Talk:Taiwan/Archive 34

Archive 30

←

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

→

Archive 40

History paragraph in lead

I have again reverted expansion of the history paragraph in the lead. Things don't necessarily have to be in the lead, and this one is already fairly long. Other specific objections:

• Interjecting that indigenous peoples are currently a minority into a sentence about their arrival 6,000 years ago is unnecessary and breaks the flow.
• Replacing a summary of the role of Dutch colonization with the claim that "Ming China, the Dutch Republic, and the Spanish Empire were all vying for greater presence in the region" does not reflect the article body, or the sources cited therein.
• Koxinga certainly claimed to be a Ming loyalist, but his motives are debated by historians. Such contentious detail does not belong in the lead.
• Also, "appertaining" is awkward. Kanguole 18:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree, I don't think the added text adds much. DrIdiot (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, succinct is best and the added text was confusing at best. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section serves as a reference point for my reasonings, notably to "establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." The current version has numerous places that are redundant, incomplete, inconsistent with the body of the article, or outright misleading. Since it appears that many editors have a lot more time on their hands then I do, I would appreciate it if some of you actually try to improve the section.

1. Current: Austronesian-speaking Taiwanese indigenous peoples settled the island of Taiwan around 6,000 years ago. Proposed: Austronesian-speaking indigenous peoples settled the island of Taiwan around 6,000 years ago. Rationale: Using both "Taiwanese" and "island of Taiwan" is redundant. Furthermore, these peoples might have originated from other places and weren't exactly Taiwanese, especially if the land and ocean geographies were different at the time. Even in this article's body, they are refered to as "ancestors" of today's Taiwanese indigenous peoples. Additionally, there's evidence that they did not even stay confined to Taiwan afterwards. It is therefore more accurate and succinct to simply use "indigenous peoples".
2. Current: In the 17th century, partial Dutch colonization opened the island to mass Han Chinese immigration. Proposed: By the 17th century, Ming China, the Dutch Republic, and the Spanish Empire were all vying for greater presence in the region. Rationale: The 17th century spans 1600 and 1699. It was a period of great contests that, along with subsequent events, underscores why Taiwan's political status became so complicated. The conflicts between Ming China and the Dutch in Penghu, between the Dutch and the Spanish on the island, the founding of Tungning, and Qing's annexation are all elaborated upon in the body of this article, but I do not see any mentions of mass Han immigration specifically tied to Dutch colonization. My proposed version is more consistent with the body of this article.
3. Current: After the brief rule of part of southwestern Taiwan by the Kingdom of Tungning, parts of the island were annexed in 1683 by the Qing dynasty of China, and ceded to the Empire of Japan in 1895. Proposed: The Kingdom of Tungning, founded by Ming loyalist Koxinga, briefly ruled part of southwestern Taiwan until the island was annexed in 1683 by the Qing dynasty. In 1895, following Qing's defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War, Taiwan and its appertaining islands were ceded to the Empire of Japan. Rationale: Again, we highlight the historically contested nature of Taiwan as a prize among great powers. The lead section of the article on Koxinga refers to him as a "Ming loyalist". Furthermore, its body states that he pledged allegiance to the only remaining claimant of the Ming throne. This is also corroborated by the Government Information Office of Taiwan, which I can add to the sources here and elsewhere. Moving on, nowhere in this article does it mention that Qing's annexation was partial, but it does mention the war between the Qing and Japan and the ceding of Taiwan as a result of that. Appertaining islands are important because of the ongoing disputes between Taiwan, China, and Japan over the Senkaku Islands, a major global flashpoint. If you do not like the use of "appertaining", we can try "appertinent" or "appurtenant" instead; there's no reason for removing it outright. Overall, this change adds 1 sentence to the paragraph, but we gain important contexts that are relevant to ongoing controversies.
4. Current: The Republic of China, which had overthrown and succeeded the Qing in 1911, took control of Taiwan on behalf of the World War II Allies following the surrender of Japan in 1945. Proposed: In 1945, the Republic of China (ROC), which had overthrown and succeeded the Qing, took control on behalf of the World War II Allies after Japan's surrender earlier that year. Rationale: Even without "1911", readers can infer from the timeline that the Republic of China came into power after 1895 and before 1945. Instead, "ROC" can be added in case they missed the only instance of the acronym appearing earlier in the introduction. The current placement of 1945 is also ambiguous in terms of whether the year refers to Japan's surrender, ROC's taking over, or both. My proposed version makes that clear.
5. Current: since 1950 its effective jurisdiction has been limited to Taiwan and numerous smaller islands. Proposed: since 1950 its effective jurisdiction has been limited to the island of Taiwan and other maritime features, some of which are disputed by neighbouring countries. Rationale: Another major flashpoint is the South China Sea, where Taiwan controls the Pratas, Taiping, and Zhongzhou following Japan's surrender in WW2. How they should be classified, as islands, rocks, or reefs, etc., has implications in terms of whether they can be claimed as territories and assigned exclusive economic zones. This again reinforces the theme of contention, which has become an important part of Taiwan's history. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I concur with your proposals 1-5 with the reservation that we need to strenuously resist bloat in the lede.

