Talk:Taiwan/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Qing rule (1683-1895)

It would be clearer if this subheader says “Rule by mainland China (1683-1895)”. Then we can say in the subsection’s text that this put the Qing Dynasty in charge. The Qing Dynasty gained control of Beijing in 1644, which marked the beginning of that dynasty’s rule in China, and that dynasty gained control over all mainland China (plus Taiwan) within a few decades. The new subheader would be much clearer because readers can quickly see in the table of contents that 1683-1895 was the period when Taiwan and mainland China were unified; otherwise, it would take readers much longer to figure this out. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Qing didn't really cross into the mountains or gain jurisdiction or authority over most of the eastern coast... so it wouldn't be true to say that "all of Mainland" (whatever "all of" means) and Taiwan were unified, as even Taiwan itself was not unified at that point. It wasn't until the 1910's that the Japanese crossed into the mountains and unified the entire island under one government. The only period that all of Taiwan was ruled by a "Mainland based" government was between 1945 and 1949. Eclipsed830 (talk) 17:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Eclipsed830, if that last statement is correct (“The only period that all of Taiwan was ruled by a ‘Mainland based’ government was between 1945 and 1949”) then I would support putting it into *both* the article body and the lead. It’s a matter of great interest. And we should also say when *most* of Taiwan was ruled by a mainland-based government. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The only time "most of" Taiwan was controlled by a "Mainland" government was between 1945 and 1949. Even at Qing's peak, they occupied less then 40% of the island. The history page already has a 1894 Qing administrative divisions map showcasing this. File:1894 Taiwan.svg . Furthermore, the point is also shown in the Japanese Empire section, with the 1901 map that clearly shows a red line marking the approximate boundary separating territory under actual Japanese administration from the "Savage District" History of Taiwan#/media/File:Map of Taiwan 1901.jpg . The information is all there, does it really need to be interpreted and repeated? Eclipsed830 (talk) 04:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should insert your key sentence (“The only time most of Taiwan was controlled by a mainland government was between 1945 and 1949”) in the lead and also immediately under the history header before the first history subsection. Any objection to that? As things stand now, a reader would have to closely examine *every* subsection of our history section to realize what is said by your key sentence, and I also think they would miss the forest for the trees. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant Disagree. The entire notion of specifying a mainland government is a retroactive anachronism. What makes Republic of China rule mainland rule but not Japanese rule which was also not based primarily in Taiwan? Should we also specify that most of Taiwan was ruled by mainland Japan as well? This is creating a problem where one does not exist. Why is the exact point and duration when Taiwan was ruled by the RoC before they retreated to Taiwan supposed to be a point which requires stating prior to all other history sections? This seems to be a reactionary statement based on a false premise that Taiwan was under a mainland government, which implies that Taiwan is fundamentally attached to China, and that two, the duration during which it was attached, whether long or short, is of the utmost importance that it requires mentioning as a top level statement on its history. It is also redundant. This is a general article about Taiwan which already had a sizable lead and this addition as well as the original change to the Qing rule section name are both of very dubious value at best. This seems like a historical anecdote that belongs in the same category as the "kingdom of Tungning was the first Han Chinese polity to rule parts of Taiwan". Neither of which belong in a lead or beginning statement for a general article such as this and arguably other ones as well. Qiushufang (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not seeing the benefit of the change. Mainland China is not any clearer than Qing dynasty, which was the state's name. Should we change Japanese rule to "mainland Japan". I have also never encountered sources which referred to this period as rule by mainland China either. The name itself is also contentious and should be avoided for the more specific and frankly more common name used to refer to this part of Taiwanese history. Qiushufang (talk) 23:14, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, that’s fine. But we should still say in clear understandable language what years *all* of Taiwan was ruled by a mainland-based government, and what years *most* of Taiwan was ruled by a mainland-based government. This is a matter of great interest. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure why there needs to be a special focus on a mainland based government. The territorial extents of all the polities which ruled Taiwan, partially or fully, are plainly described in their sections. The Qing colonial non-expansionist policy, their original small territory mainly in the southwest of Taiwan, and continued settler encroachment in particular has already been given much attention in its section. Taiwan's mountainous regions only came under direct rule during mid-Japanese rule, prior to which no single polity ruled all of Taiwan. And even then there were rebellions which contested control. The circumstances and years under which they occurred already exist and are further expanded on in their individual articles. Qiushufang (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s a very interesting summary, Qiushufang. I encourage you to insert it into the lead, or alternatively into the history section prior to the subsections, or both. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

The years when most of Taiwan was independent

We have been discussing whether this article should briefly say in the lead (and/or at the beginning of the history section before the history subsections) what years most of Taiwan was under a mainland government. I think that would improve the article. But I agree it would focus too much on the mainland. So instead I propose we say something like, “Most of Taiwan has been independent throughout its history, except for the period X to Y. During that period, it had a mainland government from A to B, and a Japanese government from C to D.” This gives an overview regarding the chronology of Taiwan’s independence, it is not anachronistic, and would be helpful to readers. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree Remsense留 17:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant Disagree. You've basically ignored what I've said about he entire comment of a mainland as anachronistic. What separated Qing rule and Japanese rule or RoC rule as "mainland"? Why is one a mainland the other not? Two, focusing on when the majority of Taiwan was independent in terms of landmass ignores that all the records we have comes from the part that was not independent throughout most of its history. This entire discussion has been based on a premise of a mainland and independence that introduces more problems than it solves that would surely bring up further arguments in the future for dubious benefits of ascertaining when Taiwan was most or least independent? How does saying "Taiwan was mostly independent from x to z time" and then "ruled by a mainland and Japanese government" inform the reader when everything we know about the island on record comes from the non independent part where most of the population lived? Qiushufang (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

is there specific verbiage in secondary/tertiary sources that could guide ours here? Remsense留 18:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sure there are but virtually all of them would be considered partisan. IMO, this is just too much trouble for its worth and I'm sure this same discussion has happened more than once in the past. Qiushufang (talk) 18:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what is being proposed here. The history of the island is laid out in the article as it is, and discussion here seems to be treating Taiwan as a single political entity throughout history, which is anachronistic. CMD (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Problem is you are creating a controversial interpretation of history when it actually adds nothing to the article. It is a fact and the reality that for most of history, the island of Taiwan was independent and not ruled by any foreign powers be it the Europeans or Asians. However, because of propaganda I am sure I could also find a source from China that says the opposite and that the island of Taiwan has been controlled by China for thousands of years. It is better to report the facts, and let the reader do the interpretation. Eclipsed830 (talk) 05:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you oppose a sentence in this article that says, “for most of history, the island of Taiwan was independent and not ruled by any foreign powers be it the Europeans or Asians”? It’s a simple fact, and it ought not be obscured. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I don’t care if we use the word “mainland.” We could, for example, say “Most of Taiwan has been independent throughout its history, except for the period X to Y. During that period, it had a government from A to B that was headquartered in Beijing, and a government from C to D that was headquartered in Tokyo.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I’ll go ahead and put this in the lead tomorrow unless there’s substantial objection here at the talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

There has been substantial objection here. More than half the participants in the discussion have raised doubts on the merits of the changes and proposed addition. There is no consensus. Considering that you originally renamed the section "Qing rule" to "mainland China", which goes against all known common names for that period, I do not think you should be the one to make any changes regarding the historical aspects of this topic without further agreement. Nor do I agree with the proposed change. Qiushufang (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

You seem determined to view the history through the lens of present-day political concerns. That's not the way to present history. Kanguole 23:33, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, forget it. I don’t have time right now for an RFC, but I may start one later. It seems obvious to me that the lead should say when Taiwan has been mostly independent, and when it hasn’t. The same info ought to be summarized at the start of the history section. The language I suggested would do that: “Most of Taiwan has been independent throughout its history, except for the period X to Y. During that period, it had a government from A to B that was headquartered in Beijing, and a government from C to D that was headquartered in Tokyo.” You do a disservice to readers of this article by burying this information, and declining to offer any reasonable alternative as a compromise. I’ve repeatedly modified the proposal to try and address objections, but I see now that it is futile without an RFC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean Tokyo and then Beijing? The Qing never get most of Taiwan, neither does Koxinga. Only people to do that are Japan and ROC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I’d be happy with “ Most of Taiwan has been independent throughout its history, except for the period X to Y. During that period, it had a government from A to B that was headquartered in Tokyo, and a government from C to D that was headquartered in Beijing.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Still a bit off because the capital of the ROC at the time was in Nanjing, not Beijing but they actually ruled from Chongqing until '46... So it just gets too complicated. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Japan surrendered Taiwan to the ROC on 25 October 1945. From 5 May 1946, Nanjing was the claimed capital of the ROC. That was a period of about six months, and both Chongqing and Nanjing were along the Yangtze. So: “Most of Taiwan has been independent throughout its history, except for the period X to Z. During that period, it had a government from X to Y that was headquartered in Tokyo, and a government from Y to Z that was headquartered in cities along the Yangtze River.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:46, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Now you're deep into OR and irrelevance. Hard no from me. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Even if we drop the second sentence, I don’t see that you’ve given any reason for objecting to the first sentence: “Most of Taiwan has been independent throughout its history, except for the period X to Z.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the word 'independent' is itself a bit of a sticking point here, because while it doesn't require a modern lens, it gestures towards one in context, because it implies the island is some, if not one, coherent polity.

