Talk:Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China

Separate page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I see no reason why this should be a seperate page other than someone wanting to make a political point; surely the situation would be made clearer to a reader by including it within the Taiwan article. Cripipper 22:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a term not an actual entity. It is a political term used by the PRC and should be described as a specific term used by the PRC. Everything else is overlapping with other articles and if you have issues with that, please see Taiwan, Taiwan Province, and Republic of China and edit there.

Separate article reconfirmed through recent AfDs

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.

Merge with Taiwan (2006)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I agree that there is no reason for this article to exist. Wikipedia may as well have articles titled "California, Mexico" or "Texas, Mexico" since some Mexicans claim that these areas should be part of Mexico.

Or, in a similar NPOV vein, "Western Sahara, Morocco"

Similarly, there are plenty of disclaimers all over articles about Taiwan and the Republic of China etc, that indicate the PRC claims them. This article is simply redundant. Itis not necessary for this article to be merged, it should simply be deleted.

Quite frankly I can't see why it wasn't simply deleted when first put up. It also sets a very poor precedent for other Wiki articles about other places in dispute.

Last time I checked The mexican governemnt does not still claim the SW USA. The PRC government claims Taiwan not just a few chinese. Zazaban 00:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is on a specific (perhaps hypothetical) administrative entity. If anything, it should be merged with the Taiwan Province article has an article exclusively devoted to the administration and not cultural and geographical aspects.--Jiang 03:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the "Western Sahara" argument: Oued Ed-Dahab-Lagouira is one of three Moroccan provinces in Western Sahara. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should be just deleted as there are no such thing as "Taiwan Province, PRC". Jim Liu 19:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted. Taiwan Province has always been controlled by the Republic of China. The PRC has never set foot in Taiwan. Therefore, it is completely illegitimate and unreasonable to have a "Taiwan Province, PRC" when it doesn't exist. It is only a fantasy made up by the Communist government. TingMing 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article talks about a nonexistent political entity. It talks about nothing. I've been to Taiwan on bussiness. It's nothing like Red China. And I am not even Chinese, I am Russian. --SergeiXXX 17:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The PRC claims the ROC as being part of its territory, so it seems correct to have articles describing those claims. This one describes how the PRC subdivides part of the ROC. Similarly, Japanese subdivisions of claims of Russian-controlled areas are described (although very briefly) at Nemuro Subprefecture. If someone in Mexico claims part of the USA, then I guess someone could write a page about that, as long as someone digs up the necessary sources. (Stefan2 12:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC))

Agree with Stefan2, this article is not about Taiwan, it is about what the PRC claims being part of its territory. Whether or not PRC actually control the province is irrelevant. Chris! _{my talk} 02:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No one said the PRC isn't claiming Taiwan as being part of it. But having this article as its own is not appropriate. The claim should be mentioned in the Taiwan Province article only. So I suggest to merge these two together.--Jerry 21:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This article describes something real; it describes the structures in place in China to support their claim that Taiwan is a province of China. There are real people whose job is to attend National People's Congress meetings as "representatives" of Taiwan. Even though these people are just going through the motions, they are in fact going through the motions and those motions are referred to by the PRC government frequently enough to make an article useful.

As for merging this article with Taiwan or Taiwan Province, I believe that would be confusing. This article describes something that happens in the PRC. It really has very little to do with either Taiwan the island, Taiwan the nation, or Taiwan the province administered by the ROC, just as the Napoleon Complex has little to do withNapoleon. The separate Taiwan, ROC and Taiwan, PRC articles are NPOV in that they both describe government structures and what affect those structures actually have. Merging the two would suggest that they have something in common when they have little in common beyond their names.Readin (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Some AfDs have established a no-merge consensus

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.

Further reading

Are the books in the "further reading" specific enough to the topic of China's supposed province to be listed here? Based on their names they seem to be about the general relationship between Taiwan and China, not the specific aspect that is the topic of this article.Readin (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed statement

I don't think I've ever read the PRC refering to the ROC as "provincial" authorities. Even doing so would give the ROC some legitimacy. Roadrunner (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The term used in most press releases and statements is to refer to the ROC as a "local authority". An example of the PRC view towards the ROC can be found in this white paper.-Loren (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

We have an edit war going on between

Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China (simplified Chinese: 台湾省; traditional Chinese: 臺灣省 or 台灣省; pinyin: Táiwān shěng) is an adminstrative province of the People's Republic of China (PRC), covering an area over which the PRC has no control. PRC claims the entirety of the island of Taiwan and its surrounding islets, including the Pescadores, as parts of its Taiwan Province. The PRC has never controlled any of this territory, which is currently under de facto control of the Republic of China (ROC). The People's Republic of China claims that Taiwan is part of China, that the PRC succeeded the ROC as the sole legitimate authority in all of China upon its founding in 1949 (see Political status of Taiwan).

and

Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China (simplified Chinese: 台湾省; traditional Chinese: 臺灣省 or 台灣省; pinyin: Táiwān shěng) is a theoretical province of the People's Republic of China (PRC), covering an area the PRC has never controlled. PRC claims the entirety of the island of Taiwan and its surrounding islets, including the Pescadores, as parts of its Taiwan Province. The PRC has never controlled any of this territory, which is currently under de facto control of the Republic of China (ROC). The People's Republic of China claims that Taiwan is part of China, that the PRC succeeded the ROC as the sole legitimate authority in China upon its founding in 1949, and that the ROC currently in Taiwan is unrecognized by PRC and most of countries (see Political status of Taiwan).

It seems to me that the second paragraph is superior. The first paragraph is wrong to say "Taiwan Province...is an adminstrative province of the PRC" because the PRC does not in fact "administer" the area it is claiming as "Taiwan Province". Since the PRC has no control over Taiwan, Taiwan is a province of the PRC only in theory, not in established fact. Readin (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, this is not fiction. The province exists in the administrative apparatus of the PRC, it sends delegates to the People's Congress, etc.. Thus wordings like 'theoretical' are unsuitable. Other wordings in the lead are quite clear on that the PRC has no control at all over the territory. I think a delimitation is needed here, and perhaps the best would be to weed out large parts of the article. This article should deal with the actually existing institutional framework of the PRC province (how it's 'exile' apparatus functions, etc.), leaving the broader political discussion about PRC claims and cross-strait relations to other articles. --Soman (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

map caption

The caption of the map has switched back and forth between saying "mainland China" and "People's Republic of China". I believe the latter term is more appropriate here because we are talking about a legal fiction, that is to say, something having to do with laws and government. The article is not about "Taiwan Province, mainland China"; the article is about "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China". The NPOV may not be an issue because the map doesn't say whether Taiwan is part of the PRC or not. The map may be interpreted either way. Perhaps the caption should say "Taiwan in relation to areas under the control of the People's Republic of China". Readin (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A better caption would be "Areas claimed by PRC as its Taiwan Province". That relates better to the core subject of the article. --Soman (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

What the article is about

The heading used to say:

This article is about the province claimed by the People's Republic of China. For the Taiwan Province that currently exists as ruled by the Republic of China, see Taiwan Province.

