in the first sentence makes Taiwan's nature completely different. The nature before the amendment was controversial, while the nature after the amendment is closer to the facts and avoids controversy to the greatest extent. ZeehanLin (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the addition in the sentence makes it controversial. Additionally, as explained, I don’t think it is helpful to discuss a societal question in the first sentence of this article. Butterdiplomat (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
In many places, saying "Taiwan is a country" would cause great controversy and cause great negative impact (such as business loss) to some people who are not aware of the controversy. I hope to reflect the complexity of the Taiwan issue in the first sentence.
I have read your statement and acknowledge your stance. However, for the avoidance of doubt, Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and it is not its responsibility to appease any authority that may like to censor or obscure information by threatening business losses. Thank you. Butterdiplomat (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
So? You mean such coercion should be appeased only because the reference to Taiwan as a country make Chinese netizens or CCP advocates unhappy?? Do you think that the loss of business is a fair reason to coerce people obedient to CCP ideology as a right thing to do? May I remind you that this space is shared by people all over the world and the editing of the content is largely decided by general discussion and consensus. It’s no place for you to enforce anyone here to be in line with the Chinese communist stance, only because current version defied your political ideology. Pataya2527 (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I NEVER said nor wanted to express "such coercion should be appeased only because the reference to Taiwan as a country make Chinese netizens or CCP advocates unhappy", "the loss of business is a fair reason to coerce people obedient to CCP ideology as a right thing to do" or "enforce anyone here to be in line with the Chinese communist stance". If I really wanted to do this, I should have directly proposed editing it to "Taiwan is a province of China", which is what the CCP wants.
According to WP:ICA, your actions are suspected of violating Article 2e.
This is veering into forum territory, which Wikipedia is not. Can we please keep to the substance and not bring up what the CCP would or would not want, given its irrelevancy? Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
TAIWAN currently has formal diplomatic relations with 11 of the 193 United Nations member states and with the Holy See, which governs the Vatican City State, as of 16 Jan 2024.[1]Only 13 UN states and Vatican City acknowledging it as a country. [2]The technical reason for this is that only a dozen small countries and the Holy See officially recognise Taiwan, whose formal name is the Republic of China. [3]Taiwan is not recognised on the international stage.[4]Because of these I made suggestions for changes.I don't know if these sources are available, but I can see the same or similar ones in Wikipedia. ZeehanLin (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Let's take a look at how some other countries are described in the first sentence of Wikipedia.
United States: The United States of America (USA or U.S.A.), commonly known as the United States (US or U.S.) or America, is a country primarily located in North America.
United Kingdom: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a country in Northwestern Europe, off the coast of the continental mainland.
Kosovo:Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo,is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition.
Abkhazia:Abkhazia (/æbˈkɑːziə/ ⓘ ab-KAH-zee-ə), officially the Republic of Abkhazia,is a partially recognised state in the South Caucasus, …
Northern Cyprus:,[a] officially the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC),[b] is a de facto state[6][7] that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus.
The status and phrasing of Taiwan's statehood was pretty clearly determined in the 2020 RfC linked at the top of this page. You are not introducing a new argument, and I would encourage you to read the talk page archive. Butterdiplomat (talk) 19:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I only saw that Taiwan should be defined as a country instead of a state. If I have overlooked something, please let me know, thanks. ZeehanLin (talk) 19:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the limited recognition construct was discussed and rejected in the 2020 RfC. In addition, another editor above explained why Taiwan was different from Kosovo and others (i.e. it was never a breakaway state). Please review the previous discussions on this topic and provide a new argument if you are proposing a change. Butterdiplomat (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry. I still can’t find the consensus about not marking limited recognition in WP:TWRFC. I only found someone mentioned limited recognition to support his/her point.
•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"). •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.)
(As such, I'm closing this RfC as finding consensus that) it is best to refer to Taiwan as a "country" rather than as a "state".
If you find a consensus (not discussion) in WP:TWRFC that rejected limited recognition construct (not referring to Taiwan as a country), please send in the original text. ZeehanLin (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
In the discussion, there were various points where the construct was brought up. The country vs. state debate was a broader discussion about the nature of how Taiwan was to be characterized, and it was pretty clearly determined that country was the appropriate term and this in spite of most UN member states not recognizing it as such. Since this article is about the country primarily, and not the country's international recognition or political status (again, those have their own main articles), it makes sense to keep the first sentence as is. Please refer to benlisquare's comments, because many of them address your view. Butterdiplomat (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Too many original researches in benlisquare's comments like "countries de facto recognise the de facto existence of Taiwan as a country in reality, while playing roundabout mind games to appease the PRC. it ma ZeehanLin (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Taiwan cannot be compared with these controversial countries, because of "Taiwan is able exert much more economic, military and political force than Palestine can ever dream of as of this current day"?I don't know what rules Wikipedia has for explaining ideas this way. ZeehanLin (talk) 12:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
If you are bringing forward the same exact proposal that has been reviewed before without introducing new arguments, then I think it is reasonable to defer to the existing consensus. Butterdiplomat (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
These are the threads that never die. Go through the archives and research this topic. The same arguments every time that get discussed and then die on the vine for lack of consensus for change. There is nothing new in this discussion that hasn't already been said before. Let's move along here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
AFAIK, no country recognizes Taiwan as a country. Instead, they countinue to recognize the Republic of China as the government of China, long after it lost control of the mainland and do not recognize the PRC as the legitimate government. TFD (talk) 12:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
As mentioned above, those are policy stances relating to the state and more properly addressed in Foreign relations of Taiwan and Political status of Taiwan. These topics are of course discussed in this article, but should not be included in the first sentence. This article is about the country, encompassing more than just the government. Butterdiplomat (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The state is also more than the government. If there is a good source about Taiwan the country not being Taiwan the state that would be interesting, but in general this is not a distinction most sources will make. TFD's explanation is the reason partial recognition as a concept doesn't really work here, Taiwan isn't a breakaway state. CMD (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I will concede that most sources do not make this distinction. In any case, it is not worth going into this further given I also agree on the exclusion of the partial recognition concept. If you swap “country” for “state” in my above comment, my point still stands. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
^In this discussion Talk:Taiwan#Could we add the line "country with limited recognition"?, there is no reliable evidence to prove that this modification is wrong. On the contrary, there is reliable evidence to prove that this modification is reasonable. Therefore, it can be considered that there is no dispute on this modification.
These whole partial recognition debate, to be frankly, are virtually based on a false analogy to deliberately confuse Taiwan (ROC) with other breakaway states, which means you tend to use the partial-recognized feature in order to categorise them all as the same kind, and not just overlook, also disregard their historical context that emerged from, while making your own judgement regarding the use of "country" in Taiwan topic as an unfair treatment upon other states also with lesser universal recognition.
The creation and continuity of a state is only a factual issue, not a legal question. Declarations and recognition by other states cannot have any impact on their existence. According to the declaratory theory of recognition, the act of recognition signifies no more than the acceptance of an already-existing factual situation— i.e., conformity with the criteria of statehood, the recognition of third states is not a requirement for being a state. Most of the cited declarations by politicians from other states are not legal statements but solely political intents.
The amount of formal recognition is not a judgement on how a state is more eligible to be defined as an independent state, which is a unilateral political act by a government based on their political interests for the admission to a country’s statehood. That's largely affected by the hard power of a nation to project its influence in the global arena against what they deemed an entity as “disputed regimes”.