Forgive me if a major issue is with including a line like this at all, but perhaps: "For most of its history, most of the island of Taiwan was not under the control of an external power." Remsense留 17:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

That would improve the article for sure, but it would probably be best to include some range of years if we know that range: “For most of its history, most of the island of Taiwan was not under the control of an external power, the exceptions being from X to Y.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I think a range might not be necessary for the lead of the article, but I'm not categorically against it if it can be clearly defined and not OR'd. Remsense留 17:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I will study the OR issue later today regarding two options: (1) “For most of its history, most of the island of Taiwan was not under the control of an external power, the exceptions being from X to Y”; (2) “For most of its history, most of the island of Taiwan was not under the control of an external power, the exceptions being Japanese rule from X to Y, and Chinese rule from Y to Z.” I will report back here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

How do you define "most"? By the mid-Qing dynasty, most people in Taiwan were under Qing governance, while geographically it was not. So while technically true, in terms of actual experience by Taiwanese people, particularly ancestors of modern Taiwanese, this was not true. Qiushufang (talk) 19:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Good point! I will look into this further. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I do think including a statement like that in itself is unhelpful and introduces more contention than requires. As stated below, if it is about the geographical limits of the polities on Taiwan, this is already covered in the body and too complex for the lead. And the OP has moved to perhaps addressing this first on an article about Taiwanese independence movement, a currently templated article with essay-like tone and partisan source (how can it not be?). Qiushufang (talk) 20:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I have not written anything at that article or its talk page, and anything I do contribute there will not be essay-like or partisan. Also, I do not think we should omit anything at this article merely because some people might think it is partisan or contentious. Omitting information can also be seen as partisan or contentious. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Simply not being included in the lead or in multiple parts of the article does not constitute omission from the article. The lead does not describe many things about Taiwanese history from colonization to deer hunting to the massacres committed by multiple powers or headhunting by the indigenous people. As the lead it is by nature condensed and the information contained selective. I am against the proposed changes because it is both contentious and of dubious value. Qiushufang (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

At this point there are no proposed changes because, in view of interesting discussion here, I have to study the matter further (as I have already said). But I am optimistic that we can do a better job of describing and summarizing the history of Taiwanese autonomy, both at this article and others (like Political status of Taiwan). Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Japan did not surrender Taiwan to the ROC on 25 October 1945. Instead, it was the Allied Powers' purpose that Taiwan be placed under military occupation pending a final solution. Japan did not relinquish Taiwan until 1952. Matt Smith (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Per Retrocession Day, “When the Japanese surrendered at the end of World War II, General Rikichi Andō, governor-general of Taiwan and commander-in-chief of all Japanese forces on the island, signed an instrument of surrender and handed it over to Governor-General of Taiwan Chen Yi, representing the Republic of China Armed Forces to complete the official turnover in Taipei (known during occupation as Taihoku) on 25 October 1945, at Taipei City Hall (now Zhongshan Hall). Chen Yi proclaimed that day to be "Retrocession Day" and organized the island into the Taiwan Province of the Republic of China. Taiwan has since been governed by the Government of the Republic of China.” Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

That article needs to be corrected/improved, and I'll handle it later. What General Rikichi Andō signed is not an instrument of surrender, but a receipt of Chinese Directive No. 1. And Chen Yi's proclaimation was unilateral and did not have binding force of law. At that time, both the US and the UK expressed their disagreement with China's unilateral attempt in the disposition of Taiwan. They considered that China's governing Taiwan was merely a post-war military occupation arranged by the Allied Powers pending a peace treaty. Matt Smith (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

They don't have a "mainland" government over most of Taiwan until 1945, the order is wrong. The Japanese were the first group to control most of the island. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Stating the years without context is implicit POV synthesis. The implication is that because throughout most of its history Taiwan was independent of Mainland China, it should remain independent. Whether or not that is a valid argument, it can only be presented explicitly with reliable sourcing.

Incidentally, Taiwan was colonized by Europeans during part of the period it was not governed by mainland China.

TFD (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that giving the years alone would not be as good as the option (2) I described above: “For most of its history, most of the island of Taiwan was not under the control of an external power, the exceptions being Japanese rule from X to Y, and Chinese rule from Y to Z.” I will study the matter some more and report back here. Tentative understanding is that the Europeans did not colonize *most* of the island. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Given the interesting discussion here, I will need to study this matter further. It may be best to address the matter more fully at Taiwan_independence_movement#History_of_Taiwan_independence before proceeding further here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that Taiwanese history with regards to written records effectively starts with contact with Chinese and then European people. While stating that Taiwan was geographically independent for the most part is technically true, this is not reflected in the topics covered by the historical sources, information, and even population experience by the mid-Qing period when the Han demographic started outnumbering the indigenous people. So what such a statement about independence or freedom from external powers in the lead amounts to, even if supported by sources which is not hard to do, will and probably has been viewed as implicit support for Taiwan's independence as you said. If such a statement were added, it would surely result in further talk discussion and then eventually edit war that leads to some kind of vote once people outside this discussion notice. Reminder that this original discussion was about changing the section on "Qing dynasty" to "mainland China", a very poorly thought out and uninformed change. Now we're at adding a statement on Taiwan's independence from foreign powers, defined by historical geographical control, to an already bloated lead to repeat information that can already be found in the body. The OP is also looking at a section on another article about Taiwan's independence movement, fully moving this into an argument on Taiwan's independence. Qiushufang (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, we shouldn’t omit accurate and relevant information merely because it may be viewed as implicit support for Taiwan's independence. After all, omitting may be viewed as implicit support for Taiwan becoming part of the PRC. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

No information is omitted though. Not containing a statement in the lead based on synthetic and controversial analysis of information provided in the body is not omission. It does not provide anything of value. Qiushufang (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent on a sentence to this effect's inclusion, but I don't think this is a very fair, if not strictly untrue, point to make. Remsense留 21:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

If we were to make the change, what years would say that Taiwan was independent? TFD (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure yet. The article Political status of Taiwan should address this matter, but that article’s history section only starts in the mid-20th century, as I pointed out there. So I hope to get that section improved and then maybe come back to this article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The absence of attention on ascertaining Taiwan's political autonomy pre-20th century, for good reason, both in this and even articles specifically about Taiwan's autonomy and political status is not exactly a coincidence. For all the reasons brought up here, multiple competing viewpoints, definitions of autonomy, independence, and other disputes, editors have left it up to readers to interpret the history of Taiwan based on the info provided. Ex. in the article you provided, the definition of "When Taiwan was China’s (for seven years)" is the eight years during which it was declared a province. The prior period of Qing governance or latter RoC are not mentioned. Territorial limits or significant demographic changes on Taiwan are also not mentioned. There's no common consensus on this topic. Qiushufang (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Was Taiwan independent before Chinese settlement in the 1600s? Was it independent when it was colonized by Europeans or occupied by the Japanese? TFD (talk) 05:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed sentence in section on Qing Dynasty

I’ve studied this matter some more, in response to the many interesting comments above. There’s a paragraph in this article that begins, “During the 200 years of Qing rule in Taiwan….” I suggest adding the following paragraph after that one:

“ The Qing Dynasty was the only period in which any part of the island of Taiwan was subject to supreme rule (sovereignty) ruled by the Monarchy of China, or by any of its successor governments on the Asian mainland (e.g. the Republic of China occupied Taiwan at the end of World War II but that was a temporary arrangement under the allied powers pending a peace treaty with Japan) (e.g. the Republic of China was occupying Taiwan in the late 1940s on behalf of the allies prior to the treaty that officially ended World War II). Historians disagree about how long the Qing Dynasty credibly ruled most or all of Taiwan. ”

I think this properly describes the big picture regarding the Qing Dynasty in Taiwan, while also letting readers know that there’s still some degree of disagreement among historians. Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Any source that does anything similar? Do historians disagree significantly on this? CMD (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

AFAIK, the only disagreement is the one described in the last sentence. There are zillions of reliable sources that touch on this subject, and the proposed paragraph is based on scanning as many as possible over the past day or two, studying the comments above in this talk page section, and reading pertinent Wikipedia articles. So my impression is that the proposed paragraph is correct. If people here would like to point out any incorrectness that would be great. A book review, for example, says that, “The People's Republic of China never exercised administrative control over Taiwan for a day. But for how long was Taiwan credibly ruled by the PRC's predecessors?” And that subject is addressed in the book being reviewed, which I hope to get hold of soon. There are a lot of knowledgeable people who monitor this article and talk page, so I hope their preliminary opinions might speed things along. I’m not going to insert this without citation to reliable sources. This article by a professor at George Mason Unuversity covers a lot of these issues, but I think some of it is disputed. There’s anither relevant book that’s partially available on Google Books: Phillips, Steven. Between Assimilation and Independence: The Taiwanese Encounter Nationalist China, 1945-1950 (Stanford Univ. Press 2003). I will have the full book soon. If anyone would like to suggest further sources, that would be great too. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Definition of "rule" according to Merriam-Webster: the exercise of authority or control : dominion and a period during which a specified ruler or government exercises control. This would apply to Qing and RoC regardless of legality as both polities were in de facto control over parts of or all of Taiwan. Qiushufang (talk) 06:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

That’s a fair point. But I was speaking about sovereignty, which is supreme rule. When the ROC still had power in the mainland after WWII, and was occupying Taiwan, it was not the supreme ruler of Taiwan, and did not have sovereignty in Taiwan. That seems like a significant distinction. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's not clear that supreme rule refers to sovereignty or what the definition is. Qiushufang (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It's also not the position of the RoC, which asserts that it possesses Taiwan and that the Cairo declaration was binding. Considering that the RoC is still in de facto control of Taiwan, it would be odd not to include their stance. The position of lacking legality is mainly held by the United States, other countries, and pro-independence groups. Qiushufang (talk) 07:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice that our article Political status of Taiwan says, “The Cairo Declaration was never signed or ratified and is not legally binding….” I’m not sure that’s correct, but it might be the consensus view even if Taiwan disagrees. I don’t know. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

That is not the only interpretation nor is there consensus. A Taiwanese vid on the Cairo Declaration as recent as this month says that historians are still divided on the significance of the document. It is also not the only determinant of sovereignty per other arguments made on that page. And frankly, the RoC being in practice the highest legal authority in Taiwan should hold greater weight than the opinions of other countries. The definition of "supreme rule" as is currently used is applicable only in a very narrow legal definition for those living outside Taiwan. Qiushufang (talk) 08:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The Treaty of San Francisco (signed 1951, took effect 1952) affected Taiwan. It did not say who would take sovereignty over Taiwan, but it did mark Japan’s formal renunciation of sovereignty, and marked the official end of wartime occupation of Taiwan on behalf of the allies. These facts seem undisputed, I don’t think any country disputes them. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The key point is that it is disputed whether or not RoC had sovereignty over Taiwan, regardless of the treaty, which makes the point moot. If the RoC asserts that sovereignty came from the Cairo Declaration, asserts that it has sovereignty over Taiwan and has de facto control over Taian, and historians are in disagreement over the significance of the Cairo Declaration, then with due weight, its sovereignty over Taiwan is disputed and it cannot be realistically be said without problem that there is consensus on the issue of sovereignty. Hence why an entire page on the issue exists. Qiushufang (talk) 20:53, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly. As you know, the ROC was defeated in 1949, whereas the Treaty of San Francisco was later, in 1951 and 1952. I make no assertions about the political status of Taiwan after that treaty took effect in 1952. If the ROC has had full sovereign control of Taiwan since 1952 (as they claim), we should keep in mind that the ROC had no control in the mainland of Asia at that time, and thus was not a successor government of the PRC at that time. Before 1949, the ROC was a mainland predecessor of the PRC government and a mainland successor of the Qing government, but it was a mere occupation force on Taiwan at that time, Japan had not formally renounced its sovereignty over Taiwan yet. There may be some scholarly controversy about whether the ROC was the true sovereign ruler of Taiwan after 1951-1952 when Japan renounced title, but there appears to be scholarly consensus that Taiwan the ROC was not so during 1945-1950. Incudentally, the Taiwan government does say it it relies on the Cairo Declaration among other documents, not the Cairo Declaration alone. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Again, it is not viewed as an occupation by the RoC, and Retrocession Day was in 1945 as a result. The "scholarly controversy" in reality is that there is no consensus not just on the issue of the Cairo Declaration but also sovereignty in full. It does not matter which document is pointed to, because there is no agreement between all major actors as to their significance, and in practice the most important actor, the polity which ruled Taiwan, claimed sovereignty over it. Hence by nature the issue is disputed. You cannot selectively pick and choose whose perspectives to represent without taking into consideration all major viewpoints on Wikipedia. Qiushufang (talk) 22:20, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Following your logic, we could write something as follows on the U.S. article: The period from 1789 to present was the only period in which any part of America was ruled by the government of the United States.

