Talk:Taiwan/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

partially recognized

See Kosovo article. Taiwan has a similar status to Kosovo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I-Love-New-York-1982 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a valid point, in my opinion. Let's see how each of the entries in "List of states with limited recognition" are classified in their respective articles:

• • Somaliland — a self-declared state, internationally considered to be an autonomous region of Somalia.
  • Transnistria — a breakaway state in the narrow strip of land between the river Dniester and the Ukrainian border that is internationally recognized as part of Moldova.
  • Republic of Artsakh — a breakaway state in the South Caucasus that is internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan.
  • Northern Cyprus — a de facto state that comprises the northeastern portion of the island of Cyprus.
  • Abkhazia — a de facto sovereign state that is internationally recognized as an autonomous republic of Georgia.
  • South Ossetia — a de facto sovereign state and disputed territory in the South Caucasus, in the northern part of the internationally recognised Georgian territory.
  • Taiwan — a state in East Asia. — a partially-recognized state in East Asia. (as of your recent edit)
  • Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic — a partially recognized de facto sovereign state that claims the non-self-governing territory of Western Sahara, but controls only the easternmost one-fifth of that territory.
  • Kosovo — a partially-recognized state in Southeastern Europe, subject to a territorial dispute with the Republic of Serbia.
  • State of Palestine — a de jure sovereign state in Western Asia claiming the West Bank (bordering Israel and Jordan) and Gaza Strip (bordering Israel and Egypt) with East Jerusalem as the designated capital, although its administrative center is currently located in Ramallah.
  • Israel — a country in Western Asia, located on the southeastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea and the northern shore of the Red Sea.
  • China — a country in East Asia and is the world's most populous country, with a population of around 1.428 billion in 2017.
  • North Korea — a country in East Asia constituting the northern part of the Korean Peninsula, with Pyongyang as its capital and the largest city in the country.
  • Cyprus — an island country in the Eastern Mediterranean and the third-largest and third-most populous island in the Mediterranean, located south of Turkey, west of Syria and Lebanon, north of Israel, the Gaza Strip (Palestinian region) and Egypt, and southeast of Greece.
  • Armenia — a landlocked country in the South Caucasus region of Eurasia.
  • South Korea — a country in East Asia, constituting the southern part of the Korean Peninsula and sharing a land border with North Korea.:

I think it is relevant to note that the article "Proto-state" exists. This article deals with breakaway regions and declared states (that don't necessarily function properly). Kosovo is listed under "current constituent proto-states" and is described as a "de facto (state)"; Abkhazia, Artsakh, Sahrawi Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia, and Transnistria are listed under "secessionist and insurgent proto-states", with all of these states aside from the Sahrawi Republic ("partial state") listed as "de facto (state)"; aside from the disputed UN members, Northern Cyprus, Palestine, and Taiwan are not-at-all mentioned in this article.

My guess as to why Northern Cyprus is not mentioned is because it is effectively a colony of Turkey (though, I presume that it does have some kind of localist movement, which would technically qualify it as a proto-state); also Northern Cyprus apparently wants to unify with Cyprus (under its own terms), so it is not really a breakaway region in principle (though it currently acts as a de facto breakaway region) but is more a "competing government for all of Cyprus" (not unlike the "South Korea vs North Korea" legitimacy dispute).

Meanwhile, Palestine seems to not be mentioned because it has been recognised to some degree by both Israel and the United Nations and is more a sovereign entity (like the Sovereign Military Order of Malta) rather than a physical state; in fact, the Gaza Strip is mentioned since it is autonomous from Palestine and the West Bank (which is where Palestine seems to be headquartered); the West Bank's sovereignty is unclear and much of the region is controlled by Israel; the Gaza Strip hosts a secessionist proto-government that frequently conducts terrorist activities and is seemingly not formally associated with Palestine.

Regarding Taiwan, it is definitely not a breakaway state since the Republic of China (ROC) was established in 1912 and was globally recognised as the legitimate government of China up until 1949; the ROC even had UN membership (security council) from 1945 until 1971. From 1949 and onwards, after it was expelled from mainland China by the Chinese Communists (now PRC), the ROC has been gradually losing recognition as the legitimate government of China, and it is still technically suspended within this geopolitical dispute since a few countries (15 in total) still recognise the ROC as the legitimate government of China, much to the chagrin of the PRC. The ROC is potentially one of the only examples of a "rump state" that currently exists, though there is strong evidence suggesting that the ROC is more a "government-in-exile" and "colonial regime" than a rump-state, or that it is potentially a combination of all three of these things. Whether the ROC is a proto-state is debatable. Officially, the ROC on Taiwan is a continuation of the ROC in mainland China and hence does not formally constitute a distinct regime. However, on Wikipedia, the ROC before 1949 and the ROC after 1949 are distinguished from one another, with Taiwan having its own article; "Taiwan" is effectively the ROC since 1949, physically occupying Taiwan, a region that may or may not be part of China (and I'm inclined to believe that it's not part of China, though that's a separate issue known as the "Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan").

I think Taiwan's political status is heavily distinct from that of Kosovo, though I do agree that Kosovo is probably the most similar state to Taiwan out of all states with limited recognition. Taiwan officially recognises the sovereignty of Kosovo, to my knowledge. Out of all states with limited recognition, Taiwan and Kosovo are some of the more well-known and more widely recognised states in comparison to the various post-Soviet breakaway regions and various similar proto-states. Taiwan and Kosovo are commonly regarded as "the 196th and 197th countries" (the official UN number of countries is 195, excluding Taiwan and Kosovo) by various major geopolitical thinkers (such as YouTubers, diplomats, researchers, etc.). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment. While it can be useful to compare Wikipedia articles to discuss issues of consistency Wikipedia articles cannot be used as references for other articles in Wikipedia. Each state / country article may have had discussions about the country/state status and therefore a consensus for each article will have been reached using (hopefully) reliable sources and arguments specific to that country / state. Whether a country is commonly regarded as having a certain status is vague and unsubstantiated. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources not on 'everyone knows that to be the case' assumption. And who are these major geopolitical thinkers? Certainly not 'Youtubers'. Anyway this would need to be sourced properly not asserted. Robynthehode (talk) 07:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I presume much of Jargo Nautilus's comment above are directed at my comments. My comments were clearly about how content is established on Wikipedia not about this specific discussion. Writing a wall of text that is point of view WP:POV and does not offer ways to improve the article using reliable sources WP:RS is not useful to anyone. Please read the guidelines/rules I have already linked to to understand reliable sources. You may also like to read the following which specifically detail why user generated content such as Youtube and blogs are not reliable sources WP:UGC, WP:NOYT. This page is a talk page for the article not a discussion forum for the status of Taiwanese sovereignty. See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTADVOCACY. Once you have read the information in these then you will, hopefully, approach this article and Wikipedia in a different way. And by the way you can't understand anything about my position on Taiwan and China from my comments. Please do not assume you know other editors views that are unexpressed. Robynthehode (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan's political status is not the same as Kosovo's but it's also not the same as the majority of countries in the world. I don't think there is a single country, state or polity in the world with a political status paralleling that of Taiwan. Throughout world history, even, I think one would struggle to find any kind of state paralleling modern-day Taiwan. Even the Kingdom of Tungning, which was historically based in Taiwan, was not actually that similar to modern-day Taiwan. However, with that being said, it is an established fact that Taiwan is a partially-recognised state. Saying that a state is "partially-recognised" doesn't strictly mean that the state is illegitimate. Rather, what this means is that the legitimacy of the state is recognised by some states but not by every state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

But it can just as easily be described as "partially unrecognized" or "formally recognized" or "defacto" or any number of other ways. You are correct it is unlike most of states.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The glaring problem with this Wikipedia article, "Taiwan", is the fact that the "Republic of China (1912–1949)" is the same state as Taiwan rather than a predecessor. Taiwan is the Republic of China, just controlling a different territory (arguably foreign, if you agree with the "Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan") from what it used to control before it was exiled from mainland China in 1949, and recognised by very few countries in the present day as a result of this confusing and controversial geopolitical status. If you regard Taiwan and the ROC (1912–1949) as the same state, then I think it is undeniable that the ROC (now commonly known as "Taiwan") is a sovereign country. My reasoning is that the ROC was widely recognised as a sovereign country from 1912 to 1949, continued to be recognised by many countries as a sovereign country up until around 1971 when the ROC was expelled from the United Nations, and still possesses in the present day all of its government bodies and territory that it possessed before 1971; the ROC never lost its effective sovereignty, only the recognition of its sovereignty as legitimate by other countries. As such, it can be argued that the ROC's current lack of diplomatic recognition by other countries doesn't actually prove that it doesn't actually exist as a country, but instead only proves that most countries in the world support the dismantlement of the ROC's sovereignty in favour of the 1949-established PRC; whether these countries support the annexation of the island of Taiwan (currently controlled by the exiled ROC) into China is a separate matter. So, basically, the ROC is a country that is occupying a territory that possibly isn't actually under the sovereignty of the ROC (and, notably, hosts a significant independence movement) and most countries of the world are suppressing the sovereignty of the ROC for their own personal economic gain. Basically, the main reason why the ROC is partially-recognised is because of the PRC's "dollar diplomacy"; of course, there are other less prominent reasons. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2020

My suggested change is as follows: Under the History heading, >Republic of China subheading >Democratic Reforms subheading: Include the recent news regarding the Taiwanese presidential election results of 11/01/2020:

On 11 January 2020, incumbent President Tsai Ing-Wen secured a 57% popular vote to win the presidency for another term. The vote garnered a record turnout of 8.2 million ballots, of which she held a nearly 20% margin above her opponent, Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-Yu of the increasingly pro-Beijing KMT party. With Tsai's victory, increasing sentiments opposing aggression towards the ROC from Beijing were bolstered by the landslide vote. In her victory speech Tsai is quoted: "I also hope that the Beijing authorities understand that democratic Taiwan, and our democratically elected government, will not concede to threats and intimidation." The US responded to Tsai's victory with recognition for its commitment to free speech and democracy in the region.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51077553 Evan.mersky (talk) 05:22, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not sure this has anything to say about democratic reforms.Slatersteven (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. This is a rather news headline-y piece of prose which doesn't really belong in a broad article about an entire nation. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

The shown card of international relations of Taiwan isn't correct now.