For example, such as Kosovo, receives more formal recognition, not because they are more important or legitimate than one another, which is only because Serbia as a small power does not have the same influence to prevent other states from establishing international relations with Kosovo as Chinese government did. If Serbia is a nuclear country or a permanent member in the UN systems, or top five most ranked economic or military powers of the world, then we can compare them in an equal basis. Hence, the amount of formal diplomatic recognition is not an excuse for you to justify your assertion. Sheherherhers (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I would like to say that the term I requested to be added was "with limited recognition", and it was never "breakaway states", nor does it involve the question of whether it is a sovereign state. ZeehanLin (talk) 14:03, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
"Making your own judgement regarding the use of 'country' in Taiwan topic as an unfair treatment upon other states also with lesser universal recognition" Why fair? It's also your own judgement. ZeehanLin (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
And it is worth notifying that the lead article contains an entire paragraph to elaborate the sovereign dispute and political status of Taiwan, not like you said there is no mention about the ongoing controversy of this topic Sheherherhers (talk) 13:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I still can’t find the consensus about not marking limited recognition in WP:TWRFC. I only found someone mentioned limited recognition to support his/her point.
•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"). •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.)
(As such, I'm closing this RfC as finding consensus that) it is best to refer to Taiwan as a "country" rather than as a "state".
If you find a consensus (not discussion) in WP:TWRFC that rejected limited recognition construct (not referring to Taiwan as a country), please send in the original text.
By the way, there are too many original researches in benlisquare's comments like "countries de facto recognise the de facto existence of Taiwan as a country in reality, while playing roundabout mind games to appease the PRC. Taiwan cannot be compared with these controversial countries, just because of "Taiwan is able exert much more economic, military and political force than Palestine can ever dream of as of this current day"?I don't know what rules Wikipedia has for explaining ideas this way. ZeehanLin (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Isn't your comparison of breakaway states with Taiwan also based on the similar paradox, with China is able to intervene other countries to build ties with Taiwan, because Chinese government can intimate them for loss of business or diplomatic pressure by force? then why brought up Taiwan's total strenth to be capable standing out of the crowd becoming a new thing for you? Sheherherhers (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
If a fat man forcibly kicks a thin man off a boat, do you say that the thin man is currently on the boat? The fact has already happened, even if it is not reasonable or just. ZeehanLin (talk) 14:29, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
In this case, the objective fact is that the thin guy was kicked off the boat. Based on our sympathy or other reasons, we may side with the thin guy. But the objective fact is that this is the case. Wikipedia is not a place to express sympathy or help Taiwan.(of course it is not a place to help and promote China either). ZeehanLin (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
"Country with limited recognition" does not violate "taiwan is a country" in WP:TWRFC. - Yes it does, it is a different description than the one with consensus in the previous rfc. Are you sure that this is a valid rfc and not just restating an argument that has already been brought up in the previous one, and not adding much to change the current consensus? 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 17:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose No countries recognize Taiwan as a country. Instead, they recognize the Republic of China as being the legitimate government of China, including the mainland. Also, the fact that Taiwan participates in international bodies does not mean its claim to independence is recognized. Lots of subnational units participate in such bodies. The Canada provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick for example are members of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. TFD (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm wondering who you're trying to oppose. From your point of view, it seems that you are more in favor of not being recognized, is that right? ZeehanLin (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
It may be considered bad form to confront people making their !votes as the proposer, given they've provided an adequately detailed explanation. I'm going to join the chorus of other more experienced editors in explicitly asking you to relax a bit. Remsense诉01:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I am opposed to saying Taiwan is "a country with limited recognition," because it has no recognition as a country. That is not to say I think it should be called a country with no recognition. The status of Taiwan is complex which means per NPOV that there are few things we can say about its status with absolute certainty. TFD (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
You said elsewhere there is consensus that Taiwan is a country. Whatever we agree here, there is no consensus in reliable sources that Taiwan is a country. But that brings up another problem, that the term country can mean different things and it is understood by readers according to context. TFD (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Your statement about no countries recognizing Taiwan as a country but the legitamate government of China instead is factually incorrect. In this UN document, 14 countries recognized that Taiwan is a free and peace-loving sovereign State, and its democratically elected Government is the sole legitimate Government that can represent the interests and wishes of the 23 million people of Taiwan. Since Taiwan transformed into a full-fledged modern democracy after a series of political reforms, it no longer intends to compete with the People’s Republic of China for the so-called “representation of China”.--108.53.191.58 (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose per 0xDeadbeef above. Please also note ZeehanLin proposed a major change to the first sentence and short description without also providing a rationale. The editor listed a few news articles about foreign relations of Taiwan, but the existence of news does not support a change in the article. Butterdiplomat (talk) 00:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing really changed from last discussions and agree with Deadbeef above. First a discussion should have been had to see if there was mixed thoughts on both sides of this issue. The discussion looks one sided. They said they are a newbie from mainland China so chalk it up to a learning experience, but the first lines had many many explosions in the past until the very stable version we see today was decided upon. And the person who originally brought up this topic was blocked for POV pushing. No reason for a change here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
We have attempted to articulate a distinction between "state" and "country". I do not want to be rude in the slightest, so please let me know if I am—but is this point clear to you, even if you disagree? Though it's not just an English or Chinese thing, but sometimes these nuanced terms don't exactly translate between languages and can lead to misunderstandings between first- and second-language speakers at every level: my Chinese is rudimentary, but I know enough to know they both usually translate to 国. Again, my deep apologies if I'm being ignorant, I just figured this was worth clearing up if possible. Remsense诉02:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out, maybe I misunderstood a little bit. I have some understanding of the difference between a state and a country, but not in depth. I want to know whether there is a concept of a country being recognized or not.(I have seen such a concept.) I also want to know the difference between Taiwan being not recognized as a state and Taiwan being not recognized as a country. ZeehanLin (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
So, while these terms overlap and are used interchangeably quite a bit, which I imagine is creating a lot of this confusion, we really try to use them precisely when writing for the encyclopedia. I understand it like this: in English, state is much more narrowly identifying a particular political entity, while country implies a broader, more interdisciplinary scope, if that makes sense. The Republic of China is a state, and the Qing were a state, but they were both states that represent the country of China. I'll return to my example above. If I said "America is not a real country", I'm not really saying that the US state institutions aren't functioning; instead, I'm making broader social commentary, perhaps about what it's like to be an American, perhaps some historical analysis reaching back to the founding of the country—e.g. something like "my fellow Americans don't treat each other like countrymen". On the other hand, if I said "America is a failed state"—that is more specifically saying the current American government is dysfunctional, or perhaps that it is failing the country.
On Wikipedia, our articles about countries are usually also about the states that presently represent them. In modernity, many states are nation-states—nation is another tricky nuanced word translating to [undefined] Error: {{Lang}}: no text (help), again with different connotations, but it's roughly same idea in this specific case: countries emerge as social realities once people who live there identify themselves with them—though this often comes about due to a state's intentional influence. In this sense, for a significant time after the American state was established, America didn't really exist as a "country" in the way it does now—for a century plus, many Americans identified themselves more with their local territory (Virginia, New York) instead. Since it is very young, the process of "America" coming into existence as a country is perhaps more "well-documented" in the historical record. In some ways, these concepts are arguably historically interlinked more tightly in China than anywhere else, since the political history is so long and contiguous, the state is so easy to see as the same thing as the country. (Forgive me if I'm sounding orientalist, it's of course much more complex if you drill down into Chinese history.)