The implication would be that the U.S government lacks legitimacy, just as you are trying to prove that the PRC lacks legitimacy in Taiwan. You ignore incidentally that the majority population of Taiwan emigrated from China in the 1600s, and many following WW2. You could spin the facts to question the legitimacy of their occupation of the island. Why don't they go back to China?

Implicit in your suggested phrasing is that the Taiwanese have a right to self-determination. But you do that by conflating the current population with the one before Chinese settlement of the island. The majority of people on Taiwan have always been Chinese citizens, except when the island was occupied by non-Chinese. TFD (talk) 06:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces, the subsection of this article on Qing rule has a ton of info about immigration from mainland China, and that's fine, I am not suggesting we remove any of it. All I'm suggesting is that we also include the fact that the Qing era in Taiwan was the only one that included rule by a mainland government that is a predecessor of the PRC. To me, this is a matter of NPOV. If you want to suggest that the Han racial percentage in Taiwan is a reason to support invasion by the PRC, then you should also be willing for us to mention that the PRC and its mainland predecessors only controlled Taiwan for a relatively short time long ago, in the Qing era. This is NPOV. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:38, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's important to note that Taiwan came under Chinese control because Chinese people came to overwhelm the indigenous population. You certainly should not falsely imply that the ethnic Chinese population's claim to self-determination is based on the fact that the island once had a mainly indigenous population.

Note that Jefferson et al never argued America had the right to independence on the basis that American Indians had lived there for millennia.

If you think that Taiwan has a right to independence, we can put that in provided it is attributed and the weight of the opinion is explained. What we should not do is present the arguments in Wikivoice. Also, no explicit arguments should ever be presented in articles. TFD (talk) 06:50, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You say that I “certainly should not falsely imply that the ethnic Chinese population's claim to self-determination is based on the fact that the island once had a mainly indigenous population.” I never implied any such thing, and never would. But you seem to be using the fact that over 95% of Taiwan's population consists of Han Chinese as a reason why they should not deserve self-determination. That seems quite odd to me. Anyway, did my draft paragraph above make any arguments in wikivoice? If not, then why are you cautioning me not to make arguments in wikivoice? Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It is unclear whether the ethnic Chinese of Taiwan have a right to self-determination and in fact their right was never recognized by the UN. Because different experts approach self-determination in different ways, it is doubtful that difference will ever be resolved, whatever the eventual political outcome. The article should not come down on one side or the other of the argument. TFD (talk) 12:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

See Using sources: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research."

Although your statement does not provide an explicit argument for independence, it makes an implicit one.

You believe, as you just stated, that Taiwan has a right to self-determination. The fact that Taiwan has been independent longer than it was part of China provides evidence in support of your belief.

Certainly you do not disagree that the selective presentation of facts can be persuasive for an argument, even if it is not stated. TFD (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You have argued above that I “ignore incidentally that the majority population of Taiwan emigrated from China….” I don’t ignore that, this article describes that fact in detail, which is fine. We should also follow reliable sources that describe which predecessors of the PRC controlled Taiwan, for how long, and to what extent. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You ignored it in your statement, "Most of Taiwan has mostly been independent throughout its history." [Incidentally, I think you misphrased that.] But equally, Vermont has been mostly independent throughout its history but we don't put that into that article's lead. The only reason to add it is to argue that Taiwan has a right to independence.

The article is not supposed to take sides, but merely report the various opinions. TFD (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. Although I don't see an explicit focus on Han ethnicity in the statement, it is being workshopped over multiple iterations to focus on proving a certain kind of Taiwanese independence fixated on the Qing being the only time mainland China ruled parts of Taiwan with legal sovereignty, which has a heavy dose of presentism and retroactive lens to it. We've gone full circle back to OP changing "Qing rule" to "mainland China". The issue of RoC and Taiwanese sovereignty is still contested per Political status of Taiwan. This entire discussion is predicated on heavy synthesis based on unclear sources that are highly contested. I still disagree with the premise of the proposal per dubious informative value and contested nature, and am against its inclusion. Qiushufang (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC))

No, Vermont has not been mostly independent throughout its history. It has been a U.S. state for hundreds of years, and therefore is not independent at all. I don’t know of any reliable source that says Vermont is mostly independent, do you? You also say that my statement “Most of Taiwan has mostly been independent throughout its history” ignores massive immigration to Taiwan during several periods of its history, but massive immigration to a country does not suggest that country is not independent. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Incidentally, you haven't given me the years when you consider Taiwan to have been independent. TFD (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You asked above, “If we were to make the change, what years would say that Taiwan was independent?” I answered, “I’m not sure yet.” I’m still not sure. Anyway, my proposal at the start of this talk page subsection didn’t say anything about independence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think what TFD is saying is that Vermont as a piece of land has bee "independent" prior to becoming a US state. AKA, it existed, just as Taiwan existed prior to coming under control by any power. But we don't emphasize that Vewrmont was "independent" prior to that point. Qiushufang (talk) 20:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

To all these people discussing this, independent is always a relative word, you can't be independent without something or someone to dependent on (previously), implied or otherwise. The United States of America's independence was relative to British rule. Nobody would say a tribal leader in the colonial time wasn't independent, but there is no point saying it was independent because it didn't previously depend on anyone or anything. MarvelousPeach (talk) 01:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Here are excerpts from the Wikipedia article on Vermont:

“ ”Ultimately, a group of settlers with New Hampshire land grant titles established the Vermont Republic in 1777 as an independent state during the American Revolutionary War. The Vermont Republic abolished slavery before any other U.S. state.[8][9] It was admitted to the Union in 1791 as the 14th state....In 1777, the territory then known as the New Hampshire Grants declared itself independent, as the Republic of New Connecticut. It was renamed to the Republic of Vermont six months later....On January 15, 1777, representatives of the New Hampshire Grants declared the independence of Vermont.[35] For the first six months of its existence, it was called the Republic of New Connecticut.[36]....The independent state of Vermont issued its own coinage from 1785 to 1788 and operated a national postal service....Vermont is one of four states (Texas, California, and Hawaii) that previously claimed status as independent nations....” ”

Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but Vermont was also "independent" prior to becoming Vermont and had history prior to colonization with its indigenous peoples. But no explicit statement is made on their independence as is the case in most pages on the history of most country pages. The attempt to draw some kind of artificial dividing line between an original state of "independence" versus non-independence is presentism, is how I interpret TFD's argument. Qiushufang (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not aware that there was any distinct geographic or political entity prior to 1749 where Vermont is now. 1749 was the year of the New Hampshire Grants, and the notion that anything like Vermont existed before that time seems doubtful. In any event, I thank you for discussing Taiwan at this page. I would like to bow out now, at least until I get my hands on the reliable sources that I mentioned above. I do not consider that my proposal in this talk page subsection has yet been rejected or resolved, I just need to study some more and then maybe cone back to it, with a list of proposed footnotes. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

So you are saying because Taiwan was a named territory while Vermont was not, we can only speak of Taiwanese independence. What about Prince Edward Island (PEI), which like Vermont, was a British colony isn North America but unlike Vermont remained loyal to the UK and eventually became a Canadian province. For thousands of years, it had been inhabited by indigenous people.

The article does not say that during most of its existence PEI was independent and that in itself doesn't give a right of self-determination.to the descendants of European settlers who live there today. TFD (talk) 00:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

No I never said anything about Taiwan being a named territory while Vermont was not. Independence is a matter of politics and geography, not nomenclature. I really have to go now, bye. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Specifically the proposed statement on independence is related to modern politics and a retroactive interpretation with undue emphasis on the claim that the Qing dynasty was the only time a polity present on mainland China ruled parts of Taiwan. It does not improve the reader's understanding of either Qing rule or ROC rule on Taiwan in practice. It is only relevant to readers with a view of justifying independence, otherwise there would be no point in providing a statement with so many qualifiers based on a narrow legal definition of sovereignty requiring several iterations and adjustments to navigate its contested and disputed nature. Qiushufang (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The value of the statement is even more tenuous when you realize that one could easily add an appending statement that despite the lack of supposed legal "sovereignty", the Qing's successor government was still in de facto control of Taiwan and exercised authority over it while present in mainland China prior to its retreat. None of which would add to the reader's understanding of major historical events events since all of this is already present in the lead and body without undue emphasis on "independence" or the legal definition of "sovereignty" and its interpretations. The lead merely says "The political status of Taiwan is contentious." which imo is sufficient. Qiushufang (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Another problem is that Taiwan is governed by the Republic of China, which claims to be the successor state of Qing rule. In fact it once governed all of China. There has never been an independent government of Taiwan. TFD (talk) 10:34, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

There has, at least for the last 75 years. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

There has what? TFD (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistency of what is a country

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.

---

I look for Taiwan and I get "country" and "Republic fo China". I don't know where are those references and I would propose not to mention it like that. Taiwan is first an island with its jurisdiction unclear for many but as part of China according to several institutions and countries including UN and USA. This kind of information is not serious or historical.

I also would propose to sync with the Portuguese description of Taiwan that is even worst, and very different than this one. If we are writing in several languages, it should be translated and sync, not write different things, like opinions or point of views as they are real in one language and not real in another language. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan possesses all the qualifications for a country, including a permanent population, a defined territory, government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states — it is only lacking a majority international recognition."The Evolution of Taiwan Statehood". Oxford University Press. Moxy- 19:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't qualify to wikipedia simply express that taiwan is a country, it actually sounds ridiculous. For that, more close to be a country is to say that Catalunya is a Country and even voted to be independent. Taiwan has not declared itself as independent therefore we should not confuse the readers with third-party opinions. It qualifies... how? By UN? qualified and it is? I can understand the emotional part, but I don't understand the lack of accuracy for a serious attribution. We have to respect what it is. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t sound ridiculous to a consensus of English-language editors. You’re getting dangerously close to WP:JDL in your line of reasoning, and this talk page has already seen its fair share of that. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan was in the United Nations previously, they quit and UN Resolution 2758 gave the China seat to the PRC. The United Nations did not determine Taiwan's overall status, nor do they have the ability to do so within international law. Eclipsed830 (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

you are giving me answers that proves the fact. "it was (...)" you said, and it was actually thrown not quit and give the position. however, the point is it qualifies by which institution? if it's not consensus you can't say it. if it's not determined, you can't say it. To have the ability is not the same as "to be" so, no, by this conversations being talked before, it's a mistake and you should not have this in wikipedia. When i browse taiwan, the first thing should say is "an island" not a country. It can say "it qualifies" and define what international law are you talking about and explain that it can be a country just like the isle of man can be a country because it qualifies completely to be also a country. But the isle of man is not a country, although it qualifies exactly like taiwan according to the international law you are mentioning.