Need to refresh - Panama and other South American states resigned their acceptance of Taiwan - due to economic ties with China and five Principles which China always demanding in trade deals [acceptance of geo integrity]

Source?Slatersteven (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Name

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Change to Taiwan, China to recognize international standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.115.16 (talk) 08:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

What international standard?Slatersteven (talk) 08:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Largest settlement

@Isko1901: New Taipei is not a city as defined by the Local Government Act. It is a special municipality with the word "City" in its name. The three cities are Keelung, Hsinchu and Chiayi. If we are using the common definition of a city, then New Taipei is a part of Taipei. Ythlev (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Specifying |largest_settlement_type=division is not very useful. The |largest_settlement= parameter is for settlements, not local government areas. In this case, it might be better to use |largest_settlement=Taipei–Keelung. While not a "city" in terms of the Local Government Act, it is a city and a settlement in a broader sense. Kanguole 14:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I think simply Taipei will do. Or Taipei–New Taipei, because I'm not sure if including Keelung but not Taoyuan makes any sense. That definition is no longer used by the government. Ythlev (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Fine, as long as it represents the whole urban area, rather than an administrative division. Kanguole 18:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Largest settlement type must remain city, division is not a settlement type. I would support Taipei–Keelung metropolitan area for largest settlement as metro area is whats used on most pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, New Taipei City is the real city, because it has own mayor. You can see this article: Mayor of New Taipei. Based on your argument about special municipality, so Taipei, Taichung, Tainan, and Kaohsiung are not cities. Ivan Humphrey (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Largest cities of Taiwan}} Ivan Humphrey (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ivan Humphrey: If having a mayor makes the place a city, Jianshi, Hsinchu is also a city. Ythlev (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

As noted above, the |largest_settlement= parameter is for settlements, not local government areas delimited by arbitrary lines on a map. New Taipei and Taipei are part of the same urban area, and it is that urban area that is the largest settlement in Taiwan. Kanguole 17:21, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Kanguole: So, if we use the |largest_settlement=, then Greater Milan is larger than Greater Rome in Italy, and Rhine-Ruhr is larger than Greater Berlin in Germany. And, change Quezon City in infobox country of Philippines article to Greater Manila Area. Ivan Humphrey (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I would say just don't have it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not really a stable solution though, as someone will always come along wanting to fill in the parameter (which is supplied for most other countries). Kanguole 17:22, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

and anyone can come along and alter it (as in fact this little edit war demonstrates), but if its not there the temptation is less.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Bokmanrocks01: Stop. New Taipei is an administrative area, not a separate city from Taipei. I live in Taiwan and I don't know anyone who says they are "from New Taipei". Ythlev (talk) 06:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Then we should use Taipei as the city, but not some metropolitan statistical area. It needs to be a city. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The metropolitan area is the city. The difficulty is that Taipei refers to both the whole city and to a local administrative area within it (cf City of London and City of Sydney). If we use Taipei here, it would be more accurate to pipe it to the metropolitan area than the local government area Taipei. Kanguole 07:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason why Taipei can't be treated like London, not Greater London, not City of London, both. Ythlev (talk) 07:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

New Taipei City is clearly Taiwan's most populated city and should be listed as such on the infobox. But there seems to be continual edits to remove that entry each time it gets restored. So just to clear the confusion, is New Taipei Taiwan's most populated city? For those who don't think so, why? - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Did we not just have this discussion a couple of months ago?Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan...is a country?

The first line of this article states that "Taiwan...is a country in East Asia" and then gives three references that refer to Taiwan as a state. Where are the references to support the claim that Taiwan is a country? Birtig (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering how long this would take. [[1]], but just as easily its a state. I think state is rather more neutral.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't make any difference since country is a term with no clear definition, whereas state implies sovereignty. It does come across a bit overly formal to describe Taiwan as a state, so perhaps country is more appropriate. Île flottante (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Where do you get that? For awhile this article read the "Taiwan is a sovereign state" and it was changed to simply "state" because state does not imply sovereignty. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I see it as just semantics.Slatersteven (talk) 15:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, editor with an IR degree here... It is almost entirely semantics. In most contexts “country” and “state” can be used interchangeably. I would also note that there are two completely different relevant definitions of state, a sovereign state (99% of the time referred to as just state) and a state (polity). Both are used as synonyms for country although country is actually broader, any state (both definitions) or nation is a country. Based on the definitions we use in IR there isn't any debate that Taiwan is both a country and a state (polity), the only argument is over whether they are a sovereign state which is the debate we as wikipedians should remain neutral on. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: @Île flottante: I personally strongly discourage the usage of "country" in this sense because imo "country" has always implied sovereignty and recognition, while state has only indicated sovereignty. Augend (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with the use of 'country' so long as there are sources that show Taiwan being described as a country. These 3 sources don't. Birtig (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing isn't the issue, we’l be able to find reliable sources using just about every variation and parsing possible around Taiwan. For country see for instance the BBC’s "Taiwan country profile” [2]. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• This is so wired. Taiwan is only recognised by 17 countries. The UN consider Taiwan as part of China. The U.S and other nations don't have embassies in Taiwan.[3]

On the other hand, we have State of Palestine recognised by over one hundred countries, yet the lead starts with saying that it is a de jure sovereign state.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• The change was made by Thriw here. I have reverted his edit. It was not discussed and many don't agree with.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The Americans (and almost every other major country) do, its called the American Institute in Taiwan. Zero reason to drag the israeli-palestinian conflict into this, thats just asking for trouble. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, it is the status quo. It is the longstanding word. It shouldn't be changed without consensus. It was changed without consensus here--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That was more than two weeks ago. BTW all entities which are states by the polity definition are also countries, not entirely sure what you’re arguing here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It's best we not draw analogies with other articles. Palestine is most definitely not a "de jure state" because it doesn't have effective sovereign government over its population and territory, whereas Taiwan does. Île flottante (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Only 17 countries recognise Taiwan as a country. It is a state, every country recognise this because it's a fact(it has a government, people, land etc). However, only 17 countries recognise it as country. It is wrong to give undue weight to these 17 countries.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

HEJ, please read Wikipedia's article Country and State (polity). They are not the same.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please read wikipedia’s article on country "A country may be an independent sovereign state or part of a larger state,[1] as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, a physical territory with a government, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics. It is not inherently sovereign.” My argument is not that they are the same, my argument is that all entities which are states (polity) are also by definition countries. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your understanding of international law is deeply flawed. If you open any textbook on international law it'll tell you that there are three conditions for statehood: a population, a territory and effective (sovereign) government of those two. In the Americas a fourth condition of being able to enter into relations with other states also exists. You can see this codified in article one of the Montevideo convention. Recognition by other states is not relevant. This is a very common mistake made by people with no understanding of the most basic principles of international law, but I would avise you to look into it as it might help you from repeating flawed arguments. Wikipedia articles are not sources. They are especially not sources of international law, so referring to them does not help your argument. Île flottante (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with saying that it is a country is that it makes it sound as if Wikipedia is siding with Taiwan against China's POV. I wouldn't say that I know much about international law but I know that there is a dispute between China and Taiwan over Taiwan's sovereignty. We should either say it is a "disputed state" or just let it as it is now (the longstanding version).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That's my point. A country can generally enter into agreements and maintain a functional international presence. Taiwan can't. Augend (drop a line) 21:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan absolutely can do those things. The fact that they have their own Defence Force and free elections is partial proof of that. There is actions politically from the PRC that makes people reluctant to do so but they still have allies or diplomatic relations with (14 I believe). I of course leave whether this should happen, shouldn't happen or the future up to them and the PRC. This is just the state of affairs now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: yeah I see that Taiwan has a standing military. What meant was an international presence as in being able to participate in international diplomacy and organizations, and as we know, "China"'s seat was handed over to the PRC in the 20th century. Augend (drop a line) 16:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Not just a standing military, one of the twenty most powerful militaries on the planet. They are active participants in international diplomacy and organizations. Their participation and innovation in fields of diplomacy such as Medical diplomacy#Taiwan, and Culinary diplomacy#Taiwan is groundbreaking and tbh I’ve even heard it described as “legendary.” If you notice the foundational scholarship for culinary diplomacy was actually done on Taiwan as well (although not by a Taiwanese). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Nobody cares about the strength of one's military, so long it exists. And no, they are not technically active in international diplomacy and they play in the Olympics as Taiwan, China. Their innovations in diplomacy is exaggerated. Maybe they have diplomacy with their 14 nations, but anything out of that is unofficial and more or less taken with a smaller grain of salt than Donald Trump's twitter adventures. Augend (drop a line) 18:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thats just silly, Taiwan has diplomatic relations with the majority of nations on the planet. You cant dismiss them out of hand if reliable sources cover them, which they do[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] etc. The Olympics are a sporting event not a diplomatic one and your are technically incorrect about them being Taiwan, China at the olympics they are Chinese Taipei at the Olympics which is an agreed upon consensus title from a long time ago which explicitly does not say that they are “Taiwan, China." Please don’t use wikipedia to push your personal opinion. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are the countries that recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state: Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland and Tuvalu.[14]

There are more than 170 nations that don't recognize Taiwan's sovereignty. They recognize it as part of China. The word country means "a sovereign state" but Taiwan is not a sovereign state according to 93% of the world. Saying it is a country is unneutral.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Defacto it could be considered that. Just my opinion here and in the end consensus will win the day. I don't have a strong view here but there is a distinction and trying to simply cover up the longstanding usage of Taiwanese to Chinese is a red flag for me, especially when you consider their president has even called this into some dispute as found here [[15]] . That in itself gives a distinction as a defacto country. I will let the rest of you sort it out though :) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• This was part of long drawn out argument years ago, I think an Rfc, where we were looking at country, sovereign state, and state. It was decided that "state" was the most neutral term that fit the situation. It is why it has longstanding stable consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that "state" is the most neutral term. Taiwan's sovereignty is disputed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's reasonable. I think noting the dispute and then a further explanation later in the article does the same thing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree. There is a parameter in {{Infobox country}} called |status=, we can use that parameter to say that it is not a member of the U.N. and that it is recognized by 14 countries. This is similar to State of Palestine.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Or we can just note the dispute as you said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In my view of the many responses I think it is better not to change the status of Taiwan, as a country that consider itself as a part of the Republic of China. And with the claim of sovereignty of the People's Republic of China as it is one of its own provinces, if this thing is going to apply on Taiwan; it should be applied also on Arunachal Pradesh. Which is classified as an Indian state that is supposed to be classified as a disputed area. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your understanding of international law is deeply flawed. If you open any textbook on international law it'll tell you that there are three conditions for statehood: a population, a territory and effective (sovereign) government of those two. In the Americas a fourth condition of being able to enter into relations with other states also exists. You can see this codified in article one of the Montevideo convention. Recognition by other states is not relevant. This is a very common mistake made by people with no understanding of the most basic principles of international law, but I would avise you to look into it as it might help you from repeating flawed arguments. Wikipedia articles are not sources. They are especially not sources of international law, so referring to them does not help your argument. Île flottante (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The problem with saying that it is a country is that it makes it sound as if Wikipedia is siding with Taiwan against China's POV. I wouldn't say that I know much about international law but I know that there is a dispute between China and Taiwan over Taiwan's sovereignty. We should either say it is a "disputed state" or just let it as it is now (the longstanding version).--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