Now it says:

This article is about the claims by the People's Republic of China that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic's of China provinces. For the Taiwan Province that currently exists as ruled by the Republic of China, see Taiwan Province.

I'm not real happy with either. The first suggests that the province really exists. But it doesn't. Taiwan Province, ROC exists.

On the other hand, this article isn't really about the claims, it is really about the fictional province. Anyone have any suggestions? Readin (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

How about this:

This article is about the theoretical province claimed by the People's Republic of China. For the administrative Taiwan Province of the Republic of China, see Taiwan Province.

--Jerrch 03:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hasty editing, Terminology section

I happened to press 'Enter' a bit to soon before my last edit summary was completed. I removed the 'Terminology' section, since it fits better in overall articles of the political status of Taiwan. This article should be limited to the institutional framework of the PRC provincial administration 'in exile', rather than being about PRC claims on Taiwan in general. --Soman (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I still think that we should change the name of the article itself, Because it still makes me and maybe others that it sill is the property of the PRC not the Roc.

Change from:

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China

to

China's claim on Taiwan

or something like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMERICAN MIGHT (talk • contribs) 02:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, for various reasons. First of all, both Chinese governments (PRC and ROC) claim Taiwan as part of China. Moreover, there are several other articles on the Taiwan question in general. What this article would need is rather an expansion. How does the provincial administration 'in exile' function? Does it have a governing body? Who are the people at its helm? --Soman (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Presumably people don't come to the page just to read the title. They at least read the first sentence to answer the question "What is Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China?" So as long as the first complete thought of the first line (that is, up until the point someone may think the question is answered) is very clear about the nature of this theoretical administration, then I don't think there is a problem. The need for this page comes from the PRC using the term in various settings to push their agenda. Someone seeing the term "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" will want to know what it is, and it makes sense to have this page to tell them. As for Soman's suggestion that we include more information about how the PRC stages the pretend government, that sounds like good information to include as the body of the article. Readin (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting points madeAMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No consensus to rename

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.

How can a soveirgn country in theory be a province of the PRC?

You can't say that a country is in theory under the rule of another country when it clearly is not, but actually an established sovereign country with its own national government.

AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standard is published supposedly-reliable sources, not truth. While the truth may be obvious here, China has successfully pressured many otherwise reliable sources into accepting her irredentist imperialist claims. Since some reliable sources will claim Taiwan is a province of China, we can't just ignore the Chinese imperialist editors who want to insist that we not call the claim "fiction" no matter how accurate the term is. Readin (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There are some basic confusions here. To call Taiwan 'a country' is incorrect. There is no 'Republic of Taiwan', there is a Republic of China which claims Taiwan as one of its provinces. Both ROC and PRC claim to be the legitimate government of all of China, the PRC claims over Taiwan are by no means different from the ROC claims on Inner Mongolia. --Soman (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is a country. The Republic of China is a state. The Taiwanese might hold a constitutional convention or even stage a coup to get rid of the "Republic of China", but they will still remain the same country.Readin (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For prove that Taiwan is an Independent counntry just read this quote I got out of the Taiwan article.Below AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

On September 30, 2007, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party approved a resolution asserting separate identity from China and called for the enactment of a new constitution for a "normal country". It also called for general use of "Taiwan" as the island's name, without abolishing its formal name, the Republic of China.AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This is of course something many inhabitants of Taiwan would dispute. If a future DPP government (please note that elections were held, in which DPP were defeated) would declare a 'Republic of Taiwan', then we would have to deal with that issue. For now, ROC is the only political unit with de facto rule over Taiwan. Saying that China's claim over Taiwan (be it PRC or ROC) are 'imperialist' is like calling Spanish claims on Catalonia 'imperialist'. --Soman (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

~~AMERICAN MIGHT, you seem to like spinning things with biased politics. The DPP is a pro-separation party, one of the three well-knowns, in fact, and also has a well-known mention that its latest President was a public enemy of Taiwan. Now, with Ma Yinjiu, a member of the ROC, what say you? Your quote means nothing.

Also, sovereignty, even established and accepted sovereigns, has been challenged before. Hawaii? So, noting that the ROC had claimed to be the sovereign entity of Taiwan does not make it the end of the subject.

As I noted just below, if we could just use the facts and not spin details with any politics, there shouldn't be an issue here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.106.43 (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Biased edits!

On July 1st, 2008 wikipedian user:Netking China decided to remove both tags. If you were to take a look at his user page you could clearly tell that he is from china. Which makes me think he is not staying with wikipedia's neutral pov policy. AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

you are from the US, Which makes me think you are not staying with wikipedia's neutral pov policy considering the political inclinations of your country of origin 99.241.158.240 (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

~~I'm of the opinion, the only neutral view is the facts. In terms of land, you'd have to go with historical facts as any word of mouth or verbal claim will only result in bias. Therefore, as known throughout history, Taiwan is the island known by the western identity of Formosa. I'm not sure, but I believe it was derived from Portugese. Formosa has a native populous of Taiwanese "Hakka" persons, but have, since the defeat of the ROC in 1949, also sheltered the refugees of the fallen party. Two outcomes drew from this event: One being that of the Chinese in the mainland which believes the ROC and the natives are and have always been part of China. One nation. The other outcome, that of the ROC and later the Democratic Progressive Party, believing that since 1949, Taiwan had become a sovereign state.

I think, if it was stated this way, there should be no dispute as this is all fact and you can argue against the facts all you'd like, but that won't change them.

So, let's stop the finger pointing, "He's Chinese" "He's American", garbage and just tell it like it is.

Taiwan was part of China as a province until 1949 and its ownership has been disputed since, either staying a province or becoming a nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.106.43 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Theoretical Province?