By the way, I didn't understand what you mean with the WP:JDL @Butterdiplomat, please explain. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The article clearly outlines that the ROC is no longer a member of the United Nations. It also discusses Taiwan's contentious political status. Still, it is factually a country, despite its exclusion from the UN or limited recognition by UN member states. After all, the UN is simply one organization with a POV and, like I said before, not the source of all facts. Butterdiplomat (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

interesting when you mention "UN as just a simply one organization". You sustain the fact of being a country very hard, but you don't accept any other proposal just by saying it's not an argument. I would propose you get other person more knowledgeable because you clear only see one way. You asked me for a reference, I gave you one, I don't think i need to send 10 or 12, but you should accept by not have consensus you should not, YOU @Butterdiplomat or @Remsense simply determine what is correct when it's not, and certainly by using arguments of "consensus of english language-editors" since, this talk(s) clearly define no-consensus but more like an authoritan way to say: "it's a country because we say so and we have references to corroborate it". I show at least one reference. By logic, you can have 1000 people saying yes, but if you have one saying no, it's a no, because you can't declare consensus. Please, learn properly the rules of consensus, logic and wikipedia principles before trying to determine history and definitions without at least understanding the principles of this portal. At least, get a strong opinion "imparcial" of this so that you won't be close minded as it seems that you are demonstrating. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

You cited a 2018 academic publication that is about the political status of Taiwan - and explicitly says it reviews “the position of government officials in Taiwan.” I would dispute this as a usable reliable source, against all the other sources others have provided characterizing Taiwan as a country. Your argument continues to exhibit traits of WP:JDL and is generally unhelpful. Butterdiplomat (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

UN Resolution 2758: "the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations"

Which means UN does not recognise any other administration in China or any other republic/state.

ROC does not consider itself to be part of a separate polity; it considers the legitimate government of China (all China: continental + the island of Taiwan).

So there's only one China and Taiwan is but a province of China, not a country. Klehus (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That parenthetical was not in the UN Resolution, nor was the conclusion/claim that follows. Once again, Taiwan’s political status is discussed in both this article and a related, standalone article. In fact, there is an AfC for Draft:Taiwan and the United Nations that hopefully gets reviewed soon. The politics of recognition does not determine Taiwan’s factual status as a country, both evident via the qualifications and supported by reliable sources. Butterdiplomat (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, if you wanna use this paper from Oxford as a valid document, instead of saying that "Taiwan is a country", it should say instead "According to this paper <<oxford paper>> Taiwan qualifies as a country, but it's not, yet". I would accept something more like that, even if I still don't agree for a page like this. It's also should not relate directly to Republic of China, since it's not recognise anymore as that, it has it's a independent government as a third party just like Hong Kong and Aomen but not as RoC. At least, should give a impartial point of view. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please see the article country, "qualifies as a country" is an effectively meaningless phrase. CMD (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Please cite your sources on the claim that Taiwan should not “relate directly to Republic of China” as that contradicts a good portion of the sources currently cited. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

it's the opposite @Butterdiplomat. Taiwan is not RoC anymore since they gave up the seat. it's part of the history since 1971. However, it's written everywhere except wikipedia or papers with no substantiate, can give you an example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7152184/#:~:text=From%20October%2025%2C%201971%20on,government%20of%20China%20until%201979.

So please, understand first that you should not write things that at the moment can be considerer provocative @Butterdiplomat I wasn't the person that wrote the taiwan or either contribute. I do find strange the resistance to write imparcial and even ask me for quotes and references. It should first refer to an island and part of what almost all countries in UN declared and also can mentioned some political opinions as part of early history. I would recommend don't use the "early talks" as reason to say it has been explained or determined. issues should be lifted every time as part of learning and improvement.

One more thing, the RoC existed as long as they sustained as the real government of the whole China, not as Taiwan. do you references for that? because you can find them even in Wikipedia.

Until descriptions become more impartial and less provocative for the actual society, of course, I will try to help. But i wasn't the one who wrote this. the person that wrote this should know and check better the sources and declare more impartiality. Even majority of Taiwanese declared that they are part of China as a whole, but that should even be mentioned, whatever the sides we take.

I didn't even mention here either if I agree on being independent or not. What is important is to not declare things that are not true.

By being qualified, they are as much qualified to be an independent country as Madeira island or the Isle of Man. Until they declared it or be accepted by the majority of countries... or at least England, taiwan is not.

Pure logic! Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria,

Taiwan is not RoC anymore since they gave up the seat

Not correct. Not much more to say about this: they officially call themselves the Republic of China, and had an institutional continuity from the mainland government.

It should first refer to an island and part of what almost all countries in UN declare

The article is not about the island, it's about the country. Geography of Taiwan is our article about the island. It's not our job to parrot the characterizations of governments, but to reflect the body of reliable sources, which in English call Taiwan a "country".

I would recommend don't use the "early talks" as reason to say it has been explained or determined.

The issue is you are not providing any new arguments. So yes, we can say certain claims have been explained or decided, barring any new argument or evidence. — Remsense诉 23:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Remsensethe article is what you write or what you want to write. If the name is Taiwan, than of course is an island first because that is the only certainty you have. I don't even understand how can you say that an article of an island is not about the island. It is an island.

Interesting when you say that it's your job to say that is a country based on reliable sources. So... any other source that says otherwise is wrong? that is interesting point of view, academically and logically speaking (sorry the irony, but your response sounds really wrong. Any science should declare that anything can be proven otherwise, there is nothing certain, please keep open minded)

It's not about new or old argument. You are not also providing any new argument besides what you have already. It's about accepting the uncertainty of what you call as reliable. It's not a country according to the main institution UN and 180 countries. But you say it is. I don't need a new argument, you are wrong and you can ask any diplomatic institution to confirm that.

By the way, understand this, I am not even going on personal for Taiwan, I am trying to wake up you, because if you really want to understand Taiwan, and as RoC, you should understand that they want to claim back the Beijing government, not claim independence. That means they believe that they are China (which includes the Mainland). This sets a situation, which is not clear, and if I am allowed to explain this a little bit more creatively, I would say that it's like a "government under hibernation", but that is a personal opinion based on what we all know.

I hope after this you can rethink and assume that you were wrong. What is not certain can't be said as certain. Can't be a country and can't be defined because we actually have no definition of what it is. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

A country has sovereignty and Taiwan does not have it. 82.77.88.163 (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

And I am sure that when Peking passes a law Taiwan will enact it. Just as I am sure that if a Chiense warship was to try and enter Taipae harbor no action would be taken. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Pedro, I am not sure exactly what you are saying, but I disagree that languages should all sync. Different languages have different conventions, and the articles should reflect the best way to explain a given topic in that language. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Well either you didn't understand (which I hope) either this sounds silly. If you check both pages they don't match for the exception they both say certain other things like Taiwan is a country. It doesn't match the history and some other data. Before answer that, check both pages (use a translator) and you can understand. This is a information collection and it sounds strange to be written in one way because of language and other way in other language. We are not talking about different versions of culture, right? we are talking on translations, therefore, don't confuse different ways of expressing with async data. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Portuguese and English are different languages, where words have different ranges of meanings and connotations. The English Wikipedia consensus is very deliberate—I recommend you read the related discussions. — Remsense诉 00:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous answer I ever got here in Wikipedia. Have you actually read what I wrote? I am not talking of translations, it's actually different history descriptions. You can't say in one language that something happen and in another language that it didn't happen, it happen something completely different. This is nothing to do with being different languages or range of meaning s and connotations. I talk fluent both Portuguese and English else I would not write this. I can understand the @Butterdiplomatfirst answer but after second explanations, I wasn't expecting an even more silly answer from you @Remsense. We are talking of events and actions, not translations, meanings and connotations. Else, imagine that it's like in a conflict of war, where one side writes their side and just make up their own stories and the other side says exactly the opposite. This is suppose to be a serious content information, if there is inconsistent information by different languages it should be reviewed, not just let it be. it would also improve this project quality, and enrich it. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria, fundamentally the Wikipedias in different languages are editorially independent. It's not my problem what the Portuguese Wikipedia does. Coming in to impose terms based on a perceived interlanguage discrepancy is not actionable. If you have specific issues with the English language article, present them on their own terms. — Remsense诉 21:30, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

But there isn’t an actual issue. The Portuguese article describing Taiwan as a país and the English one describing it as a country are both valid. There may be style or other differences, but you aren’t really describing what is wrong with this specific page besides that you just don’t like it. Butterdiplomat (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

@Butterdiplomat the language versions are not about the country word... I have explained... it's not a translation. Again, you don't read what actually is written. I can agree more now about @Remsense that by being different editorials we have some descripencies, therefore I am actually informing. You can take the opinion in a constructive way. If you have a website that actually is completely independent by language, for me seems weird, if you think it's ok, i can't do anything about it. I can try to explain once more and again - it's not about the country word, but everything else, the country word is another issue, on same topic "discrepancy" which seems to be a lot here. Just check the history of Taiwan on both languages and you finally can understand what I mean. Country and país are exactly same word, and same meaning same attribution, trust me on that, don't need to check either a dictionary or references for that. But don't stick on that word again, since I already explain the language discrepancy is not on that word. Read everything well, not only the last thread else you won't understand it. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, since you agree with the editorial independence point, I think we can close this thread now? There really is no exchange of new information at this point. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If you have an issue with why something is wrong in this article, please explain why. The Portuguese article may very well have its own issues, but in the English language, it is widely understood that Taiwan is the common name of a country that is officially named the ROC. And that is already made clear and is well referenced in the article. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not helpful for you to assert that some country is officially named. Countries are not official. I think you mean state. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There are different opinions on how country or state is defined, but that is irrelevant for the purpose of this discussion. Taiwan is the common name of the country (as currently written). It is also the common name of the state (ROC) that administers the country. It is also synonymous with the ROC, per the definition that a country can also be a state. It is with this definition that one can describe Taiwan as a country being officially named the ROC. I don’t see how any of this is either helpful or unhelpful. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant because of recurring objections involving the word “country” by people who obviously haven’t looked up its definition to see that it does not have a hard definition. Its choice is because it is legally vague. There are counties that are not states, and countries that are not nations.