That's my point. A country can generally enter into agreements and maintain a functional international presence. Taiwan can't. Augend (drop a line) 21:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan absolutely can do those things. The fact that they have their own Defence Force and free elections is partial proof of that. There is actions politically from the PRC that makes people reluctant to do so but they still have allies or diplomatic relations with (14 I believe). I of course leave whether this should happen, shouldn't happen or the future up to them and the PRC. This is just the state of affairs now. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are the countries that recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state: Belize, Guatemala, Haiti, Holy See, Honduras, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Nicaragua, Palau, Paraguay, St Lucia, St Kitts and Nevis, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Swaziland and Tuvalu.[16]

There are more than 170 nations that don't recognize Taiwan's sovereignty. They recognize it as part of China. The word country means "a sovereign state" but Taiwan is not a sovereign state according to 93% of the world. Saying it is a country is unneutral.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Defacto it could be considered that. Just my opinion here and in the end consensus will win the day. I don't have a strong view here but there is a distinction and trying to simply cover up the longstanding usage of Taiwanese to Chinese is a red flag for me, especially when you consider their president has even called this into some dispute as found here [[17]] . That in itself gives a distinction as a defacto country. I will let the rest of you sort it out though :) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Hell in a Bucket: - First, nice pun on the red flag, but yes, it is important to include that distinction. Personally, I feel that ethnially, excluding indigenous Taiwanese, culturally speaking, Chinese culture and Taiwanese culture are deeply connected. Augend (drop a line) 16:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Augend no doubt at all that they are very connected and closely related. I think the only key here which is solved both above and below is noting the dispute. We shouldn't be here to weigh in one way or another, just report it. This should include the dispute, and IMO Taiwan's public statements is what I use as a guideline to that. I don't really have anything more to add so I'll let everyone here figure it out. Just one voice to consensus and I don't mean to insult the PRC here or you, just my analysis of the situation. I didn't even think about the red flag and the Chinese flag, lol unintentional punnning! Hell in a Bucket (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

• This was part of long drawn out argument years ago, I think an Rfc, where we were looking at country, sovereign state, and state. It was decided that "state" was the most neutral term that fit the situation. It is why it has longstanding stable consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree that "state" is the most neutral term. Taiwan's sovereignty is disputed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 23:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• I think that's reasonable. I think noting the dispute and then a further explanation later in the article does the same thing. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

  I agree. There is a parameter in {{Infobox country}} called |status=, we can use that parameter to say that it is not a member of the U.N. and that it is recognized by 14 countries. This is similar to State of Palestine.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

  Or we can just note the dispute as you said.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

In my view of the many responses I think it is better not to change the status of Taiwan, as a country that consider itself as a part of the Republic of China. And with the claim of sovereignty of the People's Republic of China as it is one of its own provinces, if this thing is going to apply on Taiwan; it should be applied also on Arunachal Pradesh. Which is classified as an Indian state that is supposed to be classified as a disputed area. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 07:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Can we stop talking about how much recognition Taiwan has? Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If it is commonly referred to as a state, that's what we write. Ythlev (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No, according to 93% of the world, Taiwan is part of China.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

No source for your claim. And 93% of what? Have you interviewed 6.5 billion people? Ythlev (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus

If I read this right, the consensus is to label this a "state" and note the dispute about sovereignty? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. That's the longstanding wording and it is what is considered neutral. I think we should remove " neighbouring countries" thing as it implies that Taiwan is a sovereign state when 93% of the world says it is part of China. We should note the dispute.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Removing neighboring countries is just political rather than informative, objectively it would make Wikipedia worse so I think we should avoid it. Taiwan/ROC also has real neighborly relations with their neighbors, the conflicts they’ve had with China, the Philippines, and Japan over fisheries and undersea resources don’t just go away because their sovereignty is disputed. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Also just on a technical note 93% of the world does not say they’re part of China, many states recognize the PRC as the only China but they maintain relations with Taiwan. If the US or European countries considered Taiwan to be part of the PRC then they couldn’t sell it the weapons they do because selling weapons to the PRC is illegal in both the USA and the EU. Its one of the great catch-22s of international relations. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Lets discuss one issue at a time.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add “disputed” before State. I have no issue keeping it as state but I vehemently oppose the introduction of a pseudolegal term which serves no point other than to further pro-CCP POVs on Wikipedia. Île flottante (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Also two of the sources do not support the statement, e.g. "Taiwan is not generally considered a state.". Ythlev (talk) 21:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is consensus on whether it should be state or country. Can somebody share sources that refer to Taiwan as a state? I have yet to find a single article or reputable source. "Not a country" semantics smells oddly of censorship / pro PRC bias.

• Every kind of English media from very western (WSJ, BBC, FT) to al-jazeera and the hindu refer to Taiwan as a country. So this isn't a matter of Eurocentrism/Americanism.
• Taiwanese diplomatic officials refer to themselves as a country.
• The Chinese language article refers to it as a country (國家).
• They have a powerful military and complete de-facto sovereignty over their territory as per the definition of the word sovereignty (supreme power especially over a body politic). Their sovereignty is disputed but they are de-facto sovereign.
• Articles that refer to Taiwan as a country: https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/taiwans-coronavirus-protocol-shows-how-it-is-done/article31484681.ece, https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/04/29/world-health-organization-who-battleground-trump-taiwan-china/, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/04/philippines-backs-demand-taiwan-deport-worker-200430034037892.html, https://www.npr.org/2020/04/29/847308433/taiwans-coronavirus-moment-and-delicate-balancing-act, https://www.ft.com/content/6716fd83-6ac1-4219-bf1b-da1e04814289, https://www.foxnews.com/world/taiwan-shows-up-china-coronavirus-supplies, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/10/china-says-taiwan-attacks-on-who-are-venomous-aimed-at-independence.html, https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/no-taiwans-president-isnt-pro-independence/. Defaulting to "state" also makes it seem to the average reader that it is at the same level as the states in the United States which it is not. Finally, look at the number of occurrences of the word 'country' in the renaming debate when this was moved from Republic of China to Taiwan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan/Archive_20.
• Using the term "state" just makes the article confusing to read. Why don't we write like every other english language source I can find? The only places that don't refer to it as a country are places like XinHua.

User:Stephen Balaban - 09:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Rearrangement of the first paragraph

• I have made a very small move in the lede paragraph and I think this move has improved the article's lead

Here is how it was before the move:

Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia. Neighbouring states include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the north-west, Japan to the north-east, and the Philippines to the south. The island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometers (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third, where its highly urbanised population is concentrated. Taipei is the capital and largest metropolitan area. Other major cities include Kaohsiung, Taichung, Tainan and Taoyuan. With 23.7 million inhabitants, Taiwan is among the most densely populated states, and is the most populous state and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN).

Here is how it become:

Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia. The island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometers (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third, where its highly urbanised population is concentrated. Taipei is the capital and largest metropolitan area. Other major cities include Kaohsiung, Taichung, Tainan and Taoyuan. Neighbouring states include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the north-west, Japan to the north-east, and the Philippines to the south. With 23.7 million inhabitants, Taiwan is among the most densely populated states, and is the most populous state and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN).

I didnt change anything. I just moved that sentence because thats how I think all "countries" or "states" are written. The borders are not at the very beginning.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that edit SharabSalam, that definitely improves readability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

It does leave the last sentence of the paragraph curiously isolated, though. Perhaps swap the last two sentences, or move the last one after the first sentence? Kanguole 20:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Its location is more important so it should be near the beginning. Ythlev (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Seems to work for me. I'm still on the fence about using the PRC as that may incite further dispute from Chinese/Taiwanese readers but at the moment it seems okay. Augend (drop a line) 06:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no need to be concerned about what Chinese/Taiwanese readers think because Wikipedia is not censored. Rather than worrying about what readers might think, we should focus on what's factually correct. The de facto reality is that the subject of the article, regardless of whether you want to call it "Taiwan" or whether you want to call it "ROC", borders the PRC to the west, and the article already clearly mentions in great detail that there are de jure complications regarding political status. --benlisquare_T•C•E 12:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Republic of China's latest HDI data

Information to be added or removed: Update the latest data of Republic og China's HDI data. Explanation of issue: Republic of China's HDI data is said to be based on the latest version, but the official data found on the stat.gov.tw. is more reliable than the aforementioned one. References supporting change: https://www.stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=33332&CtNode=6020&mp=4 https://www.stat.gov.tw/public/Data/71228112733VTN8S5VB.pdf YuJenShih (talk) 11:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Some people really don't understand difference between facts and really. When it comes to India- 1. Jammu and Kashmir is a part of India, but India knows that a part of J&K is occupied by Pakistan. 2.India claims that Aksai Chin is a inseparable part of India and it will be always, but India also acknowledge the truth that China has it at least for now. But when it comes to China- 1.China claims Arunachal Pradesh, also knows that it's an Indian State. But still China want it and behave like they don't know the truth. 2. China claims Taiwan, despite Taiwan is a another country.

The difference is that India acknowledge the truth, China doesn't. Kushal2024 (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have a conflict-of-interest? You have a COI in this subject area if you are working for the Taiwanese government. Otherwise, make the edit yourself and remove the {{request edit}} template. Aasim 20:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

The requesting editor has not confirmed a COI relationship. Template set to answered. If the requestor wishes to proceed, please disclose whether there is a COI or not, and re-open the template. Regards,  Spintendo  15:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Republic of China (Taiwan)

REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN)

Regarding the question of the English language name for this government, I think it's clear that the government heavily favors the formulation "Republic of China (Taiwan)" over a straight "Republic of China". I am just following what the existing, functional government is saying about itself. The argument for "Republic of China" seems to be favoring the PRC's position on the Constitution of the Republic of China, and that's not really interesting compared to the following collection of links where a living, breathing, fully operational government is declaring itself to be "Republic of China (Taiwan)" since at least 2008. English Wikipedia is not supposed to be a pro-Chinese Communist Party website- it's supposed to be a neutral, unbiased source of information for the English speaking audience. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ROC_Taiwan_Area_Resident_Certificate_sample_20081001.png https://english.president.gov.tw/ "Office of the President Republic of China (Taiwan)"; https://english.moe.gov.tw/mp-1.htmlhttwww.mofa.gov.tw/en/ "Copyright © 2014 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) All Rights Reserved."; https://www.taiwan.gov.tw/ "Copyright © 2018 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of China (Taiwan) "; cf. https://www.matsu.gov.tw/Enhtml/Index "Taiwan (R.O.C.) https://www.taiwan.gov.tw/images/content/ts.JPG%7Ctitle=TAIWAN SNAPSHOT Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:10, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

You may say that it's awkward that the English language name of this government includes parentheses in this manner. Well, go talk to them about it my friends! It's not my fault. Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

It's really the government's fault. Doing so for English but not Chinese opens the door for this kind of dispute. Ythlev (talk) 07:58, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

The constitution of the ROC does not add any parentheses after the formal name. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

In Chinese. Ythlev (talk) 17:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