So, that's what we're getting at when we say that countries aren't internationally recognized or unrecognized, as diplomatic recognition is a political act between modern governments. If one says that Taiwan is a country with limited recognition, that could be taken as much deeper statement about how Taiwanese society is not "recognized" by others somehow.
It's much more complex than that since English uses the terms state and country interchangeably. And it can have a different subtle meaning in American English vs British English. For years this was at "Taiwan is a state." Sometimes it said "Sovereign State" but by and large it sat at state. A large RfC took place that determined that in English the phrase "Taiwan is a country" is used more often so that's where it sits today. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
For an example of "country" and "state" being used in the opposite way regarding notions of recognition, legitimacy, and broadly occupying a piece of land to the way they are being used in this discussion/article, see Talk:Kosovo/Archive 33#Fifteen years. Fifteen long years., although despite the different interpretations the final wording ended up being the same. "Country" is simply inherently flexible. CMD (talk) 07:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
If that is the case, then from a cultural and historical perspective, China and Taiwan have a lot in common, so Taiwan was not originally a country. The CCP and KMT are enemies. The KMT lost to the CCP in the Chinese Civil War, and the KMT came to Taiwan with its ROC government. At the time, it was just a split at the state level. Later, the DPP emerged, and the DPP also regarded the CCP as an enemy. In order not to be ruled by the enemy CCP, the DDP promoted "de-Sinicization" when it was in power, advocating that Taiwan was a country. ZeehanLin (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
This is an example of WP:OR to be avoided, and bordering on WP:SOAP. As a reminder, Wikipedia articles and talk pages are not a forum for you to publish your personal thoughts and theories of history. Butterdiplomat (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be original research, but it can be verified. Sorry I don't have the energy to sort it out and cite the sources. ZeehanLin (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
While your enthusiasm is appreciated, you do have the option to not make a post until it is ready to be used in a constructive discussion. Otherwise, your arguments (if any) may be easily discounted by others as original research or even disruptive behavior. Butterdiplomat (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The limited modification suggested is likely to mislead readers who are familiar with the state of Taiwan as it is today. The recognitions the country has are not recent recognitions of the Taiwan of today, but holdover recognitions from a very different political situation. It is difficult to combine them in the first sentence as it is an unusual situation that is somewhat unique in current times. CMD (talk) 02:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
It is precisely because of the uniqueness of Taiwan's current situation that it is a bit hasty to simply describe Taiwan as a country without discussing its international status and recognition in the first sentence. In addition, some readers who think they understand Taiwan's current situation may not be comprehensive in their introduction. ZeehanLin (talk) 02:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
We can only fit so much into the first sentence, per MOS:LEADCLUTTER. The relevant information is given a whole paragraph, the longest paragraph in the lead, to help readers who may not have a comprehensive understanding. CMD (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
But this guideline does not indicate what should not be included in the first sentence, which can lead to different opinions among everyone. ZeehanLin (talk) 12:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
That's right: there's flexibility for "common sense" intuitions about style and diction. Site policies and guidelines, including the Manual of Style, are very deliberately not trying to cover everything that could be the subject of dispute. We've hashed out our reasons, and that's how consensus works. Think about policies and guidelines as "prefabricated consensus"—typically stronger such that local consensus can't decide to override it without a good reason, but still basically just a record of conversations like these. Remsense诉12:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Why not add 'limited recognition' to the first sentence of the People's Republic of China? Same argument I would say. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that, because while it would be UNDUE in this article, it would frankly be an order of magnitude moreso on China. Remsense诉08:19, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
As the current representative of China, the PRC is a member of the United Nations and can be widely recognized by countries (widely but not completely). In contrast, Taiwan only has a small amount of recognition, and more exchanges are not based on exchanges between countries. ZeehanLin (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I personally think that "Taiwan is a country with limited recognition" can show the complexity of Taiwan as it is, and also provide flexibility for people with different views.
If a person supports that Taiwan is a country, a country with limited recognition belongs to the category of a country, and a country will not disappear because of non-recognition.
If a person supports that Taiwan is not a country, then the term limited recognition can reflect that most countries do not recognize Taiwan as a country, and some activities in the name of countries are restricted by relevant laws.
...creating Draft:Taiwan which has no chance of being implemented...by someone, on another page, 08:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Many of you(actually not many but some) have already preconceived that my changes are wrong and ultimately unworkable. Many of you are not seeking the truth, but are trying to exclude "intrusions" from people like me, whether reasonable or unreasonable. I have always taken this matter seriously, and I have looked for sources to maintain neutrality as much as possible, but many you think this is a kind of "sabotage".
I am very sorry to see such a Wikipedia.
If many of your attitude is like this, and goes against WP:NPOV, then I will withdraw from the discussion because it is meaningless.
Sorry to disrupt the discussion here, but some people's behavior makes me angry.
(I'm not targeting anyone specifically, many people do this, I'm just picking one randomly as an example.)
We did not preconceive that you are wrong. We conversed with you, some attempted to broach the same points repeatedly, and you have not adequately addressed them. You have simply not convinced us.
There is no getting around one of the core problems that has been repeatedly brought up. While I get what you mean when you say you personally think [the phrase] can show the complexity of Taiwan as it is, I am trying to make clear to you that this is just not the case. Instead, due to the peculiarities of certain English vocabulary terms (e.g. 'country' versus 'state') the phrasing creates different connotations for many people reading than it does for you.
So far, I have tried not to make explicit that this may be something you need to defer to native speakers on, but I hope I'm taken in good faith when I say that now. Remsense诉17:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not think that is necessary, given we have a stable version and there is arguably a renewed consensus against your proposal. Butterdiplomat (talk) 19:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Adding "with limited recognition" would be giving a weight to this aspect of Taiwan's international status that would be inappropriate for the first sentence. The subtleties of its status are already covered in some detail a couple paragraphs later in the lead, and in greater detail later in the article. This is sufficient. Phlar (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
According to the current results, almost all opinions are "oppose". I follow the rules and do not make any changes.
I still wonder whether such a description gives people the impression that Taiwan's international status is the same as that of a country like the United States. Because they are essentially described as countries. I am concerned about this possible result, which is why I advocate for revision. If this concern can be resolved, it will be a more perfect ending. ZeehanLin (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
It is indeed a country, as you mentioned earlier. Recognition (or lack thereof) of the state is discussed extensively later in the article and in related, more appropriate articles. No revision is needed unless you bring forward a new argument. Butterdiplomat (talk) 10:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Probably Taipei promotes the view that Taiwan is a country, which they don't officially accept, in order to obtain sympathy. TFD (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
In all the ways that would matter to a reader Taiwan's status is the same as that of a country like the United States. The only ways where its status differs are highly esoteric and don't really impact people's real lives (for example if we go by passport recongition and visa requirements Taiwan's international status is higher than China's, see the Henley Passport Index). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
It's more similar to asking whether West Berlin was a country. While it was claimed by the Federal Republic of Germany, the Federal Republic had no control over it. Despite its not being a country, itx citizens probably would have had an easier time crossing borders than citizens of the German Democratic Republic, certainly before it gained international recognition. TFD (talk) 18:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
West Berlin didn't issue passports, the Federal Republic of Germany issued passports to residents of West Berlin. On West Berlin documents alone they couldn't do much. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Until 2023, he ROC issued passports to anyone born in China, who were considered citizens of the ROC. And when the ROC finally liberates the mainland, no doubt they will do so again.