You in particular are not helpful in asserting there is a country officially named ROC. No official source uses the word country. Country is more defined by geography than by people or politics. If it weren’t for some little islands, “Taiwan is an island” could have been better used. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you are getting at. Sure, depending on the definition you use, there are countries that aren't states. In this specific case, Taiwan is both a country and the common name of the state. Because of the overlap in geography and territories administered, "country" and "state" are in fact used interchangeably in this instance. I am not asserting some new claim here but summarizing the way the article itself is worded currently.

The first sentence goes, Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia. This clearly states Taiwan as a country and the ROC as its official name (or at least what it is officially known as). In the subsection "Name of the country," the first sentence goes The official name of the country in English is the "Republic of China".

I agree with you that the recurring objections involving the word "country" are baseless, but am unsure of what else you are trying to express. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:45, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement.

What maybe I am trying to express is that we shouldn’t entertain misuse of the word “country”.

Taiwan is a country in East Asia.

The Republic of China (ROC) is a country in East Asia.

These statements are true, are in the voice of Wikipedia (WP:VOICE), and are not sourced to reliable sources, because basically all source are POV sources, justifying WP:VOICE. It is nonjudgemental language, avoiding the more problematic “state” or “nation”.

He talks of inconsistency with the Portuguese Wikipedia, which uses the phrase “island state”, and does not use the work for country (país). Maybe he does have a fair point. On the Portuguese Wikipedia, it is a featured article, however, it has next to no talk page discussion that I can see. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Both have issues, the country word is wrong and already explained, but the paragraph about portuguese and english is not about translations but about the facts, actions and history it self. it doesn't match. it should match no matter the terms used. you can't say in one page that "this happen" and the other page say "this didn't happen" Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 16:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The country word is not wrong. You are confusing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Once again, the country word is not wrong, and Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria needs to stop disputing its usage based on what seems to be personal preference of not seeing the word. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:25, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

explain why is not wrong, or why isle of man is not also a country. If you can explain why isle of man is not a country according to what you are saying, Than i'll accept. Because from my point of view, it's seems that you are the one that is taking this as personal preference. After all, UN doesn't recognise it as a country, You are basing on what can qualifies and not what it is. I gave you a logic comparison. If you are able to prove like this, I will accept. And please stop saying that is my personal preference, because from my point of view, it seems otherwise until you prove at least this example I give you. good luck. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see the value of comparing Taiwan to the Isle of Man, when the two have entirely different histories and politics. Once again, Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of the United Nations written for the UN; it relies on facts outside of UN stances. This article already discusses Taiwan's relationship with the UN as well as its political status. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Which facts are you relying because nobody said it was a UN documents. @Butterdiplomat you need to start to understand more about what are facts because by being history and political different doesn't mean they don't actually qualify exactly as you mention as a country. (The reference is yours and you should actually look to it before invalidating it)

You need to explain how a country becomes a country besides the term of "qualify" because there is (at least as I know) only one institution in the world that recognises the countries, and it's declared exactly by the other countries that recognise them.

The answer you give of my comparison defines exactly that you are not even thinking else you would understand and explain what is different between one and the other to make the isle of Man to not qualify as Taiwan. You can't, I know!

Besides the fact of by qualifying... it doesn't mean it is! And that, is undeniable by logic. If it's not, you can't just allocate as it is. Don't need a new argument for that, but you need to review your logical thinking.

Or else, get another person that actually can help you since surely i see you don't agree with me and you throw answer back like it is personal. It is not for me, is it for you? Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan has consistently been described or referred to as a country by a wide variety of reliable sources ([1][2][3]). Big Bertha (cow) was a cow that was reported by various sources as being a cow. It doesn't require other cows to recognize her as a cow for her to be described as a cow in a Wikipedia article. Butterdiplomat (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

To be considered a country in today's global political sphere, a territory must be diplomatically recognized by the 193 member states (countries) of the United Nations—and while some 13 countries (and Vatican City/Holy See) do recognize Taiwan as of April 2022, many others do not. As a result, although Taiwan was recognized as a country by the United Nations from 1949 to 1971, it is currently not in the UN and is classified as only a territory Fearingly (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia is not in service to the United Nations, and the UN is not the ultimate source of facts. Butterdiplomat (talk) 11:23, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Nothing to do with being diplomatically recognized, some countries are recognised and others are not (The UN does not recognise the Vatican for instance)....

1933’s Montevideo Convention:To be a sovereign country you need to have all of:

a permanent population

a defined territory

a government

an ability to enter into relations with the other states.

The convention also stated that a sovereign country can still be a sovereign country even if no other countries recognise that it exists. Moxy- 16:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Country, state and nation are three different words with different meanings. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

And they have different meanings depending on if you are in the UK, US, or other English speaking places. So the usage here will never satisfy everyone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Not really. Informal usage may be different, but I don’t think dictionaries actually differ. The UN never refers to countries, and people trying to tie state (a legal term) to country (a land term) are counterproductively obfuscating. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, we disagree on this. The article was at "state" for years and there was a lot of back and forth on inserting the word "Sovereign." Then we had a huge rfc on using country because it was the most used term in all publications. That's where we are. Simply using "country" or "state" has such a different meaning depending on what part of the world you live in. I'm guessing that's part of the problem and why the article has such defenders on different sides. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I think there were good faith defenders of specific definitions of state vs. country, but in this case it’s increasingly clear that the OP is parroting nationalist rhetoric. Characterizing Taiwan as “nothing more than an island” here is unhelpful, and any concerns of Taiwan as an island would be more appropriately directed to Geography of Taiwan. Depending on what whether the OP comes back with valid sources or new points, I suggest we keep the wording of “country” as is, per prior RfC and as the most used term. Butterdiplomat (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That's as it should be. I was originally of the "keep state" side, but then it was clear that "country" was the heavy consensus. That is where it should remain. It is certainly way way more than just an island unless you are a member of the mainland Chinese gov't. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what is OP or RIC here, but I don't think the suggestion based on "most used term" should be acceptable since we seek the truth, not the majority. Logic and truth are not based on democratic means, but by what it is. Please, be faithful to logic, if the truth is not accurate. 200 years ago, the majority of the people thought that the earth was the center of the universe. don't make the same mistake. If you don't have certainty, you can't say it. Avoid the term please. The most acceptable term can be "province with an independent government", or autonomous. but that is the far we can go. And you can refer the RoC too but explain the lack of recognition. PS - I know, their government declare RoC everywhere, but is not recognise as so for the exception of 12 countries and we have to accept it.

Maybe... one day, RoC becomes the government again in Beijing, we don't know. But it's more possible to happen than you think if you understand more about chinese culture. However, not that likely in the next 10 years. And never by war, that's not chinese style. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 23:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That is where you are making an error. Wikipedia is not based on truth, it is based on verifiability, sourcing, and consensus. Hence WP:NOTTRUTH. I know the truth about several musician articles here... I know the articles are wrong because I know the bands. But it is not published except as hearsay so it is not verifiable nor usable. We go by sourcing not truth. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am not wrong, because the truth is still achieved but based on verifiability, sourcing and consensus. In this case neither are achieved. Consensus means we all agree. You can't say majority. If there is no consensus, we can't use it. So, please, remove the word, use other. 2nd the source as countries (5 references) are just white papers or journalist opinions. It's funny because I have heard here about UN is "just a bunch of countries" but the truth is that not even the convention of Montevideo is cited here as the reason and the only thing we actually have certain is , it "qualifies", which doesn't mean it "is"; Therefore, it's not until it becomes. Please remove this word. since consensus is not achieved and the references are not sustainable enough.

I even gave several examples of logic and comparison, and the answers from editors such as @Remsenseand @Butterdiplomat were inconsistent and illogical or they just didn't want to accept it.

The truth is, to define as a country must be a secure reason to do that, the consensus must be in full (even if it's just me, until you prove and I accept, it's not consensus), Taiwan has not declared independency either they won't do that for several million reasons, being the last one (contrary of some editors might think, war would be the last reason) and the 5 references are just opinions and not official statements by any organization. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

But there is no consensus for what to replace it with, thus there is no consensus to change it. Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

no consensus means we can't use it. So yes, change to something else that is to determine or refer that it is considerer several attributions and it's not yet clear what is the real state of it.

We don't determine what it is by supposing or not knowing what it is exactly. If we don't know, I am pretty sure we can write in another way. If everyone has a different opinion than we have to state the possibilities by each if properly accepted and substantiate. So, it's not that difficult, we just need to have more overture from some editors here that think they own the page. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

If it were not that difficult we would not be here. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, there was a prior consensus, established not that long ago. The top of this page clearly reads "Important notice: Prior consensus has decided that Taiwan is to be referred to as a country." Please respect the facts collected to establish that consensus and review the archived discussion at your earliest convenience before commenting on this topic again. Butterdiplomat (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

There was consensus in a previous, very open and drawn-out discussion. Please see the archived discussion and state the new argument you are hoping to present. Otherwise, there is no consensus here to overturn the existing consensus. Butterdiplomat (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

so is science... don't be so narrow minded. However, this is not consensus because you don't want to. Logically, if something is not clear, therefore it is not, until it becomes. learn logic before determine by your intuition. it's not a country yesterday and it's not a country today. It has all qualities to become one, so it's Barcelona (that actaully vote for independence but it's not) or Isle of Man. They fill up the convention, but ... they are not. until it becomes, don't call it. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with User:Remsense closing this thread, and reverted. I think I have just worked out that the OP is not really asserting inconsistency in what is a country, but instead a fairly valid question about different descriptions being used in other language Wikipedias. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, that's fair enough. I suppose the answer of "Wikipedias in different languages are not editorially beholden to one another" is both simple and somewhat unsatisfying. — Remsense诉 03:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

We have a whole RfC on the question. The Portuguese version doesn’t have any record of consideration of the question on the talk page.

“Island state” seems quite defendable. It’s very easy to argue that “state” implies on way or the other the question of independence or sovereignty, beyond defacto. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I would agree that "island state," "country," or "partially recognized sovereign state" as all defendable, especially in English. However, current wording in the English version (a product of years of discussions) is only being disputed by the OP because of some wording in the Portuguese, and I just don't see this as a valid point. I'm just not sure that the English talk page is the right avenue for a potential issue in the Portuguese version. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Remsense, I take it back. Pedro is just here to waste time with rambling rhetoric. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

it's only over until the "fat lady sings", if you give up on this, you let partial editors to write history. There is no consensus, and I check with Wikipedia support. What @Butterdiplomat and @Remsense are doing is wrong. They need to accept the whole facts and not their short sight. It's very easy to say, when don't agree that we are "haters" and other things, but the fact is, no consensus, therefore no possibility to determine what they want.

We have to act as grown ups here therefore, we need to find a way to determine what is acceptable. not block others and say the others don't have references or liable sources and just decide partially what they want. Until it's clear, we can't use any specific word. We can say other things or determine the fact that it's own designation is still to determine.