The ROC gov't isn’t adding "(Taiwan)" because it’s part of the official name, it’s adding the common name, Taiwan, as a parenthetical descriptor so that people will know what country they’re referring to. Phlar (talk) 03:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

It does not seem so in this quote from president Tsai "We are an independent country already and we call ourselves the Republic of China (Taiwan)."[18]. There is no law specifying the English official name, so the government could use different names flexibly, and adjust the name to fit the political stance of the party in power. Also in this government publication [19] it explicitly says the official name is Republic of China (Taiwan)--Visaliaw (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Interesting citations. I wonder how the BBC concluded that she intended to put “Taiwan” in parenthesis, given that she was speaking, not writing. She could have just as easily meant it to be separated with a comma instead of parens. They also added “the” before “Republic of China” even though she clearly didn’t say “THE Republic of China” in the interview. But that’s beside the point—your MOFA reference clearly supports the inclusion of “(Taiwan)” in the official name. Phlar (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The website of the office of the president shows the full text of that interview.[20].--Visaliaw (talk) 05:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

The official name of Taiwan is simply the Republic of China, pursuant to its constitution. Quetstar (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The constitution is in Chinese. It does not say 中華民國 should to be translated into Republic of China.--Visaliaw (talk) 02:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The arguments here don't make much sense to me. The official English translation of Côte d'Ivoire is Côte d'Ivoire, yet we call it Ivory Coast. So we don't follow the English translations of governments anyway. 中華民國 has always been translated in English as Republic of China. It doesn't seem neutral to me to change that. Also, many government websites still write Republic of China, without reference to Taiwan. Are they less official? De wafelenbak (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Your analogy doesn't make sense to me. The Ivory coast article says "officially the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire", which follows the English translation of the government.--Visaliaw (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Until a consensus is reached, the long form should not be altered. As De wafelenbak points out, other government sites still refer to the ROC as just the "ROC" even the presidency The introduction to the Constitution and from the Mainland Affairs Council the Act Governing Relations Between the Mainland Area and the Taiwan Area. --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The title of your link is Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan). The English constitution on the website does not have legal validity equivalent to that of the Chinese version. Actually government websites uses all three names Republic of China, Republic of China(Taiwan), and Taiwan to refer to the state. The most prevalent out of the three is Taiwan, see the title and contents of those government news announcements[21][22][23]. The current article preferring Republic of China over the other two names is not neutral. Republic of China (Taiwan) is a compromise of the three names. --Visaliaw (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, I am able to read thank you, I did not provide the link to be told about the title of the link, I'm aware of that. It is the content within the link which I used. As to the English constitution not having equal standing with the Chinese version, well, you'd probably find the latter referring more to "Republic of China." In what way will ANY of the names ever be truly "Neutral?" The constitutional title of the state is Republic of China, which has long been accepted, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find consensus to change it any time soon. Otherwise, we'd be in a position where we'd be saying "officially the Republic of China (Taiwan)" and constitutionally the Republic of China, which makes things even more longwinded."

"The current article preferring Republic of China over the other two names is not neutral." Actually, I'd say the fact that the title of the article is already at its common name means that this should be a non-issue, at least in the grander scheme of things, and if you actually read the article of the state, you'd see it being referred to as Taiwan far more than your implication. Even within the lead paragraphs, it is referred to as "Taiwan", so I'm actually struggling to understand why this should be an issue at all.--Tærkast (Discuss) 17:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The Chinese name 中華民國 does not automatically translate to Republic of China in English, you are confusing two different things.

• 中華民國律師公會 is "Taiwan Bar association" in English [24]
• 中華民國內分泌學會 is "The Endocrine Society of the Republic of China (Taiwan)" in English[25]
• 中華民國棒球協會 is "Chinese Taipei baseball association" in English[26]
• 中華民國全國漁會 is "National Fishermen's Association Taiwan, R.O.C" in English [27]

The translation of the constitution you provided is one datapoint how the government translates the name, but the constitution itself only says the Chinese name is 中華民國, and did not designate the English name.

While I say the current article preferring Republic of China, I mean the current article saying the official name is "Republic of China" is not neutral. The official name should reflect the government's usage, while the government does not prefer "Republic of China" over other names.

How about changing the first sentence into: Taiwan, officially also the Republic of China or the Republic of China(Taiwan)?--Visaliaw (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably the best way to do it. We should keep the constitutional name in the inbox, however Republic of China (Taiwan) is highly used by the government. --Tærkast (Discuss) 12:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

No, that is just absurd. The addition provides no additional information. Ythlev (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you suggest? The purpose of the addition is not to provide additional information but to maintain neutrality, since both names are used by the government. I don't understand why you think it is absurd. As other editors have told you below, it would be more constructive if you could review the previous discussions and provide an argument for your reasoning..--Visaliaw (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how replacing a Taiwan and an ROC with 2 Taiwans and 2 ROCs is any more neutral.Ythlev (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that websites are not official documents, but passports are, and they say Republic of China in the Nationality field. Ythlev (talk) 10:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

If you read the discussion above, this sections starts with an official document using Republic of China (Taiwan)--Visaliaw (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence needs to be easily readable. Adding another variant of the "official" name would make it much harder to read. The subtleties of the government’s various and inconsistent naming conventions do not need to be described in the first sentence. The current wording informs the reader that this state goes by "Taiwan," "Republic of China" and "ROC". This covers all the bases—we don’t need to list other combinations of these three monikers.

We already have the following sentence in the Etymology section: In some contexts, especially ROC government publications, the name is written as "Republic of China (Taiwan)", "Republic of China/Taiwan", or sometimes "Taiwan (ROC)". Maybe the problem with the first sentence lies in the word "officially". Do we have to declare an official name in the first sentence? How about changing "officially" to "also called"? And perhaps the discussion in Etymology could be expanded, maybe even given its own " Official name" subsection. Phlar (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Many people believe Taiwan and ROC are different. Ythlev (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m not sure who is included in your "many people," but the average American isn't sure that Taiwan is not Thailand, has never heard of the "ROC" and doesn't see a difference between "Republic of China" and "People’s Republic of China" ("isn't the former just a shortened version of the latter?"). The first sentence needs to be written with these average readers in mind. Phlar (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

The many users who would revert such a change. Ythlev (talk) 06:56, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

No matter what we write the first sentence will constantly be challenged and edited. We as a community of editors have to come to a consensus on what it should say and then maintain/defend that. Phlar (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

What it should say is of course what is most agreeable.The most agreeable statement is that Taiwan is the common name of the state officially named ROC. Ythlev (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I belive we should follow the constitution, which states that the official name is the Republic of China. Quetstar (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I believe we should follow the living ROC (Taiwan)'s interpretation of its own constitution and legal framework rather than the PRC's interpretation of that constitution. That ROC (Taiwan) interpretation can be seen on the English language documents and websites generated throughout the ROC (Taiwan) territory, including Quemoy and Matsu and the PRC interpretation is not really relevant except on the Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China page where PRC claims are documented. Geographyinitiative (talk) 05:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC) (modified)

If you read the discussion above, I provided an argument about the constitution only specifying the Chinese name but not English name.--Visaliaw (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The passport does. Ythlev (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Full Protection is not necessary

The editors are civil enough at this time to make necessary changes without breaking Wikipedia laws. Regice2020 (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

There appear to be two separate content disputes, one is being addressed by the RFC above and the other one seems more easily addressed by warning the two or three editors involved (I checked their talk pages and they don’t appear to have been warned) and topic banning them if it doesn't stop than shutting down the page of a major nation for two weeks. I will note though that neither of those disputes as far as I can see has gotten out of hand, I see no real nastiness or violations of 3rr. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW I'm the editor who requested the protection. It seems to me that 90%+ of the last several months' of editing are just edit warring over the "ROC"/"Taiwan" and "country"/"state", and I count well over a dozen editors involved in this long, slow edit war. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 15:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

And I see no reason to assume this...will not stop.Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

We have consensus on the "ROC"/“Taiwan” thing and it seems we are about to have consensus on the "country"/“state” thing. If we can turn the ROC vs ROC (Taiwan) as the official name thread into a RFC we can solve all three problems being argued over. Once we have established consensus we can take strong action against those who edit against it and the problem should be over soon enough. We might keep having to whack-a-mole new accounts and IPs but thats the case on hundreds if not thousands of pages. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Official name is not determined by consensus, but by the founding document of the nation. The government and others can use any other names as AKA, but official name remained unchanged unless there is an amendment to change it. --Will74205 (talk) 05:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The Constitution of Australia affirms that New Zealand is a state of Australia, the Constitution of the United States guarantees personal privacy, and the Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Let's not put constitutions on a pedestal here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 06:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem arrises in that we use the english language here and most of the founding documents of nations around the world are not in english, if thats your argument then the official name section should be filled with traditional Chinese characters not english text. For many countries their name in english is different from their name in their native tongue, sometimes to the point of being literally unrelated. Thats why we use consensus even if at first it seems silly and yes if all the constitutions of the world were written in english it *would* be silly but they aren’t. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

We should definitely have an RFC on what the official name of Taiwan is. There seems to be a contingent of editors who think the term "Taiwan" shares an equal official status with "Republic of China," going as far as putting the official name as Republic of China (Taiwan), or editing the opening entry to imply "Republic of China" as just an alternative name to "Taiwan" with no larger official/constitutional significance. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 21:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The current preferred name of the Taiwanese Government is Republic of China (Taiwan) if you’re wondering where that "contingent of editors” gets the idea (I think you may have misinterpreted the arguments being made there). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

"Republic of China" is the official name, as enshrined in the constitution, unless there is an amendment to change it, all other names are AKA.--Will74205 (talk) 05:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Just like the "state" vs "country" rfc above, there are a few things that need to be considered: 1) What the entity calls itself via reliable primary sources. 2) What the entity is called by reliable secondary sources. 3) How the general public recognizes the entity. There is more to any story than just the constitution of a country. Wikipedia needs to take a NPOV stance that is not influenced by either side of a debate / religious war. Stephen Balaban 08:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Personally I reserve judgement on what the official name is but I know its one of those debates in which there is no clearly right side... The situation I’m faced with now is that Will74205 says they knows what the country’s official name is and the president of the country says she knows what the name is, they are in disagreement. You apparently expect me to take your word, that of some sketchy rando on the internet, over the word of the president of the country in question. Do you see why you being so sure of yourself comes off a little hollow? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Kinmen and Matsu