And just as the FRG issued passports for West Berliners, the PRC issues passports for Chinese born in Taiwan. TFD (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
No, Taiwanese are issued an RoC passport with rare exception. In order to have a PRC passport someone would have to give up their Taiwanese citizenship. Its also not easy to get residency/citizenship in the RoC if you're from the PRC, if it was as automatic as you say why didn't the CCP just send 30 million civilians to Taiwan and vote the independent parties out? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I think Horse Eye's Back's point is that the political status of Taiwan is far less relevant for the purpose of the first paragraph of this article. The passport example illustrates that; and in the same way we would not highlight passport access there (though more highly relevant for the average reader), we would not include the partial recognition of the state. Butterdiplomat (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Let us move on from this because you are simply disagreeing without offering compelling arguments at this point, and the discussion is not going anywhere besides an overwhelming agreement that the limited recognition construct is to be excluded from the first sentence. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I would agree with Horse Eye's Back on this. Pretty much everyone recognizes the PRC as the sole govt of China and they look at Taiwan as simply Taiwan. Them arguing over the name China and who controls what doesn't matter to most people or countries. Taiwan is a member of the WTO and APEC, they have heavy trade negotiations with South Asia, Australia, and New Zealand. It has 23 million people, is the 22nd largest economy in the world, and a heavy producer of refined metals and semiconductors. So except for the fine print of their relation with China, they get treated like a normal country except at the UN... the fine print doesn't impact peoples lives. While it is a state, and editors for years have gone back and forth at Wikipedia on whether it's a sovereign state, the term "country" was determined by consensus here to be the best fit as an all-around term to describe Taiwan. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Can you name any countries that recognize the Taipai government and also recognize the PRC government as the legitimate government of China? TFD (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The United States for one. The US government treats Taiwan as a country, not as a part of China (for example we sell Taiwan copious quantities of weapons, but weapons exports to China or Chinese territories are illegal under US law). They recongize the Taipei as the legitimate government of Taiwan/the Taiwanese people and the Beijing government as the legitimate government of China/the Chinese people. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
And that's what most of us are trying to say. The recognition is of minimal impact except in the UN. Far and away Taiwan is treated and handled just like every other country, even with regards to the international water rules of the Taiwan Strait and Taiwan's 12-mile exclusionary zone (which China respects). But in the UN and a couple other instances "official" recognition can't happen because we aren't allowed to "officially" recognize both countries. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
IOW no countries both recognize the Taipei government and recognize the PRC as the government of China. The U.S. in fact says it opposes Taiwan independence.
The fact that a territory in rebellion trades with people in other countries is not evidence those countries recognize its independence. The UK traded with the Confederate States of America, the German Democratic Republic traded with countries that did not recognize it, and Afghanistan has foreign trade.
Many sub-national units and overseas territories carry on foreign relations of some sort. The Canadian province of Ontario has an agent-general in Washington who advocates "for Ontario’s interests with senior United States of America government officials." TFD (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure that I would call the PRC a territory in rebellion against the RoC although I would agree that it once was... That seems like a rather dated position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
No one would call Taiwan a territory in rebellion. And of course the US opposes independence... that would start a war as China said they would attack Taiwan. And of course no countries both recognize the Taipei government and recognize the PRC as the government of China... it's pretty much impossible if you want to trade with both... China won't allow it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Please provide a source that the U.S. recognizes the ROC. Several countries in fact recognize the ROC, but they don't recognize the PRC.
Also, if the U.S, opposes independence, it means they do not recognize Taiwan as an independent country.
The fact that there is a Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in the United States and an American Institute in Taiwan prove nothing. They provide consular services and promote trade and culture. They are not embassies. The U,S. and Bermuda exchange consuls, it does not mean the U.S. recognizes Bermudan independence. TFD (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
We are not disputing that the ROC has limited recognition by states like the U.S. or at the UN. We are saying that this partial recognition status is by far less important than a myriad of other facts about the country. For that reason, we do not reference it in the first sentence. Rather, we explain it in a later paragraph and also in more relevant articles. In other examples perhaps, a lack of recognition (plus lack of other things) means that a place may not be called a country or sovereign state. That is not the case here, and in any case is not within the scope of this RfC. I agree with Phlar that this RfC should be closed. Butterdiplomat (talk) 22:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The scope of the RfC is simple: to add "with limited recognitions" (sic) to the first sentence and short description of this article. There's a clear consensus among responding editors OPPOSED to this change. Any discussion as to whether or not Taiwan is a country, etc., etc. is beyond the scope of this RfC. The RfC should be closed. Phlar (talk) 20:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The 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.
Latest comment: 2 months ago14 comments7 people in discussion
I am editing Taiwan Area these days, and I saw a comment about WP:ISATERMFOR. In the end editors regard "Taiwan Area" as a term. This got me thinking. Is the word "Taiwan" really a common name of ROC instead of a commonly used term referring to ROC? Unlike North Korea and the DPRK, there are many places where Taiwan and the ROC cannot be established as equivalent. I've seen many people support Taiwan being a common name because it is more commonly used, but they seem to ignore the non-overlapping parts, and it seems reasonable that what commonly used is the term not name.
I am not sure exactly what you are proposing here. Could you be a bit more explicit? You may be hung up on the fact that the word “Taiwan” can refer to both the country and the island, but this is already sufficiently disambiguated with the various existing articles. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
This page is not a discussion forum, you can either make an edit request or giving constructive opinions on how to improve the topic. Don’t just leave a question without giving explicit purpose. Sheherherhers (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I'll be a bit more generous here. Thinking about how names work is important and this does seem plausibly related to improving the article. Remsense ‥ 论17:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Is the word "Taiwan" really a common name of ROC instead of a commonly used term referring to ROC?
This question doesn't make sense to me. In Wikipedia, a "common name" of something is supposed to be a "commonly used term" referring to that thing. Note that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONTERM both lead to the same article, which says, among other things: "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." Phlar (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
The classical distinction is that a name doesn't have any internal lexical meaning, while a term does. That classical distinction is flawed—in my mind, both "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" are clearly functioning as names when we use them, even though the former is made up of semantic parts contributing to its semantic whole. Remsense ‥ 论23:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
And what bearing does this have on the article, given that the WP policy is to use either a common "name" or a common "term"? Phlar (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I pointed it out in order to articulate that there's not really an analogous distinction between "names" and "terms" at play here; as you say, they are essentially synonymous for our purposes. WP:NC is our policy about what names we should use to refer to concepts in both article titles and elsewhere Remsense ‥ 论06:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2024
Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
{{subst:trim|1=
I feel like it should just say Taiwan and not republic of China as Taiwan is and independent country and may be insulting to Taiwanese people,
Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Taiwan is a geographical term identifying China's largest island, which is being ruled by the remnants of the Republic of China (ROC), founded in 1911 by the revolutionary overthrow of the last Chinese monarchy. L.Willms (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
So do North Korea and South Korea, but I don't see a map of South Korea's control of Liancourt Rocks in the article about it. Itu Aba is too small. Verngel (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I mean they both dispute which country is the sole representative of the entire Korean Peninsula. But anyway, now I agree with you that we need to show that island on the Taiwan map, thank you for your explanation. Verngel (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
In the current map small light green circles are present around all Taiwanese-controlled small islands. It seems a mostly stylistic choice as to whether to have them or not, but if they are there, it seems reasonable for Itu Aba to have the same treatment as all the other islands. CMD (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I know October 10 is chosen by Taiwan as its national day, but the truth is that the Republic of China was founded on January 1, 1912. October 10, 1911 was just the beginning of the Xinhai Revolution, it was symbolic but not of legal nature and there was no Republic of China in reality. Even those who started the revolution in Wuchang were not members of Sun Yat-sen's organization. Verngel (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
What I mean is that in the information box, the founding date of the Republic of China should be corrected to January 1, 1912, not October 10, 1911 as is being displayed there. Verngel (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Can we change the map of the claimed area to a map that does not include Mongolia as a claimed part of the ROC?