Keep it up @SmokeyJoe Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria, start another RFC, since that was the level of consensus presently established. — Remsense诉 01:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

great, how do we do a rfc? I suggest we remove country until we get the consensus. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggest you read the previous RfC (at least the conclusion) before further commenting or starting a new RfC. Butterdiplomat (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFC. Also: we have a consensus (one that you happen to be disagreeing with), a new RfC would be updating said existing consensus. — Remsense诉 01:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Scotland is described as a country even though it's not even a full island. CurryCity (talk) 11:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

"Change country to territory"Fearingly (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

To be considered a country in today's global political sphere, a territory must be diplomatically recognized by the 193 member states (countries) of the United Nations—and while some 13 countries (and Vatican City/Holy See) do recognize Taiwan as of April 2022, many others do not. As a result, although Taiwan was recognized as a country by the United Nations from 1949 to 1971, it is currently not in the UN and is classified as only a territory. Fearingly (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

To be considered a country in today's global political sphere, a territory must be diplomatically recognized by the 193 member states (countries) of the United Nations

This is incorrect. Please see the discussion linked at the top of this talk page that established this consensus. — Remsense诉 05:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

If a country must be diplomatically recognized by the 193 member states (countries) of the United Nations to be considered a country, China, North Korea, South Korea, etc. aren't countries either. The United Nations is simply just an organization of members; they have no power or authority to determine who is and isn't a member. Eclipsed830 (talk) 16:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Remsense it's not by the 193 for sure, that can be in many cases impossible. there is no actually a number, but at least the main council or the permanent council. However, if we want to understand, first, it's not China, it's PRC or RoC, that is the actual dispute. Both claim they are the China which includes Mainland and Taiwan. Second, we can take the cultural part and understand the decision our countries. and that says that taiwan is not a country because it's part of PRC. Can't exist a country inside a country, that is silly. Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

You need to base your arguments off of what the policies on the English Wikipedia say, we're not going to reinvent the wheel for this page's sake. We've said repeatedly that we call Taiwan a country because reliable sources do, which establishes a neutral point of view.

Can't exist a country inside a country.

Again, Scotland? The English word "country" does allow this, because "country" is a different word than [sovereign] "state".
Please stop surmising in the least helpful possible way about definitions, and look at policy and the evidence previously put forward in the context of said policy. — Remsense诉 00:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan is factually not part of the PRC besides as the PRC's claimed territories. The article already discusses this specific claim. Butterdiplomat (talk) 00:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

First, if it isn't 193 members, what is the threshold, and according to who? The Untied Nations is just a group of members, members can decide who is and isn't a member; but they don't determine who is and isn't a country. Second, it isn't the position of most English speaking countries that Taiwan is part of the PRC. That is not the position of the United States, the United Kingdom, and most other English speaking or "western" countries (Japan, France, etc.). And when we look at an objective view from the outside, Taiwan is factually not part of the PRC. The PRC has never had any sort of authority or jurisdiction over the island of Taiwan. Eclipsed830 (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

To be considered a country in today's global political sphere. Wrong. Nobody recognises countries. They recognise nations and states. “Territory” is correct, but far inferior to “country”.

Read the talk page header: Important notice: Prior consensus has decided that Taiwan is to be referred to as a country. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

So, explain first, without using the term consensus (and because it might be achieved but if science requires reviews, then we have to, can't let "prior" to win against evolution, don't we?), and references that are just white papers or journalist comments and opinions, what do you mean as "territory being inferior" to what ?

Explain the difference from nation and states, since you know it so well.

When you say "nobody" you mean No Body or a person? Because as I see (@Butterdiplomat don't agree with me as he says it's only a "bunch of countries" with no legitimate power or decision) only United Nations is the closer we can get to define that is a nation and I still don't understand the obsession of declaring that it is a country or under based of what. You say you have lots of references but on what grounds are they determined? surely not the Montvideo because...repeating again, it qualifies in the same way as Isle of Man or Madeira. Both these islands have the 4 requisites of the convention and just like Taiwan, none of them declared to be independent, and the real truth is... Taiwan it self, doesn't want independence (yet...).

So, if it's not, you can say it's inferior or what ever, but country it's not. I don't care if there was a prior consensus, I opened the problem and there is no consensus, therefore remove the "error" and do not allocate the word as country. Find another term that can be acceptable once for all.

You guys Don't need to write history in wikipedia just because you wish Taiwan was independent. In my case, I don't even care if they belong to PRC or Australia or Jupiter. Just don't atribute terms that there is no consensus or liable facts. Here it is clear that the term is not clear.

Lots of people have wrote about this, but the truth is... it's not clear. do not make wikipedia be a flag of something that its not the competence of this institution. can we finally agree on this so everyone can be happy? If Taiwan declares independence (and softly no war, please) I will be the first one here to accept it... or... some other institution that we can considerer as a valid institution for countries designation (which seems that UN according to some editors here it's not, it's just a "bunch of countries"!)

Can we agree and close this issue? Pedro Manuel da Silva Faria (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll be fine with referring to Taiwan as a state, because that's what it is – it has all the hallmarks of a state. Sure, it's not a widely recognised state; however, partially recognised states are still states and we routinely refer to them as such (see Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Kosovo, Transnistria, etc.). — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to the previous RfC which extensively discussed this topic and state exactly what you take issue with based on that consensus. Otherwise, I am only supportive of keeping the article as-is (country). Butterdiplomat (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't an RfC, just a back-and-forth with no meaningful conclusion. Taiwan can be, and has been, described both as a state and as a country, and there's no contradiction here (the two terms have slightly different meanings, although they've grown to be interchangeable in common usage). The way I see it – geographically, ethnically and sociologically, Taiwan is a country while legally and politically it's also a name of a (largely) sovereign state, with all the usual state structures in place. Unless focusing mainly on geography and culture, it's often easier for Wikipedia to discuss such entities from a political/legal perspective, i.e., as states, and so my view is that it will work out less contentious for us to just use the latter term. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

There have been multiple RFCs and discussions which forbid changing Taiwan to anything other than a country. See right here. Did you miss all the writing at the top of this talk page? Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes I missed them, thanks. Although TBH the closer of the main RfC wasn't really qualified to close it IMO if they wrote in their closing statement about "sovereign country" (which is nonsense – sovereignty only applies to states, i.e., political structures, not to countries, i.e. socio-geographical constructs). — kashmīrī ^TALK 11:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That is maybe true per just one definition of country. In fact, “sovereign country” is commonly referenced in credible dictionaries and other reliable sources. To say that the closer was not qualified would be to impose the preference for a narrow definition on all other editors. Butterdiplomat (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Educational info for all Country#Statehood....no guesswork. Moxy- 21:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. It neatly confirms what I wrote above. — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:54, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It in fact does not confirm what you wrote, with due respect. The section merely states that “country” and “sovereignty” are separate concepts and discusses a few theories. It even has a sentence that says that Taiwan is a country whose sovereignty is disputed (presumably not because countries cannot be sovereign). In any case, citing another article is probably original research with little value, but in this case it does not confirm your claim above. Butterdiplomat (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess we need to be more clear (clear to most I think that sovereignty is a feature of countries). Not sure how we can word it better so its clear for all. Will take a look. Moxy- 14:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you got it wrong. Technically, sovereignty is a feature of states. See article Sovereign state, to which Sovereign country is merely a redirect. Likewise, the link posted by you earlier also makes sure to use the term state consistently in the context of sovereignty. I agree that some sources don't seem to make a distinction, however we don't need to be imprecise and inconsistent just because some sources are. — kashmīrī ^TALK 15:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Corrrect ..but most countries are both de jure and de facto (i.e., they exist both according to law and in practice). I dont think anyone anywhere says Taiwan is not self governing.....only that its not recognized by all other states. As source say.. legal definitions be it declaratory and constitutive are there. Do we have source that say otherwise? Moxy- 18:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Once again, you are overlooking the fact that "country" has broad definitions even on Wikipedia, and of course in common usage. As listed in my previous comment, multiple reliable sources use the term "sovereign country," which in any case was just included in a comment made in the previous RfC and isn't being proposed here. Butterdiplomat (talk) 02:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually, per the last RfCs and most sources, the term used is simply "country"... not "sovereign country." That is why it was decided to use simply, country here. Prior to our usage today it was called a "state" here, not a "sovereign state."Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

We are in agreement. I am simply addressing Kashmiri’s claim that the previous RfC closer was not qualified to close because of the usage of the term “sovereign country” in the closing statement. My point simply is that (1) that term is not inaccurate or disqualifying as claimed, and (2) the conclusion was to use simply “country” anyway per RS. Butterdiplomat (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@Butterdiplomat Let me say it again: the fact that some sources conflate country and state is no sufficient rationale to use the technically wrong term "sovereign state". We have a similar situation as with the usage of nationality and citizenship. Some ostensibly reliable sources use both terms interchangeably, however please read the second paragraph of Citizenship.

On Wikipedia, we should strive to use technically correct terms. We cannot use incorrect terminology simply because it has also been used elsewhere.

Sovereignty is linked with statehood, not with the fact of being a country – because a country can have more than one sovereign state on its territory (e.g., Italy or Cyprus) or, conversely, a sovereign state may not be a country (e.g., Vatican or San Marino)

When I point out an error that's obvious to anyone having an idea about public international law, it's not because I can't see the references, but because I sort of know this is an error. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The People’s Republic of China itself is not “diplomatically recognized by the 193 UN member states”, your first condition for being a “country” has already failed to clarify your points. 126.253.123.189 (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, I would say that you are imposing your personal interpretation of public international law on the rest of us. It could be helpful or even admirable that you are a learned legal scholar with advanced degrees in international law, but an encyclopedia is still not a legal briefing or legal document. To bring this back to the core of the discussion, your interpretation can easily be considered original research in defiance of reliable sources.