Hi guys, a Wikipedia newbie here. I feel like it is quite necessary to address the status of Kinmen and Matsu within the political entity in the lead paragraph as to give a complete overview of the political entity, just like how the Chinese Wikipedia page for this does （ I am referring to this one: "實轄領土面積36,197平方公里，包括臺灣本島及附屬島嶼、澎湖群島、部分福建沿岸島嶼與部分南海諸島"). Will attach a translation if needed. Any ideas? Cycw (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Obviously you’re going to need to attach a translation. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry! I had other work to do yesterday. Cycw (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The lead paragraph briefly covers Kinmen and Matsu, albeit without directly referring to the islands by name, with the line Although the ROC government continued to claim to be the legitimate representative of China, since 1950 its effective jurisdiction has been limited to Taiwan and numerous smaller islands; users are then able to click the link should they desire to learn more about those outlying islands. --benlisquare_T•C•E 03:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, okay. I see it. But this brings up a problem on what the article should focus on because it is titled as "Taiwan". Kinmen and Matsu are not geographically part of Taiwan, but the political entity controls Kinmen and Matsu. So wouldn't this become a bit ambiguous and would not give accurate information (the difference between the geographic and political differences)? I think the Chinese Wikipedia does a relatively good job about this.Cycw (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Wait, why don't we just call this article "Republic of China (Taiwan)" which implies that this is about the political concept? That would be nice. Cycw (talk) 21:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the country of Taiwan. --Khajidha (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So what are you trying to say?Cycw (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

The country that you're talking about does not call itself just "Taiwan" as in what happens when you go to their official website. Cycw (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not bound by "official" terminology. The name of this country in general English usage is Taiwan. It includes the island of the same name and the surrounding minor islands under its control. --Khajidha (talk) 22:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't make the country's name "Taiwan". There is an entire party called the Kuomintang that would defend the name "the Republic of China". Also this would not comply under Wikipedia's NPOV policy as this is biased toward the Green camp. So are most mainstream media, I should point out. Cycw (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so that was a bit of a slight tangent. I suggest that we mention Kinmen and Matsu right after The island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometers (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third, where its highly urbanised population is concentrated as they are quite important. Cycw (talk) 22:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Already mentioned later in the lead ("its effective jurisdiction has been limited to Taiwan and numerous smaller islands."). As well as the Geography section.--Khajidha (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

I meant right after the sentence. Sorry for any confusion. Cycw (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

So can I move that, I guess? Moving the description earlier and modifying it reflects the strategic importance of Kinmen and Matsu within the political entity. Cycw (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I think what we have now is sufficient. With the exception of Kinmen the minor outlying islands are just that, minor. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

So can I add the bit about Kinmen then? That was literally all that I wanted to do. Cycw (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems like undue weight to give to such a minor thing.--Khajidha (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Don’t add it to the lead—undue weight as Khajidha wrote. If you must, expand one of the sections where Kinmen & Matsu are already mentioned in the body. Phlar (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Cycw (talk) 03:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended content

Well, If it only describes the geography of the island of Taiwan and not that of Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu in the lead paragraph, this would be hardly be sufficient for an encyclopedic article, where we strive for rigorousness. The point is, it is missing roughly 2% of the territory of the political entity, and by not placing a description of it in the lead paragraph, it is implying that these territories are not important, when they clearly are. Cycw (talk) 19:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC) Clearly? I don't see how they are important. Ythlev (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC) OK. So, first of all, Kinmen and Matsu are the first line of defense for the ROC from the PLA, and they are also a major factor to prevent Taiwanese independence, as in that if Taiwan is to declare independence from China (no matter what China means to you), They take these two regions with them while, since it is Taiwanese independence, they will have taken regions that are not geographically part of Taiwan, thus causing an invasion to the Chinese Mainland, and China is in its right to invade Taiwan (Kinmen and Matsu are very blue themselves too). So say they give it back to China, and they draw the border at the midline of the strait. They would be defenseless. All China has to do is to make the Penghu landing, which is what Koxinga did. And considering the difference in strength of the two militaries, the PLA can easily take over. And since China and America agreed that America would stay out if neither Beijing nor Taipei change the status quo, Taiwan would be sure to lose. So there you go - why Kinmen and Matsu are important. You are still trying to distinguish between "Taiwan the island" and "Taiwan the country". If the ROC declares independence as a country called Taiwan, the fact that these are separate islands is pretty well irrelevant. They are currently under Taiwanese jurisdiction and would remain so. Nothing would have changed and no "invasion" of the mainland would have occurred. --Khajidha (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Ah. Here we go again. To quote another Wikipedia article, "The Taiwan independence movement is a political and social movement that aims to establish an officially independent sovereign state and new country on the archipelagic territory of "Formosa and Pescadores", based on a unique "Taiwanese national identity"." It says "Formosa (Taiwan Island) and Pescadores (Penghu)", with no mentioning of Kinmen and Matsu. So, they would be invading China if they do not give Kinmen and Matsu back. Also, the idea that the common name of the "Republic of China" is "Taiwan" is mostly, if not entirely, a Pan-Green idea, so, again, you would be breaking Wikipedia's NPOV policy by insisting that Taiwan is a country or, for what you said, "Taiwan the country". Cycw (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Also, just to clarify, the Taiwanese independence we are talking about here is not a movement of ROC renaming itself Taiwan, but the geographic Taiwan breaking itself apart from de facto ROC. Renaming is a whole other thing, as it is already assuming the Taiwan is already a country. Cycw (talk) 03:05, 14 May 2020 (UTC) You need to reread the article Taiwan independence movement, as your description does not line up with all proponents of such. And the "idea that the common name of the "Republic of China" is "Taiwan" " has nothing to do with the Pan-Greens or any other Taiwanese political party, it is simply an objective description of the de facto situation. --Khajidha (talk) 03:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC) So are you saying that "The Republic of China is Taiwan" is commonly accepted then? Cycw (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC) In English language usage, yes. Hence why the page is named as it is. --Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Now, that is a Pan-Green ideology, and just because it is in a different language and is supported by almost every mainstream medium does not mean it is not biased, because in Taiwan, the issue is definitely split 50/50, as the Pan-Blue coalition does not support it. Why not take into account the voice of all Taiwanese? A brief history of how this came about: "the ROC comes to Taiwan" --> "the ROC on Taiwan" (Lee Teng-hui) --> "the ROC is Taiwan" (Chen Shui-bian, Tsai Ing-wen). Cycw (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Oh, and for Tsai Ing-wen, It is better to say that her idea is to call the political entity the Republic of China - Taiwan （中華民國台灣）, although there are no really 100% fitting translations. Whatever the Pan-Greens or any other Taiwanese political party believes is beside the point. The concept that "The Republic of China is Taiwan" is simply the conception that has developed in the English speaking world. --Khajidha (talk) 17:27, 14 May 2020 (UTC) And that is biased. And Wikipedia is not supposed to be biased. What is stopping anyone to add a phrase of description on how big Kinmen and Matsu are after mentioning how big Taiwan island is? Cycw (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Dude, you’re out of line. Accusing the entire community of bias is well beyond the subject matter at hand here. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Yes, I do realize that. Don't take it as me not respecting all of your opinions - I do. My original suggestion was to add a line of description here - "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia. Neighbouring states include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the north-west, Japan to the north-east, and the Philippines to the south. The island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometers (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third, where its highly urbanised population is concentrated. The two groups of islands off the shore of the Chinese Mainland that are controlled by the political entity, Kinmen and Matsu, have a combined area of 179.26 square kilometers (69.217 sq mi). Taipei is the capital and largest metropolitan area. Other major cities include Kaohsiung, Taichung, Tainan and Taoyuan. With 23.7 million inhabitants, Taiwan is among the most densely populated states, and is the most populous state and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)." Thanks for the reminder. Cycw (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Kinmen and Matsu are the first line of defense for the ROC. I don't know what you mean by being "the first line of defense" but the Ministry of Defense publicly stated that in the event of an invasion, Kinmen and Matsu would have to defend themselves. They are effectively exclaves like West Berlin, which I wouldn't call a line of defense. they will have taken regions that are not geographically part of Taiwan, thus causing an invasion to the Chinese Mainland, and China is in its right to invade Taiwan. Don't be silly. Wars are rarely fought with legitimacy in mind. If you want to talk about legitimacy, Kinmen and Matsu are internationally recognised as a part of China, and China is internationally recognised as the PRC, so keeping Kinmen and Matsu is an act of rebellion. Cracking down rebellion, while often condemned, is not against international law. The ROC can expel Kinmen and Matsu, like how Malaysia expelled Singapore, then declare independence, completely legitimately. Ythlev (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2020 (UTC) So that's why they re unimportant? Cycw (talk) 19:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Because legitimacy is unimportant. It does not decide wars or diplomacy or everyday life. Kinmen and Matsu are no different from Penghu. Ythlev (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC) And, referring to your last sentence, the ROC declaring independence from whom? Cycw (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC) I meant ROC changing its name to Taiwan, renouncing its mainland territory etc, whatever you meant. Ythlev (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC) Not only is this bit "Kinmen and Matsu are internationally recognised as a part of China, and China is internationally recognised as the PRC, so keeping Kinmen and Matsu is an act of rebellion. Cracking down rebellion, while often condemned, is not against international law. The ROC can expel Kinmen and Matsu, like how Malaysia expelled Singapore, then declare independence, completely legitimately.” off topic its also facepalm level wrong. The mental gymnastics you have to do to arrive at that position are wild even by the standards of the China-Taiwan conflict. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Which part? Ythlev (talk) 06:13, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 May 2020

Change state to country Sherman1647 (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan to pass bill officially recognising the People's Republic of China

The situation is likely to significantly change within the coming month, Taiwan's government is aiming to pass a new law officially recognising the People's Republic of China's territorial control over the Chinese mainland, and officially recognising the People's Republic of China as a legitimate country.

中華民國尊重中華人民共和國占領大陸淪陷區之歷史事實，並承認中華人民共和國之主權。
Translation: The Republic of China respects the historical fact that the People's Republic of China controls the territory of the occupied area of the mainland, and recognises the sovereignty of the People's Republic of China.