The current opening text of the article says:-

"Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China (simplified Chinese: 台湾省; traditional Chinese: 臺灣省 or 台灣省; pinyin: Táiwān shěng) is a theoretical administrative province of the People's Republic of China (PRC), covering an area over which the PRC has no control."

Theoretical? What theory is that? Constitutional legal theory? International legal theory? I think the sentence is pretty clear already that it is a province within the claimed territory of the PRC that it has no control over. So I propose:-

"...is a claimed province of the People's Republic of China (PRC), covering an area over which the PRC has no control."--pyl (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

While legitimacy of the PRC's claim to Taiwan is greatly disputed, the PRC's control of Taiwan is not. The "administrative" nature of "Taiwan Province, Republic of China" has as much credibility as the flat-earth society. The key attribute of this "administrative province" is that it exists to promote a fiction that the PRC rules Taiwan (and even the PRC doesn't believe that fiction because when they refer to the "Taiwan authorities" they're referring to the ROC, not to their own administrative structure).

The very existence of this article is borderline POV. The only reason for its existence is so that when someone stumbles across "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" they can look it up and find out what it is and not be confused by the natural tendency to believe that something called "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" would be ruled by "People's Republic of China".

The fictional nature of the administration is at the core of the topic and should be front and center, not just part of a later descriptive clause.

I'm not completely satisfied with the word "theoretical", but "fictional" didn't work because the structure actually exists even if it doesn't actually administer anything. It is used here as a way of contrasting "theory" and "practice". "In theory" the structure administers Taiwan, but "in practice" Taiwan is governed by the Republic of China. Can you think of a better word? Readin (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I proposed "claimed province". I didn't say administrative, because seriously, what administrative when the PRC doesn't any control? "Administrative" is definitely the wrong word here. I thought my proposed sentence was pretty clear already: the PRC claims Taiwan as a province but it doesn't have any control over it.

We need this article because Taiwan is commonly recognised, acknowledged etc to be part of China. I don't think we need to say if this POV is right or wrong but there is enough public interest for this article to be there. But I totally accept that we need to point out that the PRC has no control over Taiwan.--pyl (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We need this article because Taiwan is commonly recognized, acknowledged etc to be part of China. No, it is not. It is primarily recognized as part of China in diplomatic circles. Otherwise it is commonly recognized as a separate country. Readin (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason for this article is that in some circumstances the phrase "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" will appear either as an attempt by China to cause a belief to be instilled by repeated usage of a phrase (see "A lie repeated often enough comes to be seen as truth") or out of a desire to appease China. But there is no such province. There is a Taiwan Province governed as part of the larger country Taiwan(formally "Republic of China"), but there is no Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China other than the legal fiction that is their administrative apparatus that doesn't administer anything.

The article on Gandalf begins "Gandalf is a fictional character that appears in the novels..." just as it should. It would wrong to start off "Gandalf was the leader of the Council of the Wise and trusted confidant of the kings of Rohan and Gondor..." and not mention that he is a fictional character until later.

If the article is not about the administrative structure set up by the PRC, but is really about the land and the people that the PRC claims to govern, then this should not be a separate article but should redirect to the Taiwan Province, Republic of China article. Readin (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You said:-

"It is primarily recognized as part of China in diplomatic circles. Otherwise it is commonly recognized as a separate country."

This I agree. I should have qualified my statement at first place. Sorry. I can accept your argument that this can be a redirect page to the "Taiwan Province" page then just we simply just talk about PRC's claim, like what we have done in the "Taiwan" article. But I don't believe the proposed deletion and redirect has consensus. Please correct me if I am wrong.--pyl (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a related discussion over at Talk:Free Area of the Republic of China. Readin (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. It is like the Mainland Area of the Republic of China. Mainland China is claimed by the ROC but the ROC does not have any control over it. I wouldn't call the "Mainland Area of the ROC" a "theoretical Area of the ROC". It is legally a "claimed area of the ROC". The ROC just doesn't have any control over it (legally, outside ROC jurisdiction).--pyl (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

At this point in time I would call the "mainland area of the ROC" mostly theoretical ("mostly" only because Taiwan does control Kinmen and Matsu which are often considered part of mainland China). I'm not sure the history of the term, but an article on the Mainland Area of the ROC might be on a little firmer ground because prior to 1949 the ROC did control the mainland area, but I don't know if that's what it was called then. Readin (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It was just China. The division of the ROC into the Mainland Area and the Taiwan Area was done by Lee. There were some divisions within mainland China during WWII. But there was no such thing as "Mainland Area" in law.

"Kinmen and Matsu" are commonly considered as part of the Taiwan Area, and they are definied to be within the Taiwan Area in law as well.

The problem I have with the word theoretical is it is an ambiguous word: "What theory is that?" That's why I just described it a "claimed province...... no control". The essence of my proposed statement was 1. it is claimed by the PRC and 2. the PRC has no control. What do you think of that?--pyl (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, having the fictional (better word?) nature of this entity that exists on paper front and center is important. Perhaps we should restructure the opening to not follow the standard "XXX is..." that most articles use. "Although the PRC has never controlled Taiwan, it has created a governing structure in exile for territory it claims as Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China." Or perhaps we could start with "On paper, Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is and administrative division of the PRC governing Taiwan. In practice, the PRC has never controlled Taiwan and the structures are propaganda tools for reinforcing the PRC's claims to be the legitimate government of Taiwan."

That the PRC doesn't control Taiwan, and that the "governing structure" for "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" doesn't actually govern are indisputable. That a "governing structure" does not govern and has never governed is not only key information, it is information that needs to be clarified because of the misleading nomenclature. Readin (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

24.168.106.43 (talk)I do believe there's quite enough independent Taiwan articles abound on Wikipedia for those opposed so that the PRC's belief that Taiwan was never supposed to have separated could have its own stake on the internet. And this article itself is already riddled with sarcasm and dissenting voices that it barely holds true to its intention anyway. We have an article about Taiwan under the ROC and we have an article of Taiwan just as a piece of Earth. Do we really need to be arguing more about this? Taiwan under the ROC is there. If somebody doesn't want to accept that, that's their problem, no? So, what is this blather about this article's legitimacy? Its purpose is to serve as a footnote regarding what China, the PRC, basically the former/present sovereign of Taiwan, depending on viewpoints, believes.