Latest comment: 2 months ago153 comments14 people in discussion
Currently, the map of the claimed territory of the Republic of China (Taiwan) includes Mongolia as a claimed area, which is out of date. In 2002, the ROC recognised the independence of Mongolian Peoples’ Republic and removed the Mongolia Area from all official maps of the Republic of China. Because of this, I feel that we should find a map that doesn’t include Mongolia as a claimed territory to replace that one that has Mongolia as a claimed territory. As a note, the Republic of China still claims parts of Myanmar, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Tajikistan, along with mainland China as it never withdrew these claims. Hankow idk (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I will note the legend for the map says "historical" claims, and I am sure we have discussed this recently (as in this year). Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
We should not; that would be an inappropriate level of clutter for any polity infobox; we should pick one or the other. Remsense ‥ 论16:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's really justification for presenting the "historical" claims (other than being more eye-popping, which is absolutely not appropriate reason for such choices), though I haven't looked at the recent discussion. Remsense ‥ 论16:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I mean, if one really wants to find the historical claims, then they could just go to the ROC’s 1912-1949 Wikipedia page. Hankow idk (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the current phrase that used for the referring map is okay, the caption of the map is depicted as "Show map of Taiwan (dark green) with Mainland Area and historical ROC territorial claims (light green)", which clearly states that the map is not only restricted to the political claim over the mainland China but also other historical claims over territories that are no longer considered Chinese territories. Sheherherhers (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I seem to recall one was the one I made here, what do RS say, and as I recall it was just "Tawain no longer publically claims it" and not "they have officially recognized Mongolia as independent". Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
No. In the Mongolia–Taiwan relations page, it literally says that “The Republic of China continued to show Mongolia as part of its territory on official maps until 2002 when they recognised Mongolia as an independent country and established informal relations between the two sides.”. Hankow idk (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh. Then the person that said that is wrong because Taiwan DOES officially recognise the independence of Mongolian Peoples’ Republic. Hankow idk (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
No, as a conversation here is based upon the sources produced, and (as I said) no source was provided that stated Tawain officially recognized Mongolia. We do not take user words for it, they must provide sources, if they do not, well that is not our fault. Its is theirs, the WP:ONUS is on them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
As I recall tno one did not in the last conversation about this. As I said the best we got was that Taiwan no longer publically claims it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
What? I don’t understand what you are saying. I literally provided above that in the Mongolia–Taiwan relations Wikipedia page, it says that “The Republic of China continued to show Mongolia as part of its territory on official maps until 2002 when they recognised Mongolia as an independent country and established informal relations between the two sides.” Hankow idk (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
This is one reason (also) why the last (the last not this one, not any other article here) came down against this, people not listening. I shall say it once more (And for the last time) the last discussion we had about this (here, not anywhere else) did not produce (as I recall) any sources (here at the time of the last conversation, here not anywhere else and then not now) that stated Tawina now officially recognized Mongolia). We can only act upon what people said (back then, not now) here, not anywhere else. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I think theres a good argument to be made to leave out the historical claims map entirely rather than quibble over which to include or exclude, its more trivia at this point than relevent to the modern country. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
There hasn't been any retraction, e.g. Taiwan endoring the McMahon line or anything like that. If you think this is all too theoretical to bother including, as I said I wouldn't really mind excluding a map with claims altogether. Remsense ‥ 论18:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, now I'm digging, and now I've become more inclined just to omit a claims map altogether. Like HEB said, it seems like trivia, as the ROC's claims (save those in the South and East China Seas) are simply never discussed or illustrated. They're pretty theoretical save for the broadest contingency about continuity, One China etc. Remsense ‥ 论18:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
But considering the fact that the South Korean page includes it’s current territorial claims (North Korea), it would make sense for this page to include the current claims of the ROC. Hankow idk (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Just because other articles may have errors (or content that is right in that specific instance) doesn't constitute an argument for what we should do in this article, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Remsense ‥ 论19:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
In terms of what we write about on Wikipedia (possibly as opposed to, say, matters of style), accuracy within each article is always more important than consistency between articles. Remsense ‥ 论19:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
As I said above, there is no evidence that the territorial claims of the Republic of China changed after it withdrew its claim of and officially recognised Mongolia. Because of this, the 2005 map of the territorial claims of the Republic of China would be suitable for the purpose. Hankow idk (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, we could always make a new map if evidence of the territorial claims of the Republic of China changed after 2002 surfaces. Hankow idk (talk) 19:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
We're not saying the claims aren't still extant (i.e. a WP:V problem), we're saying they possibly aren't important enough to be included in such a prominent position (i.e. a WP:DUE problem). This isn't something that must appear in the infobox atop an article; like any other piece of information it largely should be judged on its importance for each article on an individual basis. Hence my mention above about how these claims are never emphasized or even depicted by the contemporary Taiwanese government. Remsense ‥ 论19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
This is simply not true. We exclude an infinite amount of data about Taiwan from the infobox; that's not denial, it's just presenting what data is important and omitting what isn't. Remsense ‥ 论19:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, the territorial claims of the ROC on the mainland are kinda important because it heavily influence mainland-ROC relations and politics. The world would be a very different place if the ROC were to withdraw its claim of the mainland. Hankow idk (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Right, I said that above. But are the precise boundaries of those claims important? Taiwan itself doesn't seem to think so. Remsense ‥ 论19:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
We are not talking about precise boundaries (we have already came to a consensus that the ROC does not claim Mongolia). Right now, we are talking about whether to have a map of the territorial claims of the Republic of China. Also, by not having a map of the claims, it would kinda imply that the pre- 1949 ROC and Taiwan are separate political entities, which they aren’t (at least officially). It would also imply that sometime between 1949 and now, the ROC simply disappeared and that it is now an entity of the name of “Taiwan”. Hankow idk (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I am well aware of that. As I said above, we already agreed on precise boundaries that define the territorial claims of the Republic of China. Hankow idk (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
And we disagree on whether they are important; again, Taiwan itself doesn't seem to think so. The aspects you are worrying about denying through omission (It would also imply that sometime between 1949 and now, the ROC simply disappeared and that it is now an entity of the name of “Taiwan”) are all explained in prose in the article itself; we are judging what level of prominence should be afforded, as the infobox is for key facts at a glance. I'm not sure this is a key fact; equivalently its presentation as such can have a distorting effect. Remsense ‥ 论20:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
It is very important to not misguide readers into thinking sometime between 1949 and now, the ROC simply disappeared and was replaced by an entity by the name of “Taiwan”. (And also, it’s kinda weird that Wikipedia has a pre-1949 ROC page and a Taiwan page). Hankow idk (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Readers will not think this upon reading the article, nor will it have been implied to them if they only peruse the infobox. Remsense ‥ 论20:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Remsense in that I think we should remove the claims map altogether, because it is not meaningful to the modern country. I have expressed this view in the previous map discussion. What I disagree with is the assertion that Taiwan has a current claim with precise boundaries. The only basis on which the map is constructed is the claiming of territories administered by the modern PRC and Mongolia states - this is an assumption rather than a direct definition/source. For these two reasons, I suggest we remove the map. Butterdiplomat (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I would rather see an independent legal textbook on international law constitutional law rather than make a call based on what maps Taiwan publishes and statements by their politicians. Otherwise, this is just synthesis. Note also that circumstances are sometimes vague or nuanced, and if they are the article should reflect. TFD (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I will reiterate the arguments I made in the previous discussion.
