Talk:Political status of Taiwan/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
On "political status"
@Khajidha: In your edit, you said: "That "political status" is whether it is recognized or not
". That obviously is your POV and is not supported by any source in the article.
The image you want to keep is about diplomatic recognition and is already used in the History section of article Foreign relations of Taiwan. It is off-topic in this article.
The second paragraph (starting with The issue hinges on whether
…) of this article already lists four things explaining what this article is about, and none of the four things is about diplomatic recognition. If you insist on keeping that image in this article, you will have to find a reliable source explicitly says the political status of Taiwan is "whether it is recognized or not". --Matt Smith (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- The article itself states: "This controversy also concerns whether the existence and legal status as a nation-state (country) of both the ROC and the PRC is legitimate as a matter of international law, and how much diplomatic recognition either country receives from the international community. " When the very article talks about diplomatic recognition, an illustration of diplomatic recognition is appropriate. --Khajidha (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- Still, there is no reliable source supporting that. I had added {{Citation needed}} to that statement. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
-- Kiribat don't recognize ROC but PRC since 2019-09-20: https://www.hongkongfp.com/2019/09/20/kiribati-switches-diplomatic-recognition-taiwan-china-second-defection-week/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.182.221.75 (talk) 10:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Remove the "Arguments for United States sovereignty claims" section
I propose removing the "Arguments for United States sovereignty claims" section.
That view was hold by only a very minority of people, namely the supporters of a political organization called "Taiwan Civil Government". In recent years, that organization has become controversial and has been regarded as fraudulent in Taiwan. Also, the organization has changed its view a few years ago and no longer hold that view. The said view is probably hold by no one now.
So according to the WP:UNDUE, I propose removing the section. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's only one fairly short section in a very long article which already includes quite a lot of minority viewpoints. And it's sourced, informative and quite interesting, even if it concerns positions taken in the past rather than the present. I would leave it or shorten it. W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- As mentioned, even the controversial organization itself no longer holds the view. And probably no one hold it now, making the information in the section outdated. WP:UNDUE says: "
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all
". I think the section needs to be removed so that the article conforms to the policy. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- As mentioned, even the controversial organization itself no longer holds the view. And probably no one hold it now, making the information in the section outdated. WP:UNDUE says: "
- Well, I'll let you or other knowledgeable people decide, but since you say this group is "controversial" (and therefore fairly well-known), and it's been as far as a court case in the States, I would have thought this isn't such a tiny minority viewpoint as to be expunged completely from Wikipedia. It seems to me this article is the right place for this sort of thing (it wouldn't belong in the main Taiwan article, but this article covers a whole range of viewpoints, including quite niche ones). I don't care whether people are advancing the position now or have done so in the past - to me these are interesting facts regardless. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- The point is that the said view is hold by a tiny minority of people. According to policy WP:UNDUE, such a view should not be included at all. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I'll let you or other knowledgeable people decide, but since you say this group is "controversial" (and therefore fairly well-known), and it's been as far as a court case in the States, I would have thought this isn't such a tiny minority viewpoint as to be expunged completely from Wikipedia. It seems to me this article is the right place for this sort of thing (it wouldn't belong in the main Taiwan article, but this article covers a whole range of viewpoints, including quite niche ones). I don't care whether people are advancing the position now or have done so in the past - to me these are interesting facts regardless. W. P. Uzer (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Edit
The policy of Ma government is already described in Section 3.2. I removed the two other repetitions in other sections, to comply with WP:DUE, so that the policy of each president is given one paragraph in Section 3.2. I also added the policy of the incumbent.--Visaliaw (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Taiwan's "de facto" independence
The use of "de facto" is not neutral. It implies that Taiwan is not really or legally independent, it has a temporary independent status which is not legal. This is the mainland Chinese position. I think "de facto" should be eliminated. deisenbe (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- Removing it is not neutral, neither. There are different views on Taiwan's status. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Lead section length, content, and citations
This edit caught my eye. The situation re cites in the lead isn't quite as clear-cut as the edit summary there puts it, and is covered in a bit more detail in MOS:LEADCITE. Also, the lead section of this article is currently eight paragraphs long and the content there seems to go beyond what is mandated in the opening paragraph of that project guideline ("The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph."}
I suggest that a new section be created following the lead, possibly named Origin of the controversy, with the second through seventh paragraphs of the present lead moved there with rearrangements and rewrites as needed, and cites added to the relocated material (re-using existing cites from elsewhere in the article or adding new cites as needed).
Discussion? Objections? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Having seen no discussion, I've actioned the suggestion above here, with some modification. I moved most of the material in that over-long lead section which did not seem to be an introductory summary into a new subsection of the Background section headed Development of the controversy. I also folded the content of a former subsection there which was previously headed Cession, retrocession, legal status, and self-determination of Taiwan into that new subsection. This improves the article, I think, but can no doubt be further improved. I've tagged the new subsection as unreferenced. Some relevant supporting cites from later sections of the article can probably be re-used here. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:11, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)