Besides, at least the PRC has its autonomous regions that retain minority culture and self-government. Hong Kong still has its own governing body, which then judging from the argument that PRC has no control over Taiwan's affairs, would still not discount its assumed sovereignty over it. The PRC presides over several regions it relinquishes direct control over, Taiwan would be viewed by them as nothing different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.106.43 (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I reread the article and couldn't find any sarcasm.

What independent Taiwan articles do you speak of? None of them are able to treat Taiwan as the independent nation it is. Instead, they follow NPOV and either don't dispute the claim that Taiwan is part of China or they provide both points of view. There are quite a few articles that go too far the other way in claiming that Taiwan is part of China despite NPOV, but I haven't seen any survive for long saying Taiwan isn't part of China.

Regardless of whether there are articles that say Taiwan is part of China, NPOV is supposed to be observed in each article. If other articles need to be fixed you can attempt to do so, but the failures of other articles to observer NPOV doesn't mean that this article should fail as well. This article observes NPOV by presenting the facts that are undisputed. It doesn't try to judge whether Taiwan is part of some large "China". It doesn't try to judge whether PRC claims to Taiwan are legitimate. It reports that the governing structures the PRC have set up for Taiwan don't govern anything and that the PRC doesn't actually control Taiwan. This is quite different from your examples of regions the PRC presides over but relinquishes direct control over. The PRC has never had any direct control over Taiwan that it could relinquish. Even the PRC's point of view recognizes this. When they refer to Taiwan's "local authorities", they mean the ROC government, not the "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" structures the PRC has set up. Readin (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I dont' think there is any sarcasm in this article either. But I think the "theoretical administrative........ has no control" quite over emphasising.

Readin suggested two sentences with the following phrases:-

• "governing structure in exile"; and
• "On paper...".

I think these phrases are over-emphasising and I think that's why some people think that they are sarcastic phrases. Why can't we just state the facts as is and have a statement saying "claimed province.............. has no control". I think that's pretty clear to anyone who reads the sentence that the PRC doesn't have control over Taiwan but the PRC claims the area as part of the PRC.--pyl (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The very title of the article carries a very strong implication that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China. The title is very un-NPOV, not surprising since the whole thing was set up by the PRC for propaganda purposes, and it is important to balance that problem as soon as possible in the article. Having an initial sentence that pretends that Taiwan is a just like Hunan or Shandong, followed by a later sentence explaining difference, is insufficient. As I explained above, we wouldn't start an article on MacBeth with a first line that treats him as a real historical figure and only later explain that he was a fictional character.

I guess I can see the objections to "on paper" and "governing structure in exile". "on paper" is probably too strong because there are real people off paper whose job it is to pretend to represent Taiwan.

"governing structure in exile" is defined by M-W as "the state or a period of forced absence from one's country or home b: the state or a period of voluntary absence from one's country or home" and the administrative structure in the PRC cannot actually call Taiwan it's "country or home".

I can understand the hesitation to use current wording "theoretical" because the meaning is not precise as we would like. We should look at alternative words but we need to find something that fits into the first clause of the first sentence rather than something that only appears as a follow on. Readin (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Readin said:

"The very title of the article carries a very strong implication that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China. The title is very un-NPOV, not surprising since the whole thing was set up by the PRC for propaganda purposes"

Well, I don't think about this article from a propaganda point of view. I believe the PRC is entitled to have an article to state their POV, although this POV has to be balanced by others. Let me show you another example, Australian Antarctic Territory is an internationally disputed claim, but the way it is stated is pretty NPOV. Similarly should we just start the article like this?

"Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China refers to a claimed province of the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering an area over which the PRC has no control"; or

"Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China refers to a claimed province of the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering an area administered by the Republic of China"

Either sentence states both necessary facts: it is a claimed territory and the PRC has no control over it.--pyl (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the PRC is entitled to have an article to state their POV In fact they are not. See WP:forum and WP:Content Forking One such Wikipedia fork is Wikinfo, whose major difference from Wikipedia is, in fact, its approach to content forks: multiple articles covering a subject from different POVs are actually preferred to Wikipedia's goal of a single article covering the subject from the neutral point of view. Wikipedia's policy is that this practice is not a legitimate way for contributors to deal with a lack of consensus.

Both of your suggestions start with "Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China refers to a claimed province of the People's Republic of China (PRC)". This is problematic as it says Taiwan is "of the People's Republic of China" with is the very subject of dispute.

By comparison, the Australian Antarctic Territory says the territory is "of Antarctica", not "of Australia".

"Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is an area claimed but never controlled by the People's Republic of China. It is currently governed by the Republic of China." would be a better start and more in line with the Australian Antarctic Territory article. Readin (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. We can go for that.--pyl (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge Proposal (2008)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've always been a bit uneasy about the conception of this article. The PRC does not have a "government-in-exile" for Taiwan, nor, in my view, does it claim a "Taiwan province" that is conceptually distinct from the Taiwan province of the ROC. Instead, what it claims is the Taiwan province currently administered by the ROC, but the precise borders of which it disputes. That is to say "Taiwan province ROC" and "Taiwan province PRC" are not two separate concepts. They are a single concept, "Taiwan province", which is currently administered by the ROC, and which 1. the PRC says should be administered by the PRC while the ROC says should be administered by the ROC, and which 2. the ROC says has the borders defined under its laws while the PRC says has the borders defined under its laws.

Just my two cents. Not a fully thought out proposal for change as yet. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the unease is about. The article doesn't say "government-in-exile", although the thirteen delegates elected to the National People's Congress are certainly close to that. They are in exile from Taiwan and they are representatives to government.

A "province" in the sense it is used both here and in the Taiwan Province article, is an administrative division for governing. The governments of the ROC and PRC are certainly distinct even if some may argue that the countries they represent are not.

As for being "uneasy", I'm uneasy with an awful lot of stuff in Wikipedia. But you have to deal with things the way they are, not the way you wish they were. Taiwan Province, ROC is a real thing with a functioning government that exercises power, while Taiwan Province, PRC is something some people believe should exist, but doesn't. Readin (talk) 02:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. "Taiwan Province, PRC" is not, to me, something conceptually separate which "some people believe should exist, but doesn't". It doesn't exist, nor does anyone believe it should exist.

If "Taiwan Province, PRC" is not a government-in-exile, then it should not be so-called.