Currently the DPP holds a majority of seats in parliament, so given that the Anti-infiltration Act took approximately one month to pass, we'll likely see a similar timeframe for this particular bill (although we should still wait and see, given WP:CRYSTAL). If this bill passes, this will be the biggest dramatic change to the China-Taiwan situation since the constitutional reforms in 2005; the current position since 1991 is that the ROC states that it does not effectively administer ROC territory outside of the Free area of the Republic of China while not formally renouncing the territory; this new bill officially renounces all territory outside of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu Islands, Dongsha Islands and Taiping Island. --benlisquare_T•C•E 18:35, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Here is the actual bill: [28]. It makes no mention of the PRC. As for territory, the constitution already uses the "free area", so this is not that much of a change. Ythlev (talk) 19:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

How do you not see the mentioning of the PRC? It is the third item on the second page, which is quoted above! Cycw (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That is the explanation of why the bill is proposed, not the law itself. Ythlev (talk) 20:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

First of all, a bill is obviously not the law, and secondly, I was asking you how you did not see the mentioning of the PRC (which may be that there is a confusion here). Now that we got stuff cleared up, it is important that we know that the ROC does not recognize the PRC yet, and the bill (or the explanation, as you mentioned) is saying that the ROC recognizes the sovereignty of the PRC, which, if the bill will be passed, will become the truth. So let's go from here? Cycw (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

The bill is the PROPOSED law. And the bill itself does not mention the PRC, just as Ythlev said. --Khajidha (talk) 21:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. But how are we going to add this? Cycw (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

We aren't. At least not until after the vote.--Khajidha (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Cycw (talk) 23:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I've briefly skimmed through the text, and you're right in that it does not mention the PRC within the bill itself, I stand corrected. My question is that, wouldn't there be quite a difference between merely delimiting different areas of territory (one administered, one not administered) without relinquishing it, and officially de jure stating that the territory is no longer yours? Especially in regards to international relations and diplomacy? --benlisquare_T•C•E 23:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, the Mainland won't like it. Other countries probably don't care. Cycw (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

It practically makes no difference. Kinmen and Matsu are internationally recognised as part of China, but if the PRC invades, that would still not be okay for the international community. Ythlev (talk) 04:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Wrong section...? Cycw (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I mean, both sections are about technicalities and ceremonial facts instead of actual significance. Ythlev (talk) 06:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

This is not a recognition of the PRC, it is simply a rewording of the Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area to remove the explicit reference to reunification. It doesn't change anything to the ROC constitution or to territory claimed by the ROC. To recognize the PRC, the ROC would have to relinquish its own claim to Mainland China, but to do that a three-quarter majority in the Legislative Yuan is required AND over 50% has to agree in a referendum. It's not that easy. De wafelenbak (talk) 10:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

No, whether the constitution claims mainland China is under dispute. The constitution merely says the territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries. What you are saying is the KMT's interpretion of the constitution. In 1993, DPP legislators argued that mainland China is not included in the "existing national boundaries" mentioned in the constitution. They asked the Judicial Yuan, who has legal power to interpret the Constitution, to clarify this issue. The judical yuan denied to interpret what "existing national boundaries" include, saying this is a significant political question and beyond the reach of judicial review. [29][30] The dispute has not yet been resolved since then. Recently, KMT legislators are still asking the DPP premier and judical yuan nominees to assert that the constitution claims mainland China, while they still avoid making such claims. [31][32]--Visaliaw (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I didn't know the DPP actually disputed that (I thought they were only unhappy with it). De wafelenbak (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wiki已成管理員霸權牟利工具，隨意封鎖使用者

Wiki已成管理員霸權牟利工具，隨意封鎖使用者 Km212 (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Translation: Wikipedia has already become that admins are being rogue and using the administrative tools to get profit, and randomly blocking users -- Wikipedia is not a forum for random free speech. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:29, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Km212: I would tend to agree with this sentiment. Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

• Alternative translation: Wikipedia has become a tool for dominance and personal profit by admins, who block (or lock out) users as they please. Phlar (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Should I bring this up at WP:ANI? Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 02:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC) account was a sock puppet of a user blocked in the Chinese Wikipedia. Disruption on the Chinese articles related to Taiwan. Should keep an eye on this. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

For what purpose? Phlar (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Nah, if it weren't a grievance carried over to enwiki like this I'd like to take such claims of abuse seriously. But now he's a blocked user on the Chinese Wikipedia complaining of free speech and other nonsense issues, forget about that. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 03:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Lai Ching-te

Lai Ching-te was sworn in today as Vice President of the Republic of China, replacing Chen Chien-jen on May 20th, 2020. Please update soon to ensure timeliness. Check Wikipedia article for VP and Chinese Wikipedia for verification. Also please notify me if you can when the edit is made. Thank you. --AsianHippie (talk) 04:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

(another editor expressing concerns same as above) Lai Ching-te is the new Vice President of the Republic of China, replacing Chen Chien-jen per today. See this news report on ITV website. On the second photo the caption is: President Tsai Ing-wen, center left, waves with Vice President Lai Ching-te after their inauguration ceremony.

Please update the infobox and replace Chen's name with Lai's. Thank you. Flix11 (talk) 07:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have updated the infobox. Are any updates required elsewhere and can someone draft a prose update on the recent election? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I'll do it. May take a few hours since I have quite a few meetings in the morning (such is life under work from home). Thank you for your help in the update! Also, do you know why the article is fully protected now? Too much trolling going on (again)? --AsianHippie (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 20 May 2020 (3)

Place the {{pp-dispute}} template on the very, very top, as in the following:

Change

{{short description|Country in East Asia}}
{{redirect|Republic of China|the preceding state in mainland China|Republic of China (1912–1949)|the People's Republic of China|China|other uses|Taiwan (disambiguation)|and|Republic of China (disambiguation)}}
{{pp-dispute}}

to

{{pp-dispute}}
{{short description|Country in East Asia}}
{{redirect|Republic of China|the preceding state in mainland China|Republic of China (1912–1949)|the People's Republic of China|China|other uses|Taiwan (disambiguation)|and|Republic of China (disambiguation)}}

Thanks. Eumat114 formerly TLOM (Message) 10:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please see MOS:ORDER — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 May 2020

Change the Human Development Index (HDI) from 0.880 to 0.911. The 0.911 figure comes from the National Statistics website of Taiwan: https://www.stat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=33332&CtNode=6020&mp=4 The currently displayed 0.880 figure cites a third-party website database, the Global Data Lab (https://globaldatalab.org/shdi/), which sources its data from an article in the journal Scientific Data (https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201938), yet that article also cites the National Statistics website of Taiwan, which clearly states the HDI for 2018 is 0.911. It is unclear what caused this mistake on the Global Data Lab website. I see that there is already a request for this on the Talk page dating April 2020 but I'm not sure why it hasn't been addressed. Masonwu1995 (talk) 07:16, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: We tend to trust third parties over governments, as a government is always going to give a rosier picture of themselves. If you can get folks to agree that the addition is good by discussing and building consensus, please make another request. But for the time being, I think that is not an appropriate change, especially while under full protection. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What a long route of almost circular citation. I don't saw any point against to use official figure if the citation that wikipedia is currently using, is citing Global Data Lab and in turn a journal article and in turn Taiwan official data. But i would say did World Bank or UN made their own calculation for Taiwan or due to Taiwan is not fully recognize as sovereign state, there is no data from World Bank / UN? (Yet i knew the World Bank database was in fact stating official government data sometimes) Matthew hk (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Early settlement

I have again reverted an edit pasting in text from the Taiwanese indigenous peoples article.

For a start, the pasted text does not fit where it is inserted: it begins with "their ancestors", which in the context of the source article referred to Taiwanese indigenous peoples, but is here placed immediately after mention of a paleolithic culture. The spliced text "Austronesian peoples are believed to be the ancestors of today's Taiwanese indigenous peoples, whose languages belong to the Austronesian language family" is just nonsense.

Moreover, "living on Taiwan for approximately 5,500 years in relative isolation before ... the 17th century" does not contradict the archaeological evidence that neolithic farmers arrived on the island about 6,000 years ago (the Dapenkeng culture). Indeed the Taiwanese indigenous peoples article leaves the question hanging.

Finally, it is already stated in the article that the Taiwan is believed to be the urheimat of the Austronesian languages. Kanguole 10:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Your assertion that the Taiwanese indigenous people are "most likely from mainland China," is in contradiction to the Taiwanese indigenous peoples Wikipedia page in which the Taiwan page sites as a reference. The Taiwanese indigenous Wikipedia page states, "Taiwanese indigenous peoples are Austronesian peoples," and mainland China is not listed on the Austronesian peoples Wikipedia page as a place where Austronesian people come from. There is a genetic study done in 2014 to back up this claim. Archeology interpretations are not as accurate as genetic testing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4083334/

1. Taiwan Wikipedia page references Taiwan indigenous peoples Wikipedia page for origins of the earliest Taiwan people.

2. Taiwan indigenous peoples Wikipedia page says that they are Austronesian people and references the Austronesian peoples page.

3. Austronesian peoples Wikipedia page has a map that does not include mainland China.

Your statement:

""Austronesian peoples are believed to be the ancestors of today's Taiwanese indigenous peoples, whose languages belong to the Austronesian language family" is just nonsense."

Where is the non factual part of the sentence? Placement is a matter of taste for each individual writer.

The Dapenkeng culture Wikipedia page, which you site, further supports my point. I will quote from that page. "Most scholars believe this culture was brought across the Taiwan Strait by the ancestors of today's Taiwanese aborigines, speaking early Austronesian languages." The page clearly says that it was only the culture that was brought over by Taiwanese aborigines and does not mention anyone coming to Taiwan from mainland China.

Taiwan being the urheimat of Austronesian languages further supports that the Taiwanese indigenous people did not come from mainland China, as the Austronesian people are all from the south of Taiwan. :People from mainland China are not Austronesian people.

~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dog Star 122333 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan being the urheimat of Austronesian languages means that Austronesian languages spread from Taiwan (around 4,000–5000 years ago) to island Southeast Asia and the Pacific. The genetic study confirms that. It says nothing about how the people got to Taiwan before that.

As for Dapenkeng, you have quoted the sentence "Most scholars believe this culture was brought across the Taiwan Strait by the ancestors of today's Taiwanese aborigines, speaking early Austronesian languages." But you seem not to have understood it. Perhaps you think Paleolithic Taiwanese went on study tours to the mainland and brought back Neolithic culture. You won't find any literature to support that. Rather the consensus is that Dapenkeng represented an influx of people, and was unconnected with the Paleolithic population.

The problem with "Austronesian peoples are believed to be the ancestors of today's Taiwanese indigenous peoples, whose languages belong to the Austronesian language family" is that "Austronesian peoples" are just people who speak Austronesian languages, so the sentence is a pointless tautology. Kanguole 12:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted this addition over similar concerns. I'm not sure what the Blust source is, but if it's from 1999 I don't think it counts as recent research. I am also concerned about drawing too definite a connection between language and genetics. They're often related, but I don't think the source provided supports certainty in the text. (Others may.) CMD (talk) 16:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a broad consensus the homeland of early Austronesian peoples is Taiwan, but it's also believed that they have descended from ancestral populations in coastal mainland southern China. See Austronesian_peoples#Neolithic_China. --DRIZZLE (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

That first statement has broad census, that second on only has a bare consensus and there are significant opposing viewpoints (primarily because there is almost no evidence thats what happened, it just makes the most sense). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussing neutrality

Are we in consensus for these edits: [33] - adding "disputed" to the beginning as it is a disputed state w/ extremely limited recognition /// also removing the PRC as a neighbor (implying that the PRC and Taiwan are different nations) per the One-China policy that both nations adhere to

[34] - replacing "threatening language" with "objections"; replacing "called upon" (implying that it's a universally accepted good cause) with "requested" and democracy replaced with "de facto independence"

[35] - while the preceding editor didn't know that the Chinese Civil War led to the Retreat to Taiwan, I'm assuming other editors here would. This replaces the term "fall of the Mainland" (the only place where the term fall appears is in Western propoganda) with "the retreat to Taiwan as a result of the Chinese Civil War."