The historical territorial claim was the policy of ROC government during the KMT one-party rule era. As Taiwan democratized, the foreign policy continues to evolve. This source mentions "the ROC dropped its claim to the mainland and has been open to dual recognition since 1991".[1] The current ruling government's position is that the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People’s Republic of China should not be subordinate to each other.[2]
That the ROC has not openly announced the renunciation of territory does not mean it continues to make the historical claim. Some people may say that the ROC constitution claims the mainland, but that is the KMT's perspective of the constitution, and the current ruling party does not share the same perspective. The ROC constitution does not specify the exact boundaries, only vaguely saying "according to its existing national boundaries", thus there is dispute over what it actually includes. See [3] for more details about the dispute, where DPP legislators argued that the ROC constitutional claim does not include the mainland and asked the constitutional court to clarify the exact boundaries. The constitutional court refused to clarify, saying it is a Political question and the dispute should be resolved politically rather than legally.--108.53.191.58 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
You need to show that this conclusion has consensus support among experts before it can be stated as fact. Can you provide a legal textbook that says this? TFD (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
All statements made in articles must be reliably sourced [Wikipedia:Reliable sources] and and cannot be based on editors personal conclusions. [Wikipedia:No original research]. Also, " Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." [Wikipedia:CONTEXTMATTERS] Only a legal textbook or similar source can be used for a claim about constitutional law.
There is no reason not to use expert sources. "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." [Wikipedia:SOURCETYPES]
As a matter of interest, if you want to master a subject, such as constitutional law, would you reach for textbooks written by law professors or you read 20 year old newspaper articles written by reporters with BAs in journalism? TFD (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree. The quotes and beliefs of legislators are not the best source to use to back a claim in a topic as polarised controversial as the territorial claims and boundaries of the Republic of China. Hankow idk (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
We should not use the perspective of legislators because it would be biased towards one side. Also, it is clearly known that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is pro-Taiwanisation and the Kuomintang (KMT) is Taiwanese conservative. Based on this, it is obvious that DPP legislators would support the renunciation of the ROC’s claim of the mainland and that the those of the KMT wouldn’t. Thus, based on the fact that the current (1947) Constitution of the Republic of China implies that the mainland is still claimed by the ROC. Also, what the legislators say doesn’t really matter because it is just their opinion and not the policy of the nation. Also, the Republic of China never officially renounced its claim of the mainland. Hankow idk (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
But also, the DPP does not pursue independence because of the consequences. Why can't this article explain the legal position of Taiwan, both in domestic and international law, and how it de facto operates without injecting partisan rhetoric? TFD (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing that different perspectives exists. Please note that I am not saying we should add any conclusions or statements to the article. The discussion is about the map. We should not present a map as the current claim. That would be biased towards one side.--108.53.191.58 (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm for removing the claim map, but this is not the reason why. I need to reiterate that on Wikipedia, neutral point of view does not mean "no point of view": we do not refrain from stating claims simply because they are a matter of genuine contention. If I felt this were due for this specific case (if Taiwan were always fighting India and Burma about their occupation of its territory, say), this would obviously be an appropriate, attributed presentation of contested territorial claims. Remsense ‥ 论05:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to remove the claims map option. For those who are not interested, don't click on it. It doesn't take up room or force anyone to view it. For those who find it convenient to refer to, because parts of the article are related to the mainland, having the map option saves them from going to other pages. This setup has worked for a long time. Regarding the claims, here is an overview from 2023: "The People’s Republic of China considers Taiwan a breakaway province that must return to the mainland’s control. Taiwan does not officially recognise the People’s Republic, and its constitution still asserts sovereignty over mainland China. This is due to a complex shared history between the two territories."[4]CurryCity (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree. But instead of using the map with the historical claims, we should find (or make a map if we can’t find one) to replace it. Hankow idk (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Most readers wouldn't be bothered by this map anyway. For those who opt to dig deeper, it's accurate information that ROC used to claim Mongolia. There's no need for complicated updates to the file. CurryCity (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
But it would be more constructive to the article that has the current claims of the Republic of China rather than the historical claims. Hankow idk (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
As pointed out, there is no evidence that the original claims have been renounced, because we don't know how the ROC could do this. The Federal Republic of Germany for example amended its constitution to renounce it claims on East Germany and western Poland. Ireland amended its constitution to renounce its claim to North Ireland. TFD (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
As stated above in the very beginning of this discussion, there IS evidence that the Republic of China's claim on Mongolia and Tuva has been renounced in 2002. Hankow idk (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, the current claims of the ROC (for example, mainland China and the SCS), is actually import for it defines its foreign policy and would heavily impact Taiwan if the government of the ROC is to renounce those claims. Hankow idk (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
But it does not specify which territory of the historical claimed area is renounced and which area is still claimed by the ROC. Hankow idk (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
What are we thinking for option? Full historical claims map, historical claims map minus some claims, or no map at all? The middle one seems like it should be further broken up, but the only one people have brought up so far is Mongolia (for example on the same grounds that Mongolia is being argued to be exluded you could also argue for Tibet to be excluded as well as a number of other border conflicts with non-PRC countries). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
As a compromise, would could do a map with BOTH the historic and current claims. The current claims in a normal bright green and the historic claims in a pale green. Hankow idk (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I've already said this is a bad idea. It only multiplies the NPOV problems instead of compromising on them. We're giving even more attention to these claims by presenting two maps for them at the top! Remsense ‥ 论22:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
As I said the current claims of the Republic of China on mainland is very important because the world would be a very different place today if that claim is to be officially renounced. As you most likely now, if Taiwan is to renounce its claims on mainland China, it would be invaded by the mainland authorities immediately after. Hankow idk (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Because it's misleading. The importance is not regarding specific patches of land that may or may not be part of China, the point is that the ROC claims historical continuity with the Chinese government pre-1949 and acknowledges only one legitimate government of China, as opposed to their government constituting Taiwanese independence. The actual character of the issue at hand is best described in prose: we're pretty much conflating unrelated issues here by visualizing other regions as discretely as we do. It misses the point and draws attention to Mongolia rather than, well, Taiwan. Nothing relevant is communicated about contemporaneous Taiwan by shading or not shading Aksai Chin. Remsense ‥ 论00:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Then would you agree to have a map of the current claims of the Republic of China the way you like it (without the small bits of those other nations)? Hankow idk (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
No, because territorial surface area is not what is important. The ROC has seen itself as the legitimate government of China—a much broader idea that isn't "mappable"—and we should say that in prose. Remsense ‥ 论00:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I presently think that's the best representation, yes. A map is not a prestige symbol, it is a tool for presenting certain kinds of information. If a map is not the right tool for the information we want to present, we shouldn't have one. Remsense ‥ 论01:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
By current I mean the area under the administration of the PRC, Aksai Chin, and etc. With it ALL labeled as ambiguous. Hankow idk (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
I propose to replace the current claims map with this one.