The way I see the concepts, the hawkish members of the CPC would like to see "Taiwan Province" become ruled by the PRC, but this is the same Taiwan Province currently ruled by the ROC. You may quibble about my "unease" if you like, but the current scheme seems to me to mis-represent the situation as if there were two conceptual entities, one "Taiwan Province, PRC", and one "Taiwan Province, ROC", when in reality it is the same conceptual entity the ownership (to use a loose term) of which is contested.

To give an analogy, the Elgin marbles are "owned" by the British Museum, but the Greek government claims that it should be owned by Greece. Do we deal with their claims by setting up two articles? One "Elgin marbles (UK)", talking about the marbles as they currently exist and are displayed, and a second "Elgin marbles (Greece)", talking about Greek claims to it, any differences in Greek definition of it, and how the Greeks would like to see it displayed one day? That would not make sense. It makes more sense to have Elgin Marbles and, if we needed an article on it, Greek claims to the Elgin Marbles.

Running further on that train of thought, if we really do need two articles here, they should be Taiwan Province (as it exists), and PRC claims to Taiwan Province, or, seeing as this article deals mainly with the administrative subdivisions as recognised by the PRC, PRC definition of administrative boundaries in Taiwan, or something like this. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we should open with something like "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is the term used by the People's Republic of China (PRC) to identify an area claimed but never controlled by the PRC."

This would say we're talking about the term rather than the place (which is really what we're doing anyway).Readin (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" in official print from China. I think I would prefer to see something like "Taiwan Province, actually controlled by the Republic of China government, is defined by the government of the People's Republic of China to be blah blah blah". I'll give this a little more thought. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to basically cover two things: 1. the administrative sub-units of Taiwan Province as recognised by the PRC, and 2. the provision for representation of Taiwan in China's parliament. Both topics are too small to make separate articles, and together they are rather incongruous (if you would accept my proposition that the separate concept of a "PRC Taiwan Province" does not exist).

I'm not sure why these bits were excised out of "Taiwan Province" in the first place. The logical place for them to go would be under a section titled "PRC views on Taiwan Province" or "PRC claims on Taiwan Province".

I tried to find a parallell treatment of such a subject, but couldn't. There is no Serbian province of Kosovo (It's dealt with in the Kosovo article). Likewise, the Malvinas redirects to the Falkland Islands. But the two issues dealt with in this article does not seem to arise in either of those two situations.

Azad Kashmir and Jammu and Kashmir are separate articles, but then both of them do exist, and neither pretends to administer the other. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I did a Google search on "中华人民共和国台湾省" and only came up with about 9000 hits, with none of the earliest ones having Xinhua or PRC gov addresses. "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" came up with less than 700 hits. Before merging, perhaps we should consider a rename. Is there name that China normally calls "Taiwan Province" that focuses on the PRC, or do they just call it "China's Taiwan Province"? If the former, we should rename. If the latter, we should dump this page and just mention on the "Taiwan Province" page that the China maintains a faux administrative apparatus as a way to promote their claim. Readin (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is officially known to the PRC as "Taiwan province", but nowadays it is much more common for the PRC to call Taiwan "Taiwan Area" or less frequently just simply "Taiwan" in mass media as well as in official statements and publications.

I have never heard the PRC officially calling Taiwan "Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China" or "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" in the last decade. Sometimes, I still hear the PRC calling Taiwan "China's Taiwan", "Taiwan, China", "China's Taiwan province" or "China's Taiwan area". In other words, they have stopped using "PRC" when they talk about Taiwan. More information about this is at the PRC section of the political status of Taiwan. Hope that helps.--pyl (talk) 08:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Another context I can think of is the UN which officially refers to Taiwan as "Taiwan, Province of China" (not "Taiwan, Province of the PRC"). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like we should put the information in the Taiwan Province page. I've added a "merge" tag to the article to see if anyone else wants to discuss. Readin (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I also moved relevant comments into this new section. I hope no one minds. Readin (talk) 15:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I also think this is the best way forward. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose a merger. The PRC province structure has an administrative apparatus (albeit without territorial control), and is definately notable of its own. --Soman (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the PRC's faux administrative apparatus is notable. In what way are you suggesting it is notable? Readin (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In the sense that it is an integral part of the administrative of the most populous state in the world. For the record, I also find the now defunct ROC provincial administrations-in-exile representing the mainland notable. --Soman (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

If its notability stems entirely from being part of something else, then perhaps the information about that faux administration should be merged into the PRC article. Readin (talk) 23:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

What is this "faux administrative apparatus" of which you speak? There is no governor-in-pretence or county chiefs-in-waiting. The so-called "Taiwan representatives" in parliament don't even pretend to represent the interests of the residents of Taiwan Province, but rather the interests of people of Taiwanese descent in mainland China.

Sure, the fact that the PRC claims Taiwan Province or that the ROC still maintains the Committee for Mongolian and Tibetan affairs is *interesting*, but it is not notable like an actual province is. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree with the merger proposal. The 2 separate articles one for each side namely PRC Taiwan Province and Taiwan Province ROC as it stands is perfect. The reasoning is PRC claims Taiwan as a province, therefore it should have an wiki article to indicate its claim and its notional political division.

The Taiwan Province ROC wiki article as it stands for who is ACTUALLY (physically} administering the province which is the ROC.

If you merge the articles, you politicize the content and it becomes a controversial issue for others to vandalize and create edit wars. Its going to be very ugly.

Having separate articles may not be the best option politically by some people but it describes the situation very well and it should be left at that. There are two different notions of Taiwan province on each side of the straits.--Visik (talk) 08:51, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose the move It shows the 2 conceptions of Taiwan, and can contribute to explain the international status of taiwan Gumuhua (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Why can't both conceptions of Taiwan be included in the "Taiwan" article? Readin (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Deng Xiaoping even proposed the establishment of Taiwan Special Administrative Region... UU (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

How is Deng's proposal relevant to the question of whether to merge the articles? Readin (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I expected that Taiwan Special Administrative Region will be mentioned in this article (Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China). Discussing it in the merged article Taiwan Province will create a lot of confusion to the readers... UU (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. We must realize that

1. We need only one article for the topic, and for some reason we have three, Taiwan, Republic of China, and Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. Plus variations Chinese Taipei and Republic of Taiwan
2. It is not important why people think we move it, but we must move it to reflect the legal status, not the agreed status, as Wikipedia does not run by consensus reality.
3. The US the world factbook holds it as a special region, or location called Taiwan, and not as a country. We can't just leave it in 5 different articles, as I think that would be much more confusing than discussing it in a long article.
4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overthinkingly (talk • contribs) 04:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent AfDs have shown consensus as no-merge

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.