In any case, nowhere is “sovereign country” in the article, and the usage of “sovereign country” to refer to instead “sovereign state” in discussion is common, because “country” is sometimes used interchangeably with “state” (even if confusing to some). Still, your disagreement with this does not necessarily call for a change in the article. In the interest of advancing this discussion, I’d suggest explaining what you are proposing. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Nollkaemper, A.; Reinisch, A.; Janik, R.; Simlinger, F. (2019). International Law in Domestic Courts: A Casebook. OXFORD University Press. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-19-873974-6. Moxy- 13:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I am confused as to where this discussion is going. The OP’s original comment was already addressed, and I don’t know if anything is being proposed. If this is just now a general discussion on the word usage in the context of international law, I’d suggest moving this discussion offline, to Country, or to International law. Otherwise, please let me know what changes specific to this article are being proposed. Butterdiplomat (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

you are imposing [...] on the rest of us. Wow, I did not expect an argumentum ad populum here. When were you elected to represent "the rest of Wikipedia editors"? — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:34, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

No, in fact I did not allude to the popularity of any argument. I was simply saying that you are imposing a narrow definition (when the definition is demonstratively subjective) and expecting all others to conform. In any case, as I said above, I am interested in and would like to move on to your actual proposal instead of this point on a comment in the previous RfC. Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Put it simply we regurgitate what sources say...pls bring forth source that say different Moxy- 18:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Please refer to the top of the talk page where it says to refer to the RfC about the topic. In that RfC, a multitude of reliable sources were cited (in favor of each of the potential wording), ultimately a numeric consensus was determined. Please explain what it is you are proposing or regurgitating, because we are spinning in circles here. To reiterate, the article does not say “sovereign country” (the problematic phrasing in your view). It simply says “Taiwan … is a country in East Asia.” Please present your argument for changing that. Thank you. Butterdiplomat (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2024

There is no such thing as Han Taiwanese, the name of the ethnic group is Han Chinese, just because you live somewhere doesn't mean you change the name of the ethnic group 158.223.122.211 (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 18:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Well, yeah, that's usually how it goes. See main article Han Taiwanese, about Taiwanese people from Han descent. Or Hoa people, Vietnamese Han people. Or French Canadian, Irish American, Turkish German... soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 18:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This talk page isn’t meant to be a place to air your opinions, and your request is more relevant to Han Taiwanese anyway. I suggest supplying reliable sources to support your edit requests. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Establishment

I think it is worth a discussion to determine the most appropriate content for the Establishment section in the country infobox, after the recent change and reversion. The History section in the article goes back to the prehistory of Taiwan, etc., and even the “Establishment” links to History of Taiwan, so I get why the original editor made the change.

Now, I also understand the infobox is supposed to be about the modern polity, but the phrasing of “Taiwan and Penghu restored to ROC rule” (even with the footnote) is a little counterfactual as the ROC never had possession/sovereignty over Taiwan prior to that point.

Proposal up for discussion:

• Republic of China established, 10 October 1911
• Taiwan under ROC rule^[i], 25 October 1945
  • ALT: ROC administration of Taiwan^[i]
  • ALT2: Handover^[i] of Taiwan to ROC
• Current ROC government established, 20 May 1948
• Retreat of ROC to Taiwan, 7 December 1949

Same footnote would apply to all 3 alternatives put forth for that bullet. This is really a call for input and other suggestions, so please feel free to make adjustments to the proposal. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Point 2 should change per your point, but the third point ("Current ROC government") should also be reworded or removed, it is not "government" as would be expected by most English speakers, and is entirely unsourced both here and at the target page. CMD (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed on that point, reflected above. Additionally, date in the first bullet should really be 1 January 1912 unless I am missing something. Butterdiplomat (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The flip side of “Taiwan is a country” is that “establishment” doesn’t work.

• Taiwan was formed out of a geosyncline, a large, troughlike depression in the ocean floor containing masses of sedimentary and volcanic rocks
• Taiwanese indigenous peoples settled the island around 6,000 years ago
• The sudden appearance of a culture based on agriculture around 3000 BC is believed to reflect the arrival of the ancestors of today's Taiwanese indigenous peoples.

As the lede goes for the vague definition, any mention of “establishment” should be specific about establishment “of what”. Taiwan did not begin in 1949. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this topic is not about “Taiwan is a country” - stating that is already the existing consensus per the latest RfC. Based on the current structure, we are talking about the country whose common name is Taiwan and whose official name is the ROC.

The establishment is of this polity - thus the 1911 founding and the 1945 takeover are relevant. Bullets about just the geographical area are not typical of other countries. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

You can’t simply ignore the ambiguity of “country”. You make it worse by talking about “the country whose common name is Taiwan”. That country is not a polity. It is a land, with connections to geography, history, culture as well as politics. The country predates the word “Taiwan”.

Given the contentious, but consensus, decision go with the ambiguous “country”, later items that are specific should be specific. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

The infobox is about the polity, as is standard for all country infoboxes. We don't really have a land infobox, although Template:Infobox settlement is sometimes employed. CMD (talk) 12:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the geography and history are relevant to the article. Those topics are covered in the article itself, with appropriate section hatnotes to direct readers to either ROC-specific or pre-ROC topics. However, my view is that the infobox is about the polity, with defined establishment and structure. In the absence of a clear “founding” of Taiwan (as you rightly pointed out), I think that the ROC as the current government of Taiwan (and commonly known as Taiwan) is a reasonable polity to include in the infobox especially if we also include clarifying notes. Butterdiplomat (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The lede introduces Taiwan in summary of its chronicle history from 17 century to the contemporary time period, hence the section does not simply imply to the current polity of the “Republic of China”, the topic is not even the “Republic of China” but “Taiwan” as a whole. So the reason to completely exclude the pre-establishment of ROC history is not standing by the fact that the article is primarily focused on Taiwan as a land or a country. Not just the polity of the ROC.

Other articles of surrounding areas such as China, Japan and South Korea which put pre- modern national history in the info box. If such logic of current polity is exclusively required for the historical information of a nation, then the PRC was only established in 1949, current state of Japan only established in 1947. And the South Korea which even has similar disputes on its legitimate sovereignty as a nation over the entire peninsular, applied its pre- historical info dates back to Gojoseon, is that indicated that the current South Korea is referred to be the only lawful successor to the Joseon dynasty in Wikipedia policy? So why Taiwan is the only exception for the one applied to only the current polity??

126.158.20.136 (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The info box is a summary of (in effect) the lede, which is a summery of the article. It can't (and should not) go into any real detail. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The lede introduces Taiwan in summary of its chronicle history from 17 century to the contemporary time period, hence the section does not simply imply to the current polity of the “Republic of China”, the topic is not even the “Republic of China” but “Taiwan” as a whole. So the reason to completely exclude the pre-establishment of ROC history is not standing by the fact that the article is primarily focused on Taiwan as a land or a country. Not just the polity of the ROC.

Other articles of surrounding areas such as China, Japan and South Korea which put pre- modern national history in the info box. If such logic of current polity is exclusively required for the historical information, then the PRC was only established in 1949, current state of Japan only established in 1947. And the South Korea which even has similar disputes on its legitimate sovereignty as a nation over the entire peninsular, applied its pre- historical info dates back to Gojoseon, is that indicated the current South Korea is referred to be the only lawful successor to the Joseon dynasty in Wikipedia policy? So why Taiwan is the only exception for the one applied to only the current polity?? 126.158.20.136 (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, point taken. My proposal was to improve what was already on the page (by removing the "restored" language). But I understand the argument for including establishments prior to the ROC. I am not opposed to this, but was simply addressing what was already in the infobox. Let us know if there are any additional bullet points you would propose. Butterdiplomat (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

What my suggestion is just reverting the status of the historical section back to the version before this edit[4], which is an unnecessary removal of the content by the reason for trimming the section as the editor considered that is “unrelated to the current polity”, which was not gone through a general discussion and decided to be removed only by one specific editor, that does not seem any better than the previous long-standing version. 126.158.20.136 (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this and think we should go back to that version. However, I would still prefer editing the wording in that version. The framing of "[ethnic group] political rule established" in the first two bullets is odd, and the "restored to ROC rule" bullet is counterfactual as I pointed out above. And to SmokeyJoe's point, perhaps "Political history" is a better title than "Establishment" for this section. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The wording of the events occurred in chronicle are not really a big deal, as “European (Dutch) began to colonies”, “Han Chinese established rule” are alternatively rephrased. The importance of the chronicle is the significance of those years as the turning points of history, not the names it’s used. 126.253.7.20 (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the “Establishment” section of the (huge, overly?) infobox should not use the word “Establishment” but “Political history” (better matching what it links to), and that it should begin with Taiwan under Qing rule (1683-1895) and include the period of Japanese rule.

What was the effect of ROC establishment in 1911 on Taiwan? I don’t think it warrants a mention, as there was no ROC in Taiwan in 1911. The infobox should be about Taiwan, not the history of the ROC. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The topic of this page is the state known as Taiwan, also known as the ROC. 1911 was the founding of this state. CMD (talk) 17:12, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think that’s accurate. The topic is obviously about the country of Taiwan, with its history going back before the ROC. There is overlap in the modern era, but ultimately this article is not just about the modern state.

I was previously under the impression that the infobox was about the modern ROC polity, but this appears to not be the case and was only a result of a unilateral edit. Butterdiplomat (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the modern polity, it was even previously titled Republic of China. If you have a source defining "the country of Taiwan" otherwise that might be useful for another page, but there haven't been any so far. CMD (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

As I pointed out in aforementioned comments, the lede introduces the chronicle of the Taiwanese history, not just the current polity of the ROC, and which have already been elaborated in two different major articles ‘’Republic of China (1912-1949)’’, ‘’History of Taiwan (1945–present)’’. And last but not least, this topic titled as “Taiwan” not the “Republic of China” unfortunately, which summarizes the history began from the European Age of discovery that the island first opened to the outside world, not only the founding of the ROC. If only current polity should be considered in the infobox of national history, then China should be started from 1949 upon the founding of the current state PRC, modern state of Japan established in 1947, and South Korea started in 1948 only. 126.253.7.20 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Every country article elaborates on history and has multiple history subarticles, this is entirely standard. The infobox is not about national history, it is about sovereignty and when such sovereignty was established. CMD (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

So when did the sovereignty of current Japan and South Korea were established? Is South Korea even considered no sovereign dispute as legal successor to the Joseon dynasty or any pre-modern polity over the Korean Peninsula? Korea or even Mongolia were under foreign domination for decades or even centuries, how did that explain the modern sovereignty of these nations were established from Mongol Empire or Gojoseon?? Your explanation to the historical info is shown only as a POV which does not stand as any Wikipedia regulations. 126.253.7.20 (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Japan a very long time ago, if there are issues with the South Korea article you should raise them there. The explanation is also found in the infobox field names. CMD (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Butterdiplomat As you can see from the response, @Chipmunkdavis obviously failed to apply any compelling reason to exclude pre-ROC history from the info box, which made no genuine sense to trim those events and largely based on personal opinions (WP:NPOV) and personal preference. (WP:IDONTLIKETHEM]) His edits should be reverted to the status in January and gain more consensus before making any alteration. 126.253.7.20 (talk) 05:33, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@ProxyIP, as it may have been missed, the infobox field in question is not a history section. If you want to change that and add history sections to country infoboxes, then you should start a wider discussion. CMD (talk) 08:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Let me address why your edition should be reverted:

1. The actions you made on 16th January, did not go through a so-called “wider discussion” at first. But you requested me if others considered changing your own edits made by your personal interpretation without a general discussion in the first place, must go thorough a wider discussion? Why do you think this discussing section are even existing and what our talking is trying to attain, could you tell me?