The dark green represents the Free Area of the Republic of China; the light green represents the ambiguous territorial claims of the Republic of China.Hankow idk (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
There's nothing to resolve: you think there should be a claims map, and I presently do not. Per below, I'm trying to dive into the sources to make sure my position is right. Remsense ‥ 论01:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Tibet, parts of Myanmar, parts of India, parts of Pakistan, parts of Afghanistan, and parts of Tajikistan cannot be excluded because the Republic of China never renounced its claim of those areas. Hankow idk (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
As a proposal, we should replace the current map with this one:
This map represents the current claimed and historically claimed territories of the Republic of China. The pale green represents the area that is historically claimed; the bright green represents the current claims; the dark green is the free area.Hankow idk (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
What is our source saying Taiwan currently claims northern Myanmar but no longer claims Tannu Tuva? CMD (talk) 19:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
So you assume that it is still claimed. That's into OR territory. I suspect it will be difficult to find a source for what they actually claim now, as they've gone very quiet on that. Kanguole20:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Indeed: it is an extrapolation we shouldn't need to make if these claims are as important as we're trying to say they are by putting them in the infobox. Remsense ‥ 论22:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
And it would be very difficult to find evidence that the Republic of China indeed renounced these claims. Just because they never talk about these territories doesn't mean its claim on it has been renounced. Hankow idk (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Thats not how sourcing works though, we aren't allowed to assume something kept happening... Sources can't be used about the future, for example a source from 2002 can't be used to make a statement about what is true today only what was true in 2002... If you want to make a claim about what is true in 2024 you need sources from 2024 not just earlier sources without update or refutation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
There is greater permanence implied in certain claims, but ultimately if something isn't mentioned for decades there's no getting around its actual relevance being called into question. Remsense ‥ 论23:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
There are times when we allow it to be ambigous (for example an undated headquarters location) but the only real exception I know of is the one which allows us to assume death 115 after birth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
But the problem is, the Republic of China did never renounce its claims on parts of India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan. As I assume we all know, the Republic of China DOES NOT recognise the Peoples' Republic of China and the settlements they made to the latters' territorial dispute. Also, since the Republic of China is a nation with limited recognition, it would be impossible (and useless) for them to resolve its territorial disputes with the nations listed above. Also, no evidence that shows that the Republic of China renounced these claims have surfaced. Based on this, the most logical conclusion would be that the Republic of China still lays claims to parts of India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan. Hankow idk (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
There's no evidence for the claims being active either, if you look at media from the last 20 years. This matters: political claims are an abstraction of human tendencies and positions, and we cannot treat them as perfectly immortal just because they haven't been formally negated.
Regardless of the reasons this may be, you could not say that Taiwan actively makes these claims, as there is no recent activity or mention regarding them. "Historically claimed" is a good phrasing to handle this, but I still find its prominence to be undue. Remsense ‥ 论23:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Although Taiwan does not actively makes these claims, these claims are still there. Even though "there is no recent activity or mention regarding them", these claims are still there. Also, "we cannot treat them as perfectly immortal just because they haven't been formal negated" is wrong because by saying that, you are saying that claims can just simply die or disappear if nothing is said or done of them, which is not true. By the only evidence we have, the only thing we can assume on the claims of the Republic of China on parts of India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan is that they are still claimed by it. Hankow idk (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
That is a purely ideological preconception on your part that does not reflect actual history. You're asking us to give prominence to something because you abstractly feel it to be important, not because its importance is actually borne out in sources. This is not how Wikipedia works. Remsense ‥ 论23:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Thats an odd tack given that most of the ROC's territorial claim have lapsed (ceased to be recognized or enforced but not officially renounced)... Thats what we're discussing here, so you are clearly aware of such instances. It also seems to selectively take up only half of the argument, is that meant to be tacit agreement that most claims are superseded not officially renounced? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
"Historically claimed" would not be a good phase to describe these claims because it would mean that the Republic of China DID officially renounce its claims to these territories, which it didn't. Hankow idk (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, since Tuva was part of the Mongolia Area (which was a subdivision claimed by the Republic of China), the ROC renounced its claim of the Mongolian Peoples’ Republic and along with Tuva. Hankow idk (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
My preference is to remove all claims maps, but especially one that purports to show both historical and current claims. There are no sources to support current claims with defined boundaries. The fact that the ROC no longer claims Mongolia does not define its current claims (which are very much undefined in map form). Butterdiplomat (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I get what you are saying but there is simply no evidence that surfaced (I was literally digging for hours) that show that the Republic of China renounced its claim on the territories south of the Mainland. Hankow idk (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Right, but this is an active extrapolation we're having to make from silence. That is a different, inherently weaker (though not meritless) form of evidence than if the ROC government website wouldn't let you leave without seeing the territory they claim. Remsense ‥ 论23:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
“The mainland” does not have defined boundaries. Or, perhaps more precisely, if it does have defined boundaries, they have been fluid throughout history. Because there is no sourcing on the actual boundaries of any current claims besides governmental maps showing essentially the main island and some outlying islands, the historical claims map in the infobox (or a current claims map) is or would be a product of original research. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
This discussion thread contains a lot of editors' conclusions based on their readings of newspaper articles from 20 years ago and other sources but no expert source that explains the legal position. Either the ROC still claims its original boundaries or it doesn't or it is ambiguous. But we need an authoritative source. TFD (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
Not going well so far—it's not really a thing authors seem interested in making a definitive statement on among paragraphs and volumes of analysis of the cross-strait relationship—even a statement that it's presently ambiguous. Remsense ‥ 论00:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
That seems a reflective indicator of its due weight. I found this paper an interesting read. Either way however, we probably shouldn't make up a map of supposed "current" claims, and definitely shouldn't include it in the lead. CMD (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
The article says, "The ROC moved away from imagining Inner China as its national centre and toward a conceptualisation of the ROC as rooted in Taiwan. [It] has ceased to press for sovereignty over greater China." But it doesn't say that these claims have been renounced.
I do not think the article should promote the legitimacy of the DPP's current position or indeed its official claim to be the legitimate government of China or the PRC position that it is a rebellious territory. TFD (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
The map says nothing of the PRC position though? And we should consider WP:DUE when it comes to different partisan positions. The fact is, the historical claims have neither been officially renewed nor renounced, and it would be original research to impose a map (precise boundaries) representation of these claims. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
A map of historical claims doesn't say much about the DPP either. We can map the historical claims without OR, it's the diffusely different current claims that we can't map. CMD (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure, believe we're in agreement that a historical map is better than a current one, which is the status quo. As others have pointed out, though, whether this historical map should be included in the infobox is a different topic and one of relevance. The TW government no longer publishes official maps that include “mainland” territories as it used to, for a couple of decades now, and this is in contrast to the PRC claims and maps. Sure, this is not an official renunciation of historical claims, but (1) their currentness is definitely ambiguous, and (2) they are not considered important by the government (i.e., the key participant in the claims). Butterdiplomat (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
I haven't got a strong opinion at the moment on the claims being in the infobox. The last similar discussion I am aware of was for the Pakistan article, after the government published a new map which 're-claimed' so to speak a historical claim which had lapsed for a few decades. As you point out, Taiwan has not published similar maps for awhile, so it seems editorial judgment as to how long a map has to not be published for it to lose due weight. My main concern in this conversation was the supposed current maps, so I'm glad consensus is against them. CMD (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Hankow idk has a point that the most important part of the claims, current or historical, is the Chinese mainland part which is the PRC. Vacosea (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Just because a claim isn't "active" doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore. Unlike animals or any other beings, a territorial claim does not have a lifespan. Hankow idk (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Just because something may or may not exist does not mean it should be included in map form in this article. The currentness of these claims are not the only thing in question. Butterdiplomat (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
This is getting absurd, territorial claims absolutely have a lifespan (exactly as long as the claim is active). This is just ignorance of diplomacy and foreign policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
The current Constitution of the Republic of China and the ruling of the Supreme Court have never mentioned the specific territorial scope, and the relevant laws only mention mainland China as its claimed territory, excluding the disputed territories of other countries. The specific scope of the mainland area is also very clear, only Including "areas controlled by the Chinese Communist Party", see https://www.mac.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=4F2E0C155DF44564&sms=2C46F5E37DC2E1D2&s=4597A146F5AF7D3C
The so-called "disputed territories" with India, Myanmar and other countries are not included in this scope. These former claims of the Republic of China do not exist in Taiwan's current laws. The administrative divisions before 2005 have been abolished.