[36] < this edit shows the extent of the lack of neutrality in the article. Augend (talk) 19:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

EDIT: I would like to clarify a couple points:

 > Fall of China refers to the fall of China to communism, not the fall of the ROC. This is wrong because as Wikipedia, we're supposed to be as neutral as possible. Capitalism and communism are different ideas, it's not as if one is superior to the other.

 > Nowhere did I say that the ROC wasn't a state, I just said we needed to add such terms as "disputed" to eliminate accusations of Selective reporting
 > Paraphrased from Jimbo Wales' September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

   >> Both parties/sides (the majority) accept the One-China Policy and thus this view should be expressed in the article.

I strongly oppose your proposed edits. It's very clear that you're trying to push a pro China POV and it's not constructive at all. Other editors have raised this concern when they corrected reverted your edits. Île flottante (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: While it may sound as such, to a third party terms like the "fall of China" provides such connotations as "the right and just cause has failed" - which is not at all neutral. Also, such terms as "called upon the international community" vs. "requested assistance from the international community" and "democracy" both provide connotations as "Taiwan > PRC," which naturally isn't really neutral either. The state is disputed. I strongly advise you read the Kosovo page. Just because Taiwan has a different political structure does not mean it gets a page any different than the Kosovo one. Do you agree? Also, what happened to the One China policy? Both nations agree to it but we're still here insisting that they are different nations. Kosovo is referred to as a partially-recognized state in Southeast Europe, subject to a territorial dispute with the Republic of Serbia... I think you yourself are being slightly pro-Taiwan here; this appears to be Selective reporting. Augend (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: To reiterate, the "loss of China" refers, in U.S. political discourse, to the unexpected Communist Party takeover of mainland China from the American-backed Nationalists in 1949, and therefore the "loss of China to communism". --- from our own Wikipedia page for "loss of China" - so I mean our own page calls it "American political discourse", implying that the status quo for "fall of China" isn't neutral; instead it uses a term from American political discourse - and the American standpoint on this matter is far from neutral. Augend (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with and reject your comparison between the articles covering Kosovo and Taiwan. The situations share no historical or political similarity. Moreover, editors are not bound by precedent in some stare decisis -esque fashion. The fall of China to communism is a fairly common turn of phrase. The one China policy does not bind Wikipedia. Île flottante (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you've completely proved your pro-Taiwan views on this point. They share all political similarity - fraught by communism and as a result of communism embroiled in conflict. Both Kosovo and Taiwan are disputed states. Thus descriptions on their status must be reasonably similar. One can't just go around calling a place a "state" with 14 countries recognizing it and go on another article calling another place a "partially-recognized state with as the subject of a territorial dispute" (mind you the second one has 115 countries recognizing it while Taiwan has 14, a difference of more than 100). The fall of China to communism is a term, again, present only in American propaganda. It is seldomly used out of the United States and the term is seen as derogatory to Communist Chinese persons. Surely you don't want to offend people here... replacing it to "the retreat of ROC forces to Taiwan" should be more accurate. I would like to reiterate: fall implies going downwards - fall of something to a cause implies that it has dropped to a lower level. That is blatantly wrong. Capitalism and communism are ideas, just different ideas, that's all. It's not as if one is worse than the other, and if you think that one is better than the other you are in no position to be commenting on this topic. As I said, it is important to make a clarification between de facto and de jure. De jure the One Policy is the accepted norm, and nothing you say will change anything about it. De facto is different. That is why it was so important to use these terms, see edit 2. Please don't bring your personal views in here. If you think China "fell" to a lower position on October 1st, 1949, then please excuse yourself from this discussion. Thank you. Augend (talk) 00:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

A State is defined in international law as having three characteristics (codified un article 1 of the Montevideo convention): a defined population, a defined territory and a government able to exercise control over the two. Taiwan has all of these and is therefore a state. Whether one or one hundred other states formally recognise that is immaterial. It’s only due to modern Chinese imperialism that other states don’t both recognise both Taiwan and China. If China didn’t pursue a hostile foreign policy mixed with repressive and discriminatory domestic policies, Taiwan would probably have long since formally changed its constitution. There’s really no point continuing to post this sort of pro-CCP nonsense because you’re unlikely to convince anyone. That other countries don’t recognise Taiwan is simply due to China’s international bullying, not due to any deeply held conviction on the sovereignty over the territory of Taiwan. Île flottante (talk) 02:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think you may be going in the direction of creating a straw man here. Calling edits "pro-CCP nonsense" isn't going to be constructive in a discussion. Straying away from association fallacy may also be a good idea, there is no need to introduce such strong language in these discussions. Mopswade (talk) 03:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

They said "pro-CCP nonsense,” its extremely important to quote other editors accurately. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, edited. Mopswade (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: Please refer to the edits again; where in the edits did I deny that Taiwan was a state? I merely intended on elaborating on the fact that it's a disputed state; this is the viewpoint most have, regardless if they support Taiwan's independence; in other words, most supporters of Taiwanese independence know that Taiwan suffers from limited recognition and it is in a territorial dispute with the PRC. This is fact, not opinion. Augend (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: Also, until 1990, Taiwan maintained the same requirement as the PRC; that is, in order to have ties with either party, one must relinquish ties with the other. Obviously more countries have more economic/cultural ties with the mainland, so more countries opted to select China. Please do your research here. It is only within the past couple years that the ROC relinquished this policy, so it would be immaterial to call this policy "China's international bullying" - seeing that until a couple years ago the ROC held this policy too. Again, furthering my previous point, I'm not advocating for either side, I'm just saying it would be proper to highlight that it is a disputed state like Kosovo despite Kosovo having more recognition. I would also like to clarify that I'm quoting the article, not expressly calling the ROC something other than a state. It is important to include the term disputed; failure to do so would represent Selective reporting on Wikipedia's part. Augend (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Île flottante, the Montevideo Convention provides only one definition of a state. Note that under the convention, Canada would not be considered a state, although it was a founding member of the League of Nations and the U.S. had recognized it since 1926. TFD (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

TFD, Canada most certainly does pass the Montevideo convention in the present day due to the Constitution Act 1982 which formalised Canadian sovereignty. The exercise of de facto sovereignty prior royal assent fulfilled the criterion of effective government according to the Montevideo convention even before. The Constitution Act 1982 was passed to resolve internal legal questions, but Canada unilaterally entered into agreements with other subjects of international law before then, thus demonstrating the Canadian government's exercise of sovereignty. Remember, the Montevideo convention merely codified preexisting international customary law, which does not distinguish between a polity who formally owes sovereignty to another and ones who does not; the criterion is met when a government exercises full control over a population and a territory, regardless of whether that particular polity's internal law regards itself as sovereign or not. Prior to 1931 it's debatable whether Canada met the criteria as some decisions were still made in the United Kingdom. Île flottante (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Île flottante, it's questionable that Canada would have met the permanent population clause, since it did not have citizens. Or if you argue that it did, then Canadian provinces and British colonies would also meet the criteria. The convention did not codify existing criteria, but replaced the constitutive territory, which held that recognition alone mattered. So British India was recognized as a state when it was still a colony. In any case, Wikipedia policy determines which countries are states based on the conclusions in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose edits, OP lacks a basic understanding of wikipedia policy in particular WP:neutral. There also appears to be an english comprehension issue... There is nothing derogatory about “fall" in this context. Its literally a tautology that for the PRC to rise the ROC had to fall, you can't take territory without taking it from someone. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: The issue isn't that; it would be convenient to describe what exactly is in issue with WP:NEUTRAL; it isn't constructive to cite all of these WP policies without actually using reasoning to back up your point; with grade-school claim-evidence-reasoning you have the claim and evidence, now's the time to explain yourself. While the ROC had to fall, you clearly don't understand the term; the term implies that China fell to communism, not the ROC fell; yes we understand the ROC had to fall for the PRC to rise, but the term refers to China falling to communism, not the ROC falling in favor of the PRC. Please refer to the definition and origin of terms before presenting your ideas; failure to do so will just make your point look irrelevant. This isn't an English comprehension issue; it's a you-didn't-bother-reading-the-Wikipedia-article-about-the-term-and-it's-background issue. Augend (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: There's also more to be heard here; in WP:Neutral it specifically notes Avoid stating opinions as facts - calling a "state" disputed if it only has 14 recognizing nations isn't an opinion, it's a fact (refer to the Kosovo page). Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts - most neutral outlets like Encyclopaedia Brittanica and major news outlets like Reuters and AP refer to Taiwan as a disputed territory/state, so per your own policy this criterion dissipates too. Avoid stating facts as opinions - this criterion is irrelevant. Prefer nonjudgmental language - specifically Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone - again, a disputed state isn't judging, the term "disputed" is seen in many other controversial topics pages so unless you'd like to modify the status quo (which go ahead nothing is stopping you from doing so), the usage of the term here should work. Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views - Taiwan is a disputed state, and only ultra-nationalists call it otherwise. Many Taiwan folks say Taiwan is it's own nation, but all of them agree that Taiwan is in a disputed state and definitely not with the recognition that most nations receive. Further in your policy, "[f]or example, the widely used names "Boston Massacre", "Teapot Dome scandal", and "Jack the Ripper" are legitimate ways of referring to the subjects in question, even though they may appear to pass judgment" - again, while the term "disputed" might appear to pass judgement, it's a legitimate way to describe Taiwan, and the term "in a struggle with the PRC" appeared briefly in ROC documents. [i]f a viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article. as said before, most people recognize that, regardless if they accept Taiwan as a seperate country, Taiwan is in a state of dispute in terms of recognition. As mentioned, only ultra-nationalists (extremely small minority) think the ROC is universally accepted and administrates the entirety of the Chinese mainland. Please refer to WP:IMPARTIAL: "Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." Augend (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Re the ping you put on my talk page, I reaffirm that I disagree with your proposed edits and for the same reasons as I’ve put above. My response to what you you’ve just said would essentially be the same so I won’t repeat myself. Clearly there isn’t consensus for your proposed edits. Île flottante (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: In all honesty, your reasons are far too Americentric/Eurocentric to actually be constructive. Many of your facts were incorrect, and clearly you think Taiwan isn't a disputed territory, that you haven't done enough research to adequately support your point (the ROC maintained almost the exact same requirements as the PRC until 1991, it's not the PRC's international bullying) and according to your explanations, you maintain that communism is worse than capitalism. Augend (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Being European, of course my viewpoint is European. Likewise, your viewpoint is influenced by your cultural background. In fact, everyone’s viewpoint is influenced by their background; that’s what makes humanity such a wonderfully diverse thing. My argument regarding the term state is a legal one: international public law sets conditions for statehood. Once those conditions are objectively met, a state is a state. Recognition is not a criteria of statehood in classical public international law outside the Americas (regional customary international law codified in the Montevideo convention). Taiwan not being situated within the Americas, its recognition or the lack thereof has no bearing on its statehood and therefore it is a legal fallacy to discuss ‘disputed’ statehood as such an appellation betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what a state is. Île flottante (talk) 13:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Nope. Ythlev (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: That isn't constructive. Lay out a couple reasons why, that's how things work there. Review the previous discussions and lay out your reasoning. Augend (talk) 06:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: Another thing - while I do not want to sound like this is a personal attack, you've been called out multiple times for failing to understand the NPOV policy, but more specifically, for edit warring over this exact topic. I'm not entirely sure you can, therefore, maintain an open mind and neutral POV in this scenario. Augend (talk) 06:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This discussion won't be constructive regardless but I'll entertain you anyways. the One-China policy that both nations adhere to. Taiwan (ROC) does not adhere to no one-China policy. You probably got that idea from the constitution but a country's laws does not represent it's political position. In the UK, it is illegal to fly a kite in a public place. Also, the constitution does not mention anything about one-China. Ythlev (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Kosovo is referred to as a partially-recognized state. The word "partially-recognized" should be removed for Kosovo, not the other way around. The word is subjective. China and South Korea are also partially-recognized. Ythlev (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: When we say "partially recognized" we usually mean that a significant number of other, almost fully recognized countries do not recognize it. This is extremely true for Kosovo, where the vast majority of other countries do not recognize it. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 23:16, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: I agree with User:Augend. WP:CONSENSUS states that consensus in a discussion is not the result of a vote. Provide an argument for your reasoning. sam1370 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