Reunification Problem

I yanked this section as it is very one-sided and completely unreference:

According to the policy "one country, two systems", the government of PRC advocates that if the mainland China and Taiwan are reunified, the "administrative region" which has more autonomous power than the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau will be established in Taiwan. In this case, the government of PRC may not station its garrison in Taiwan, and the government of Taiwan may preserve its garrison. The Anti-Secession Law instituted by the National People's Congress of PRC stipulate that "After the country is reunified peacefully, Taiwan may practice systems different from those on the mainland and enjoy a high degree of autonomy".

Readin (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a statement by Deng Xao Ping. That was his offer to Taiwan if Taiwan would reunify with the mainland on the basis of One Country Two Systems. I am busy right now but I will find the reference later. It is a very well known offer.--pyl (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here is the reference:-

http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/taiwan/10-4.htm

--pyl (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Even after the reference is found, there needs to be some balance. For example, wouldn't Taiwan's government (ROC) have to give up its ability to engage in independent foreign relations as a sovereign nation? Wouldn't Taiwan lose any claim to foreign help should the PRC reneg on it's promises and begin to interfere in Taiwan's internal affairs? Deng made the offer - what was the response and why? Readin (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The section "Reunification Problem" is quite similar to the section Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China#Offer to Taiwan, therefore I added a link instead. UU (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Representation section problem

The entire section is original research, and the spellings are incorrect! Someone needs to fix it, for intelligence's sake! Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact Assembly of Jimbo Wales 10:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge (2009)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The information in this article should be merged into Taiwan Province and Political status of Taiwan. The current situation represents a POV fork and describes only part of the dispute. To say that including this information in the Taiwan Province would make things confusing is a false argument. If the article was confusing then that would only be because the situation itself was confusing.

I don't think that's the case either way. It's not that hard to understand:

1. We have Taiwan Province a real, functioning, province run by Republic of China
2. PR China still claims the territory and runs an illegitimate shadow government in their country. The provinces are divided up on pre-1949 standards.

That is all. Is there consensus to suitably merge this material? Or perhaps even rename and expand it as Political status of Taiwan Province? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and merged the article in a section of Taiwan Province, as I agree this article was a POV fork and shouldn't have been created. The claims of the PRC over Taiwan are already fully documented in Taiwan, Republic of China and now Taiwan Province so I don't think we need an independent article for it. Laurent (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being absent from the discussion. The article isn't a fork, it deals with a specific subject that is notable enough to have its own article. I'm reverting the merge. --Soman (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain what the "specific subject" is according to you? If the subject is Taiwan then we already have three articles about it (Taiwan, Republic of China and Taiwan Province) so we don't need a fourth one. If the subject are the claims of the PRC over Taiwan, then we need to rename the article. But again, these claims are already fully documented in the other three articles, so there would be no point having a separate article for it. Laurent (talk) 17:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Laurent. These issues are already fully outlined in the other articles. Readers can be redirected to those sections. The unmerged version only serves the purpose of separating the issue to show PRC's view, ignoring the situation as a whole.Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 14:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The politics of the Taiwan issue is another matter. The subject is the 'Taiwan Province', which has a real-life existence within the administrative framework of the PRC. The PRC has a provincial administration in 'exile' for the province in question. The opening sentence clearly states that PRC has no control of the area that is claimed as part of the province in question. This is not the only case were there are governments-in-exile. That an article on the subject exists doesn't mean that Wikipedia takes sides regarding recognition. --Soman (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The PRC province and the ROC province are, politically, two separate entities. There are other cases, we have Judea and Samaria and West Bank as separate articles, even though they deal with an identitical piece of territory. --Soman (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent AfDs have shown a consensus of no-merge established

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.

Outdated as of December 2010

It's outdated because, if the PRC has taken any official positions on whether it will "update" its view of Taiwanese administrative divisions in light of New Taipei's promotion and mergers of Taichung, Tainan, and Kaohsiung, the official positions should be reflected. --Nlu (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Why does what the ROC gov't did matter, since this is the PRC article? How is it outdated? Just because the ROC does something has no bearing on the PRC administrative construction of Taiwan. 65.93.15.80 (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's precisely this that the article may be outdated. The question is this — and I have insufficient information to answer this myself: is the PRC position:

• It would ignore the ROC cities' mergers (in which case the article is not per se outdated, but a sentence should probably be added to reflect that it was ignoring the ROC's position); or
• It would acknowledge the mergers and recast the four new cities in the same way that it had semi-recognized the promotions of Taipei and Kaohsiung by altering their geographic areas?

Currently, the article is silent on the issue, which is why it is outdated. --Nlu (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

This map appears to suggest that the PRC government has recognized the cities' mergers. I'd like some further discussion on this. If I hear no objections, I plan to link this map and write a paragraph suggesting that the PRC position is no longer "16 counties and seven cities." --Nlu (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Novel and controversial conception, removal or merge page into Taiwan Province?

Aside from other issues, his article is based on what seems to be a novel and controversial conception that somehow the PRC conceptualises a "Taiwan Province, PRC" which is separate and distinct from the "Taiwan Province" under the ROC. The article does not provide sufficient evidence to judge whether this is a valid conception.

Where government A claims territory X actually controlled by government B, that does not automatically mean there are thus two separate and distinct Xs. The situation is different if government A actually has made provisions for a separate administrative infrastructure for territory X - thus "Fujian province, ROC" and "Fujian province, PRC" can arguably be said to be co-existing and separate concepts. But the PRC has not set up a government of Taiwan, it does not maintain a "reserve" governor for Taiwan, and any statutory reference to Taiwan refers to it as a part of "China", which is consistent with and not contradictory to the ROC legal position.

The position is not well described as "the ROC has a Taiwan province and the PRC has an imaginery Taiwan province which does not include the boundary changes post-1949". The better description (which does not require a leap of imagination) is that "the PRC claims the ROC's Taiwan province and moreover claims the ROC's boundary changes post-1949 have not been effective". The two might be more or less logically equivalent in a philosophical sense, but the latter is descriptive of facts while the former is the result of somewhat fanciful deduction.

Of more concern is that the article claims that the PRC actively "uses" the term "Taiwan Province, PRC" without supplying real evidence of such use. It would seem that the concept being described here is at best an original conjecture on the part of the writer of this article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the reason for this page's existence was that the claims made by China that such a province existed could send someone looking for information about this mythical place. I think you make a fair point that usage of the term was ever demonstrated. A google search turned up only one hit for "Taiwan Province, PRC" or "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" and that one hit was on Facebook.