If we consider Taiwan's laws on cross-Strait relations, its claimed territory only includes the areas actually governed by the People's Republic of China. If we follow the government statements of President Tsai Ing-wen and President Lai Ching-te, then "the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are not affiliated with each other." In the past, the Republic of China had Mainland China’s claim is also invalid N1m2s3l4 (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/БмхүнThe case mentions a sockpuppet who has long been using multiple VPNs and accounts to engage in discussions, which has at times affected decision-making processes. The account N1m2s3l4 admitted on zh.wikipedia.org (zh:Special:diff/84221546) to being blocked and attempting to continue abusing sockpuppetry through multiple accounts, while also seeking assistance from @唐吉訶德的侍從to replicate the edits made during the period when other sockpuppet accounts were being used. Due to this self-disclosure and clear misuse of sockpuppet accounts, the account has been indefinitely blocked. Please be cautious when addressing N1m2s3l4's comments, as they may be mixed with contributions from other VPNs or accounts. It is currently known that VPN Special:Contributions/103.232.212.80/28 is in use. I would prefer not to see a repeat of cases like Talk:Prayagraj Airport#Requested move. Rastinition (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Per @CMD, I've so far thumbed through the following volumes trying to get a firmer sense of what the territorial claims of contemporary Taiwan meaningfully are:
“
At first blush, the PRC position might strike some as absurd given Taiwan’s more than 50 year existence outside the mainland’s grasp. It is noteworthy, however, that the leadership in Taipei maintains a similar stance toward the government in Beijing. In fact, it claims that “mainland China is part of the territory of the ROC.” In short, Taipei contends that the government in Beijing does not exist—a position that the island’s independence activists blast as “total nonsense.” It is also noteworthy that the government in Taipei rejects claims by independence groups that suggest that the island’s international status is undetermined.
”
— Blanchard, Jean-Marc F.; Hickey, Dennis Van Vranken (2012). New Thinking about the Taiwan Issue. Routledge. p. 3. ISBN978-0-415-68453-8.
“
These culminated in Taiwan’s first direct legislative elections in 1992 and the first direct presidential election in 1996, thus marking a symbolic redrawing of the boundaries of the ROC’s national ‘imagined community’ (Anderson 1983). As only residents of Taiwan were enfranchised to vote in these purported ‘national’ elections, henceforth the ROC’s electorate no longer included mainland China, and in practical terms the ROC became synonymous with Taiwan and its surrounding islands. In the 1996 presidential election, three-quarters of the votes went to two candidates that Beijing considered as either overt or covert ‘Taiwan independentists’. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s 1994 White Paper on Relations across the Taiwan Strait declared that Taipei ‘would no longer compete with Beijing for the right to represent China in the international arena’, thereby further cementing the notion of Taiwan and China as two separate nations (Dickson and Chao 2002: 225).
[... going on to relate the post-90s back-and-forth with no terminus ...]
What are the defining features of cross-Strait relations? What drives them? The starting point is that both the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People’s Republic of China (mainland) maintain sovereignty claims over the other.
[...]
Although the ROC still nominally claims sovereignty over the Chinese mainland, nevertheless it recognises the fact that its jurisdiction does not extend to the ‘mainland Area’. Thus, being short of a de jure declaration of its reduced territory, a de facto state was born out of the Taiwan Area.
Thank you. My thoughts are: (1) these sources seem to confirm that any nominal claim over mainland China is probably more appropriate for cross-strait relations vs. this article, and (2) we still do not have any sourcing for the map form of these claims that outline the precise boundaries of any current claims.
Further to point (1), to emphasize these nominal claims would be taking away real, practical claims that the Taiwanese government seems to actively impose on areas like the SCS:
“
… both the Ma and Tsai governments share common positions on the island status of the Taiping Island as defined by the UNCLOS. Similar to the Ma government, the Tsai government after May 2016 has reasserted Taiwan’s sovereign rights over SCS islands, suggested to shelve sovereign disputes for the joint development of the SCS through a multilateral mechanism, and stressed the freedom of navigation and over- flight within the SCS.
”
— Lee, Wei-chin (2017). "Taiwan, the South China Sea Dispute, and the 2016 Arbitration Decision". Journal of Chinese Political Science: 241. doi:10.1007/s11366-017-9470-2.
We are debating several aspects of Taiwan's claims to territory not under their control, specifically whether they are both well-defined and relevant enough to be shown on a map in the infobox. I've changed my mind a few times now over the course of the discussion—given the above attestation, I'm now leaning towards including a map of the claims. Remsense ‥ 论20:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
As an option not displayed by default, I think this is an appropriate level of inclusion given their historical and ongoing importance disagreements notwithstanding. Taiwan has never officially declared itself independent. It formally calls itself the "Republic of China." Its constitution lays claim to the whole of China, just like Beijing does.(2022 Deutsche Welle)CurryCity (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
I think this was suggested before by someone, so I'll clarify again that this is not an option, due to it being a clear MOS violation, cf. WP:NOHIDE. Remsense ‥ 论19:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were suggesting a collapse instead of a toggle for some reason. In any case, I still feel this to be totally independent of the question of whether it should be included, rather than being a compromise position between due and undue. Remsense ‥ 论22:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
We are on the same page about what is being discussed, I think. We are all in agreement that the territorial claims map, if we continue to include it, would continue to be a secondary map in the infobox. It seems to be a judgment call whether we include it as secondary or exclude it altogether, and my view is that any map that shows the historical claims is more appropriate for the historical ROC article or cross-Strait relations anyway.
Now, addressing CurryCity’s point about the ROC’s never-relinquished claim on the “whole of China” — the currentness of any territorial aspect of this claim is not evident, since it continues to be one of prestige rather than precise boundaries (as brought up in the above section). A map would not accurately represent the claim CurryCity would like to be included. The included map (including Mongolia) is certainly accurate historically since it is taken from actual maps published by the ROC government, but these maps are no longer being published. The precise boundaries of these mainland claims are thus no longer defined. If the argument for including it is its currentness, then a historical map does not seem appropriate in my opinion. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done: Please see the notice at the top of the page and RfC on the topic – macaddct1984 (talk | contribs) 14:04, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
.svg)
.svg)