• The phrase fall of China to communism (or fall of China implicitly referring to the PRC) does not seem WP:NPOV and can easily be replaced by different phrasing that expresses the historical outcome without using a phrase that can have good-bad connotations. If others still disagree, one should probably open an RfC for this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
• From what I can see there is no consensus to make any of those changes. I would agree with Ythlev on this with a big nope. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Fyunck, Île flottante, @Augend: I agree with adding “disputed state” to the beginning as the lead is kind of weird in that it treats Taiwan like any other independent, recognized country (which it isn’t) — if you don’t add disputed state here, you might as well remove it from, using Augend’s example, Kosovo as well. However, I disagree with removing the PRC as a member state because disputed states are obviously still states that have neighbors. Even if I make up random borders on a map, those borders still have neighbors to them.

I disagree with parts of #2 (which I see has already been added to the article without consensus, will someone please remove that) — I disagree with the first part, replacing “threatening language” with “objections” as the article states “referring to threats by China to use force to bring Taiwan under its control” — these are clearly not diplomatic objections but a direct threat to Taiwan’s independence. I also disagree with the second part, “called upon” does not imply an accepted good cause, the definition from Cambridge states “to ask formally for someone to do something” which doesn’t imply a good cause at all. I agree with the third one however, since saying “to protect democracy” is non-neutral and just weird considering there are already lots of other democratic nations in the world.

I agree with #3, the current “The constitution was drafted before the fall of mainland China to the Communist Party of China” is biased and implies that China falling to the Communist Party of China is somehow bad, your replacement is fine. Even if you disagree that the current sentence is biased, the mere fact that it is controversial means that there shouldn’t be any objections with replacing it with a more neutral version.

That’s my arguments on the subjects, please reply if you disagree and have good counterarguments. And please don’t misconstrue this argument as me leaning one way or the other, I simply speak in the interest of protecting WP:NEUTRAL. sam1370 (talk) 10:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A decision made with regards to one article (Kosovo) doesn’t have to analogically apply to other articles. Taiwan has been separated from China for much longer than Kosovo has from Serbia, the ROC also has historically had more diplomatic relations than the PRC did. For these reasons, I don’t think there’s need to add disputed because the situations are clearly different. In the spirit of compromise, however, how about we phrase it “the Constitution was drafted whilst the ROC still governed the Chinese mainland.” Île flottante (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: Thanks for your input. @Île flottante: I'm still on the fence regarding the difference between Kosovo and Taiwan, because indeed while the ROC has historically had more relations than the PRC, that's when the PRC didn't exist yet... also I'm not denying the historical background, but out of interest of relevance those historical details should go to the Republic of China page **whichever one discusses ROC history, I forgot the precise dates, I think it was like 1918-1949**. I'll agree that generally speaking a decision with regards to one article doesn't really apply...? but in this scenario Kosovo and Taiwan have extremely similar present-day situations (but different in magnitude seeing Kosovo has more recognition). Regarding your compromise, that edit seems to work out for me. Augend (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: Yes, but Taiwan is still a disputed state that is recognized by even less countries than Kosovo. It being a disputed state is an important fact that relates to how it came to be, so it really should be included. I see no reason not to honestly. sam1370 (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Sam1370: As I've explained above, there's no such thing as a disputed state because a state is either objectively a state or it isn't. You can deny Mars is a planet as much as you like, but that doesn't make Mars a "disputed" planet because it meets the objective criteria. Likewise, Taiwan meets the objective criteria of a state (population, territory and effective government). China's imperialist foreign policy and bullying of other countries may affect where other countries chose to establish embassies, but Wikipedia doesn't work like that. Taiwan is objectively a state and there's no legal disputation regarding that. Again, recognition is not a criterion for statehood. Île flottante (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Île flottante: As said, however, on the Kosovo page it includes the term disputed. It's disputed and that's it, we have to include it or else that's selectively reporting. I've also said, you can't call something imperialist bullying if Taiwan also practiced the same policy. Augend (drop a line) 21:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

A disputed state is not a thing. We do not have to include it. Consensus is clearly against including it. Île flottante (talk) 22:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Go to the Kosovo article and remove the wording “disputed state” and replace it with “state”. I guarantee you they will not stand for that. Taiwan is, completely objectively, a disputed state. It has limited recognition. Therefore disputed. Yes it is mostly disputed because of China, but that’s besides the point. It is objectively disputed. sam1370 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

China is also objectively disputed. So is Israel. Ythlev (talk) 07:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Israel is mentioned in the Arabic Wikipedia as disputed. China isn't mentioned as disputed because by now no one actively challenges "who has authority over mainland China" anymore, it's just the divisive issue of "who has authority over Taiwan". Also, including mainland China as limited-recognition (which is true) gives undue weight to the countries that don't. Whereas here, calling Taiwan a *full* state gives undue weight to the couple of countries that do.

China isn't mentioned as disputed because by now no one actively challenges "who has authority over mainland China". 14 countries do. calling Taiwan a *full* state gives undue weight to the couple of countries that do. It's called a state, not a full state. Whether it is undue is based on reliable sources, and most users do not consider it undue. Ythlev (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Also the sky is blue in Taiwan, so we should write that. Ythlev (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That belongs in Climate in Taiwan; but the point is your point is moot b.c the sky is blue everywhere, but not all countries are disputed. Augend (drop a line) 16:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The sky is not blue on the moon. Just because something is true doesn't mean it belongs anywhere. Ythlev (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, there’s no such thing as a “disputed state” because the criteria of statehood are objective and not subjective; whether someone refuses to acknowledge their objective fulfilment is immaterial. The fact that editors on the Kosovo page decided to invent a pseudolegal term is beside the point: the word is an oxymoron and in any case decisions on unrelated articles are not binding on other articles. Île flottante (talk) 12:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

It isn't a pseudolegal term, and Wikipedia is not a collection of legal materials. While it isn't binding, calling Taiwan a full state gives undue weight to the 14 nations that do, and calling the PRC a country with limited recognition gives undue weight, again, to this elite class of fourteen nations. Augend (drop a line) 16:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Thats not what undue weight is. On the semantic point Île flottante is right, the term of art here is disputed territory. There is no such thing as a “disputed state” and if you don’t believe me try googling it. Your sarcastic reference to those countries as an elite class when you clearly believe anything but is uncalled for. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

That is exactly what undue weight is. We completely and utterly ignore the countries that only recognize China here, advocating for the 14 countries that recognize Taiwan by pushing their point that "ROC is a fully sovereign state and the only legal administrator of China" - this is not in any way neutral. Using the term disputed incorporates the standpoint of the 100+ nations that don't recognize the ROC. You here are advocating for a biased standpoint and refuse to admit that the ROC is disputed territory, which it is. Augend (drop a line) 18:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Its territory being disputed has nothing to with whether or not its a country or a state (polity). Also just FYI I don’t think anybody here is arguing that "ROC is a fully sovereign state and the only legal administrator of China.” What gave you that idea? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Address my point, won't you? Why are you giving undue weight and solely representing the ideas of the 14 nations that recognize the ROC? Augend (drop a line) 20:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I agree, disputed state isn’t the right wording here. However, we should change it to “partially-recognized” state as a majority of countries do not recognize it. sam1370 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I’m not doing that. What gave you that impression? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah you are, in the opening section calling it a state implies it is one like the United States when clearly there's less recognition here... also look at the Kosovo example Augend (drop a line) 21:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Actually it does not imply that at all. It is why "sovereign state" was removed from the article in place of "state". The United States is a sovereign state and Taiwan is not. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Augend: If you want to talk about due weight, read WP:DUE first. Due weight is based on reliable sources, not countries. Ythlev (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: I'm sorry, I cite the foreign affairs ministries of 170 countries versus 14. Augend (drop a line) 15:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Those are primary sources (many of them unreliable), and you haven't actually cited them. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Ythlev (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd rather use common sense and place greatest weight and reliability on the foreign affairs ministry of a state than secondary sources when looking for the official positions of nations in a dispute. Wikipedia's job is to make what is obviously skewed in one direction or another into a neutral interpretation (i.e. China is a pure idiot --Taiwan Foreign Affairs Ministry ---> "Taiwan is heavily opposed to China's influence"), etc etc. Augend (drop a line) 06:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Well that is not how Wikipedia works. Take your common sense elsewhere. Ythlev (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ythlev: I still don't understand your argument here. In the article as it currently stands, we are not mentioning the important detail that Taiwan is only partially recognized. I don't see why we shouldn't do so. Kosovo does it, so why shouldn't we? I understand that WP:WEIGHT doesn't really apply here, as that more has to do with points of view on a subject than actual facts, but the point still stands that this is an important detail that we're leaving out. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 23:13, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands certainly mentions it, we give it a whole paragraph in the lead. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: True. However, the detail is sufficiently important for it to be in the first sentence IMO. sam1370 (talk / contribs) 04:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Even if one of those islands was the national capital it still wouldn’t be sufficiently important to be in the first sentence. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps. It's really a matter of opinion. sam1370 (talk · contribs) 20:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

*Perhaps off-topic but relevant, some arguments here seemed to have been copy-pasted from global times. Everyone knows that the one-China policy is just a measure to keep the status quo, nothing more nothing less. Therefore to use this argument here, shows some COI. Hence, I think its good that the article is locked for now and that consensus is being sought, but with the important note that one-comment accounts are being investigated for their COI. Kenji1987 (talk) 12:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)