I would therefore support a recommendation to remove this page. Readin (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I second the removal of this page, or at a minimum merge it into Taiwan Province. Is there really any need to have an article on ssomething that doesn't EXIST? Other than stating that PRC claims Taiwan Province/the whole Taiwan Area as part of China is sufficient. Any of the pre-1949 Taiwan province boundaries/admin. divisions are just history and can go into the history oof Taiwan/Taiwan provinnce, or history of ROC. I don't see how there's any importance of documenting these old divisions for the general public other than some history student who may want it. This kind of info can go into some other academic encyclopedia, like Encyclopædia Britannica. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. Several years later, I have been bold and recast the article to get rid of the OR that there are two Taiwan Provinces. The intervening years have not improved at all the basis of support for that notion. In the absence of support, we must conclude that the correct situation is the more straight forward one - the PRC claims Taiwan province, and does not recognise the ROC's boundary changes, rather than the more elaborate construct that there is a separate Taiwan Province of the PRC. If anyone does not agree, please read this thread in its entirety and respond with reliable sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Administrative map is wrong

File:Taiwan Province (PRC) prfc map.png

This map is simply wrong. If areas highlighted in yellow represent county-level divisions that are administrated by the "PRC" and those in blue represent areas claimed but not controlled by the "PRC", then the whole map should be in blue. The "Taiwan Province" as imagined by the "PR China" is completely under control of the Republic of China except for Tiaoyutai which is occupied by Japan.

Also, from the imaginary map on the "PRC Taiwan Office"([2]), "PRC" claims Kinmen and Matsu as parts of "Taiwan Province" instead of viewing them as parts of Fukien Province and acknowledges the border of Taichung City, Tainan City and Kaohsiung City when they became special municipalities. --Jabo-er (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Divisions?

The Taiwan Affairs Office seems to recognize the existing (post-2010) local boundaries. It seems that all the content in the Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China#Divisions section is pure speculation. Does the PRC even have laws regulating the local administrative divisions of Taiwan? If not, than that section has to be deleted. If that section is deleted, then I think this could easily be merged with the Taiwan Province article.--Jiang (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Well the official PRC government website does not recognize Taipei, Kaohsiung, Taichung, Tainan and, New Taipei as Municipalities it only recognize Taiwan as a province. Also notice how part of the Fujian Province, Republic of China is also shown in the same map and label as part of the map of Taiwan from the Taiwan Affairs Office. I am going to hide that section for now until more information is available. — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 18:58, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at government websites and concluding that what is displayed there must be the official borders of Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China is synthesis. --Jiang (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Move section "Names Used for Taiwanese Officials" / "Politically Designated Names" to another article?

The section "Politically Designated Names," while very interesting in its own right, doesn't seem to really belong to this article. It doesn't deal with the PRC government of Taiwan Province, but rather with Cross-strait relations, or perhaps the Taiwan Affairs Office. I cleaned up the English and clarified a few points as much as I could, but I didn't want to move this to another article on my own without asking first. WEvanTh (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Largest city

Does the PRC recognize New Taipei City as a separate city? If so, it'd be the largest city. If not, Kaohsiung would be the largest city. Either way, Taipei would not be the largest city. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's kind of meaningless to even have a largest city in a fictional entity. I've updated the side-panel accordingly. 2601:647:4200:40F2:9851:DE8B:79B8:A9AF (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120809165954/http://english.gov.cn/official/2005-07/27/content_17613.htm to http://english.gov.cn/official/2005-07/27/content_17613.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"Names" for officials / bodies etc

I have corrected the list of epithets used by the PRC for officials and government bodies. An examination of the sources will show that these epithets are intended as descriptions, rather than invented, substituted names. They are used uncapitalised. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Side panel

The side panel contains almost no useful information, except perhaps for the various pronunciations (which can be found in the Taiwan Province article anyway), and the area of the province as claimed (which cannot). I suggest the panel can be deleted in its entirety, if the area is worth keeping, it can be inserted into the section discussing boundaries. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

---

Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China → Taiwan, People's Republic of China – The title is more concise and unambiguous. Interstellarity (talk) 11:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. Given the rather unusual circumstances (another country claiming a de facto independent country as one of its own provinces), the proposed name would look very weird. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Srnec (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. Agreed that the current name is more appropriate given the content of the article. Kdm852 (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose the province is not the same as the proposed one-country-two-systems version of Taiwan -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Adding images to sidebar

I added a few images to the sidebar, which were copied from the article about the ROC's Taiwan Province. User:Horse Eye's Back swiftly reverted the edits, and we had this discussion. What do you all think of adding images to the sidebar? Félix An (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Are you asking what people think about adding images or what people think about adding images copied from an unrelated article with a similar name or what people think about the specific images you’ve copied over? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I would say option 1 and 3. Félix An (talk) 14:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You can only ask one at a time. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I'll start with #3. Aren't all the images within the PRC's claimed region? Félix An (talk) 15:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

For the benefit of other users in this discussion, I will paste the images that are the subject of this discussion on the talk page:

File:Changhua Baguashan Großer Buddha 4.jpg

Félix An (talk) 15:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Why these images specifically? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I mean, these are all famous places located with the PRC's claim, and they are coincidentally also located in the territory that the ROC currently controls, so I don't see why not. Félix An (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I tried a different image this time. Take a look! Do you like this image better? Félix An (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the purpose of such images. They seem at best decorative, at worst misleading. If there must be a photo, and I'm not sure there must, a photo of the province's representation in the NPC would make far more sense. CMD (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Not really seeing the improvement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed this section since it has nothing to do with the PRC administrative division itself

Names used for ROC government, officials, and institutions

Since the PRC does not recognise the ROC as legitimate, PRC government and media refers to some ROC government offices and institutions using generic description which does not imply endorsement of the ROC's claim to be a legitimate government of either Taiwan or China. The precise replacements used are not officially designated, so the politically designated names for Taiwan have small variations across different source from within the PRC.

Since 21 July 2021, RTHK in Hong Kong has also imposed the same restrictions on its staff to prevent them from implying Taiwan as an independent state.

For some cases, where the name does not significantly imply sovereignty, the name remains the same, such as for the Mainland Affairs Council, County and Mayor.