2. Based on your responses, peoples here including myself have addressed that this topic major Taiwan as a country or island in whatever definition it is, about its political formation in chronicle, not only the current governing entity. This is how other articles have been made and I have shown you several examples that are inconsistent with your edits, just as China, Japan, Koreas, or Mongolia, all dates back from hundreds to thousands of years chronology of events. And you just neglected our points and carry on your “only current polity-related theory”. Therefore, could I ask you to gain consensus over this issue through a wider discussion with people here before imposing on your edits instead? 126.253.123.189 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

1911 was not the founding of Taiwan. If User:Chipmunkdavis is not technically wrong, he is certainly confusing. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

1911/1912 was the founding of the Republic of China, which has over time and through an uncommon historical process become what we now commonly know as Taiwan. Perhaps the confusion stems from the unusual history of a government ending up ruling a functionally different state, although it is not unique (Byzantine Empire and Northern Yuan are perhaps among the more famous historical examples). CMD (talk) 08:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not consistent with “Taiwan is a country”. Check the subtlety of the meaning of country and wikt:country. A country cannot move. A polity, a state, and a nation, can move, but not a country. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

It's entirely consistent with the usage of country that is found almost ubiquitously throughout our country articles. I'm not sure what the particular technical interpretation you want to use is, but I haven't seen it in sources on the topic. CMD (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

What I’m pushing for is, in the infobox:

1. “establishment” should be changed, whether wrong, inappropriate or confusing;

2. Before 1945, Rule by the Empire of Japan belongs

3. in terms of the country history, the 1911/12 formation of the ROC is a side path. Maybe it belongs in italics or in parentheses.

SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree with 1 although I'm not sure what to put, it's clearly a generic term that is being used without much though. As for the other 2, neither relate to the sovereignty here (and parts of Taiwan were never ruled by Japan anyway), and 1911 is a key date of foundation which remains the national holiday of Taiwan to this day. CMD (talk) 10:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all 3 of SmokeyJoe’s points. Japanese sovereignty over Taiwan was in fact established, and no entity prior to the ROC ruled all of the existing ROC territories - that is not a valid reason to exclude. Lastly, the ROC was not established on 10 October 1911 (the national holiday), and I think marking the 1912 establishment in italics is sensible. Butterdiplomat (talk) 11:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

There were many entities which established control of various parts of what is now Taiwan over time, as with all countries. That is not the criteria for the infobox (and has been found to be insufficient for similar fields elsewhere). The inclusion criteria is if the event was key to the foundation of the polity the infobox is being used for. Such a link is not presented in the article, which treats the event as a transfer of territory. The events of 1911-1912 were part of the same process, the relevant factor of the holiday is to provide an illustration of the importance of this process to Taiwan, rather than to highlight a specific date. CMD (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

The national holiday is clearly important to the founding of the ROC, but it is two levels removed from Taiwanese history: (1) it is not the founding date of the ROC, and (2) when the ROC was founded, it did not include Taiwan.

I am unsure where you are getting the inclusion criteria (sorry if you cited earlier already), but the infobox description for events states, “key event in history of country/territory's status or formation” — the start of Japanese rule, start of Qing rule, etc., are clearly key events, consistent with the main article. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

They are key events in history in general, that does not mean they are key to status/formation. To tangent slightly into the weeds of 1911/1912, the Xinhai revolution was a process, and the 1911 revolution is sometimes referred to as the founding date(eg). Out of the weeds, the precise date is not too important given the process as a whole is what founded the state. "Taiwan" in this article refers to the Republic of China, the two terms are synonymous in this usage. To say "when the ROC was founded, it did not include Taiwan" is to conflate the article topic with a different meaning of Taiwan, presumably just the island, which is not the topic of this article. CMD (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t agree with your understanding of what this article refers to. Taiwan has a history that extends beyond the ROC takeover/retreat in 1945-1949. This article is not just about the modern polity, even if that polity is part of it. It also isn’t just about history - Taiwanese culture (arts, cuisine, pop culture) is not exclusively tied to the ROC.

I suggest re-reading and addressing the summary another user made above:

… the lede introduces the chronicle of the Taiwanese history, not just the current polity of the ROC, and which have already been elaborated in two different major articles ‘’Republic of China (1912-1949)’’, ‘’History of Taiwan (1945–present)’’… If only current polity should be considered in the infobox of national history, then China should be started from 1949 upon the founding of the current state PRC, modern state of Japan established in 1947, and South Korea started in 1948 only. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

It is not simply my understanding, it has been the understanding since the creation of this article, and was the understanding under which it was most recently moved. The culture and other aspects are given in the framework of the polity topic, the same as every other country. The argument you quote is based on a flawed premise that confuses the article topic and the infobox. The article topic is by default about the current polity, because it is literally about the polity that exists today. If the polity undergoes changes, for example when the Kingdom of Nepal became the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, the article is updated and remains about the current polity (although sometimes new articles are created for defined historical periods). The infobox section in question is meant to consider "key event[s] in history of country/territory's status or formation". Where a polity succeeds another one, a key event of the past polity is directly relevant to the current polity, for example the Kingdom of Nepal being created is what led to the Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal. The unusual factor for this article is that it reflects the complex history of being a polity that shifted, which is somewhat unique in modern times (although it has happened historically), so the creation of former Chinese polities have never been included here as they have in the China article. CMD (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, but I am not exactly understanding the dichotomy between the article topic and the infobox, especially since they were more aligned prior to this edit made without wide discussion. You do acknowledge the polity shift means former Chinese entities are not to be included here, but why wouldn't the same rationale be applied to include previous regimes in Taiwanese history?

In your Nepal example, the topic is clearly not just about the Federal Democratic Republic which was founded in 2008. The polity to rule Taiwan was shifted from the Empire of Japan to the ROC in 1945, and prior to that from the Qing dynasty to Japan. There is a coherent sequence of events that are consistent with the way the article has been outlined, so aligning the infobox shouldn't be that controversial. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

According to the historical context, some modern countries were also at once-larger state, such as Austria, Hungary, Poland, Serbia, and Turkey, have been given years of formation with their historical regimes established, including some important events and even foreign occupations in their national history (such as Anschluss, Partition of Poland, Ottoman conquest of Serbia), which are far beyond the founding of the current state. If the topic specify Taiwan as the land for being the subject of information, the infobox should retain the political history in the same scheme as others. 123.195.224.196 (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Again, "the polity to rule Taiwan" is misidentifying the article subject, as is the reference to Taiwanese history. I am also not sure why that edit is being pointed out as one made without wide discussion. The edit that changed things without discussion is this one which was made with no discussion or edit summary and quickly followed by a large number of other edits, and altered the 18-year stable state of starting with 1911. CMD (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussions in the 2012 move request clearly reached an understanding that the scope of the article would not include pre-1945 ROC. This is reflected, presumably for 10+ years, in the main article. The existence of Republic of China (1912–1949) is confirmatory of that understanding, and that article seems to align more closely to what you think this article is.

FWIW, there was a rather lengthy discussion about the history paragraph(s) in the lede in 2021, and the inclusion of Taiwanese history in this article was not in question then. Is your argument that (i) this article should only be about the ROC because it was moved from that name [disagree per above points], or (ii) the content of the article is fine but the infobox should only be about the ROC [not sure this makes sense], or (iii) something else? Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This article is about the ROC. Taiwan is the shortform common name of the Republic of China. We include the history of its territory because that is what is done for every country. The infobox is nonetheless not a history section, it is for key events establishing sovereignty. CMD (talk) 07:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It is in fact about the ROC after 1945, if not after 1949 or later. The article is named so per common name usage. As you said, it includes the history “of its territory” as it would be simply inaccurate to say “Taiwan was founded in 1912.” So is your argument (ii) in my question?

I am not sure where the infobox events section says anything about sovereignty — as mentioned above, the description says “key event in history of country/territory's status or formation.” That is consistent with including the history of the current state’s territory, which you acknowledged “is done for every country.” The transition from Japanese rule to ROC rule, and Qing to Japanese, etc., as mentioned earlier, would certainly be key events leading up to Taiwan’s current status. Butterdiplomat (talk) 10:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The article is not about the ROC after 1945, it is a current article about a currently existing entity. The established_event fields support the |sovereignty_type = field. The country infobox is not meant to include the history of the territory, that is the article. Regarding the historical events, the article is about the ROC, the ROC did not transition to ROC rule. CMD (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so your position is the (ii) in my question, that the content of the article is fine but the infobox should only be about the ROC. I think it is somewhat odd but am indifferent to this arrangement but defer to others who might have stronger views. In the meantime, I would like to propose we make the changes outlined in the top of this discussion now. I believe we at least have consensus here to make those changes. Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The current content is also about the ROC, but no objection to the changes mentioned at the top. CMD (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan as the subject for this article did not restrict to the post-ROC history, which contains historical contexts over four centuries since the Dutch established rule on island. And the infobox conventionally follow the same scheme with the main articles. I don’t get the idea that national template deviated itself from the subject we are referring. If Taiwan here as common name for contemporary ROC, which only overlapped after 1945 since the territorial transition of Taiwan from Japan, the majority of ROC history on Chinese mainland did not include Taiwan and was not regarded as part of the Taiwanese history. The inclusion of both historical lines are fairly a compromise on making a comprehensive info for the topic. As many previous discussions have pointed out, in other Wikipedia articles, pre-modern states over the same land, regardless of domestic state-power transition or handover to an overseas power, were part of the national history and should be included as the important years of formation that led to the founding of the modern state. 123.195.224.196 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis’s position is not consistent with a reading of the article. It is not consistent with e second paragraph of the lede, nor with the history section up to 1945.

The scope of the article is set by the lede sentence, which goes with “country”, and the ROC is given in qualified terms. The scope of the article does not include pre-1945 ROC politics, and does include non-ROC Taiwanese history.

The actual problem that needs fixing is the “Establishment” section in the infobox, which grossly errs and confuses by failing to mention rule by the Empire of Japan, and also errs with the 10 October 1911 event. That event was not relevant to the country of Taiwan, on that date. SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

It is consistent with the topic this page has had since its creation in 2001. CMD (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The topic is "Taiwan" - a name that was determined to be the common name for the ROC through previous discussions. We are not in disagreement about this. I think you also agree the History section as it stands (including history of the ROC's current territory) is fine. I don't think it is inconsistent with the scope of the article to align the infobox with the article content.

What this article was moved from and what it was named at creation was already taken into consideration when the move was discussed. The creation and existence of Republic of China (1912–1949) suggests the understanding (shared by me, 123.195.224.196, and SmokeyJoe) of this article's scope is entirely appropriate. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Since Taiwan is a remnant of the area once controlled by the Republic of China, it makes little sense to refer to its establishment. TFD (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)