ROC government bodies

• Government as the Taiwan authorities
• Presidential Office Building as the Taiwan leader's office building
• Executive Yuan as the executive body
• Legislative Yuan as the legislative body
• Ministry of Economic Affairs as the economic affairs authority
• Ministry of Health and Welfare as the health and welfare authority
• Ministry of the Interior as the interior authority
• Ministry of Justice as the justice authority
• Ministry of Transportation and Communications as the transportation and communications authority
• Central Election Commission as the election commission
• Central Weather Bureau as the weather and earthquake monitoring agency

ROC government officials

• President of the Republic of China as the leader of the Taiwan Area (台湾地区领导人)
• Vice President as the deputy leader (副领导人)
• Premier (or President of the Executive Yuan) as the executive chief (行政机构负责人)
• Minister of Foreign Affairs as the chief official in charge of foreign exchange
• Minister of Health and Welfare as the chief of health and welfare authority
• Minister of the Mainland Affairs Council as the mainland affairs chief
• Minister of National Defense as the military chief
• Minister of Transportation and Communications as the chief of transportation and communications authority

ROC institutions

• National Taipei University as the Taipei University
• National Taiwan University as the Taiwan University
• National Taiwan Normal University as the Taiwan Normal University

ROC events

• Republic of China Presidential Election as the leadership elections in the Taiwan area

References

Also, this section is 99% WP:OR DrIdiot (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources

IntrepidContributor it's acceptable to use the constitution as a primary source for what the constitution says, even in an article that isn't about the constitution. The constitution clearly does make this claim. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:41, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree its okay for the second sentence, but not the first. I appended the tag on the second sentence because it seems to me that it is being used to support the claim in the first sentence too. The PRC's constitution isn't a good source to support the claim, in the voice of Wikipedia, that Taiwan is a province of China. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest a more neutral wording, like "Taiwan Province is an administrative division defined by the PRC constitution as part of the of the People's Republic of China's territory". It would be better if we used a secondary source for the claim and contextualised it with the current reality. IntrepidContributor (talk) 01:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

That's a far less neutral wording than what we currently use. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

How is that less neutral? We can't put a disputed claim sourced from the PRC's constitution in the voice of Wikipedia. IntrepidContributor (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It is not disputed that China claims Taiwan. We can say in Wikivoice that China does, as almost certainly every source on the matter will say the same. CMD (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say the claim itself is disputed. I said its a disputed claim. IntrepidContributor (talk) 12:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Most things described as claims are, but I don't see how that is relevant here. CMD (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

When a claimed entity is just that, it must be properly attributed, citing secondary sources. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The Taiwanese government literally has its own lists of times China has made such statements. Out of the thousands of possible sources on google, what requirements are you not finding? CMD (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The Taiwanese government is another WP:PRIMARY source. Do you understand the requirement for secondary sourcing on this topic, especially when it comes to describing disputed self-proclaimed entities? IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, you are claiming you are unable to find a secondary source noting China considers Taiwan a province? CMD (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I am asking you to provide a secondary source that calls "Taiwan Province" an "administrative region" of the "People Republic of China", as is claimed in our article in WP:WIKIVOICE. I've looked, and I can't find anything of the sort. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Top google scholar search for Taiwan Province notes the claim [3]. The rest is just simple English words. CMD (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Can you quote where the source claims "Taiwan Province" is an "administrative region" of the "People Republic of China" as is claimed in the article? Have you ever read Wikipedia:Citing sources#In-text attribution to know how disputed claims are to be described on Wikipedia? IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

None of this is disputed. Everyone agrees that China considers Taiwan a province. I really don't understand what you're trying to say, but the claim is perhaps universally understood. CMD (talk) 14:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

That China considers Taiwan a province is not disputed, but that this entity is indeed an "administrative region" of the "People Republic of China", as claimed, is disputed and unsupported by reliable sources. Have you read Wikipedia:Citing sources#In-text attribution and do you understand this distinction? IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrative region is a really generic phrase to avoid writing "Taiwan province is a province". If there's a dispute that provinces are administrative regions, I'd like to see them. The repeated request for in-text attribution continues to not make sense here, as there is nothing remotely meriting attribution. 14:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC) CMD (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. The "administrative region" phrase is being used to avoid a neutral description of the disputed claim. I don't think it is unreasonable to base everything in the lead sentence on secondary sources and not our own reading of a primary source. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The phrase is being used to not repeat the same word twice. It is entirely equivalent in neutrality, and remains entirely faithful to the source provided above as well as thousands of other easily accessible sources. CMD (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

The Chinese constitution is just not an acceptable source for this subject. If France claimed New York State as a Region of France (and put it into the Constitution of France), we would not describe it as such unless secondary sources do. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

This has been covered above, so to repeat one last time, there are myriad sources noting China claims Taiwan as a province. You are free to pick what you want. France has literally claimed Mayotte as a Region of France, in the face of international opposition, and we describe that they have done so where relevant. This article, including the lead, and including the first sentence, is explicitly clear as to the purely legal nature of this topic, in line with every reliable secondary source that covers it. CMD (talk) 14:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

At risk of repeating myself, can you show which secondary source says the entity we call "Taiwan Province" is indeed an "administrative region" of the "People Republic of China"? I see all the phrases in Mayotte are very clearly defined and sourced, and refrains from MOS:WEASEL phrases like the "administrative region" we have in this article. IntrepidContributor (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Administrative region is not a weasel phrase. As noted above, it is a 1:1 synonym for province. It is a really generic description for any sort of administrative division, I can't imagine what it might weasel into. CMD (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen "Taiwan Province" described as an "administrative division" of the PRC in any reliable secondary source. Such a claim needs to be attributed, especially if you want to rely on a primary source. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You have, in every source that notes it is a claimed province. CMD (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

So you agree it should be described as claimed province or some other form of entity like "administrative division" as described in sources and as I suggested at the start of this discussion? IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It already is described as such. CMD (talk) 15:54, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No, the article claims it is an administrative division of the PRC, without any attribution as to the source of the claim. This is starting to look like Sealioning. IntrepidContributor (talk) 15:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

It does, as does every source discussing the Chinese claim. CMD (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself (again): Please quote the text from the source. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I provided one above, again you can just search for yourself[4][5][6]. This is very basic information. CMD (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

For the third time, I ask that you quote the text from the source supporting the sentence as its stands. IntrepidContributor (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)