PS: I restored your user signature for the sake of clarity.BushelCandle (talk) 05:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@WikiwiLimeli: I think you’ve made a number of errors. For example its common knowledge that the Qing never controlled all of Taiwan, the Japanese were the first to subdue (to put it politely) all of the independent tribes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither did the Japanese completely subdue everyone on the island. By your logic, half of the U.S. states & territories in the 19th century would not be considered a part of the United States due to frequent conflicts with the indigenous tribes.WikiwiLimeli (talk) 02:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

The Japanese did in fact subdue the entire island through long and bloody military campaigns followed by forced assimilation. At the beginning of the 19th century the vast majority of the modern U.S. States and territories were not yet part of the country, thats a true statement regardless of which logic you choose to use. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

That depends on your personal definition of 'subdue', because there were all forms of resistance and rebellions against the Japanese. Similarly with the U.S., after those states and territories officially became a part of the U.S., the indigenous tribes were not completely subdued either, which according to your personal interpretation would somehow prevent them from being counted as a part of the U.S. We cannot rely on personal preferences as determinators of what counts as annexation. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

We aren’t talking about isolated tribes, we’re talking about more than 1/3-2/3 of the island’s land area that the Qing had not yet conquered when the colonial project of conquering Taiwan from its indigenous people was turned over to the Japanese. Only under the Japanese did the indigenous nations in the mountains lose their sovereignty. You appear to be arguing semantics when you should stick to history 101. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Would you agree then only parts of the island were ceded by the Qing to Japan? The Empire of Japan did not think so! It sounds like you are just trolling now. Don't you get it, your personal opinion of what defines annexation does not matter. Spain, Portugal, Mexico, the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Imperial Russia, the Mongol Empire, Qing China, etc. all possessed/possesses significant territories where the indigenous peoples were/are not conquered or subdued. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Your repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations is unhelpful as well as offensive. The Empire of Japan had to invest a significant amount of blood and treasure in conquering the last of the independent indigenous nations of Taiwan, I think they were well aware that they were not being handed the sovereignty of all of Taiwan because the Qing did not possess it in the first place to give it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

First, no one understands your position anymore. Qing's annexation of the island is well evidenced by historical documents, and Japan specifically asked for the cession of the entire island of Taiwan and all its appertinent islands from the Qing. I've also listed numerous nations whose territorial expansions were recognized internationally despite not having conquered/subdued all their indigenous peoples. Case closed. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Second, your ludicrous and outright fabricated accusation that somehow my writing amounted to "repeated bashing and delegitimization of indigenous nations" completely perverts its true character while conveniently omitting the fact that you were the one who first brought up the notions of conquest and subjugation. Please stop trolling and spreading lies before this escalates. Lastly, before telling other people whether they should stick to semantics or history 101 or what not, you may want to brush up on these topics yourself. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, can agree with (1). Disagree with (2), I think it's incorrect. I could find a reference, but the Dutch employed Chinese for various work during that time I believe. Disagree with (3), it's a real stretch to say 17th century struggles have to do with Senkaku dispute -- do you have an actual reference for this? I thought ROC claims on Senkakus were just inherited from ROC. Adds a lot of bloat just to foreground outlying islands. Ambivalent on (4), it's more concise, but one could argue that since ROC is current gov on Taiwan it's worth including that small detail re: it's history. Disagree with (5), it's longer, and I don't think the claims in the South China Sea are that important that it needs to be in the lead. DrIdiot (talk) 09:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

My understanding re: (2) is that the point is to explain how Han Chinese ended up on Taiwan (who are still there), not to provide all the details re: its history of colonization. The Spanish, on the other hand, have all left. DrIdiot (talk) 09:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Don't you think it would be easier to focus on the general history of that time period as opposed to how Han Chinese ended up there in the first place? Because for the latter, there is evidence of their settlement even before 6,000 years ago. We would also run into the problem of what counts as "mass" immigration? Are there numbers to compare how many were on Taiwan before, during, and after Dutch colonization? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I was talking about the Spanish. DrIdiot (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Maybe more to the point, I'm not sure it's accurate to say the Ming were "vying for presence." I mean, the Ming controlled China. They had presence in the region. They didn't go to Taiwan until the Ming dynasty fell. The relationship isn't symmetric (and by then the Spanish were gone). Also, I brought up Han migration because, since the island is mostly Han now, it's important to mention when the migration started. DrIdiot (talk) 11:31, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Is this group psychosis? I thought this article is about ROC Taiwan, not the geographical Taiwan island. Penghu is important strategically, and the Ming was there. While the Spanish presence on the island was smaller than that of the Dutch, it was a major reason for the entrance of the Dutch in the first place. These were important historical trends, regardless of their modern relevance, and should be included in the history paragraph of the lead as a high-level, one-sentence summary. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Han migrations started much earlier. You seem to support the idea that it became "mass immigration" during Dutch colonization, but I don't see any numbers backing that up and distinguishing the Dutch period from other time periods to the extent that it would warrant specific mentioning in the lead. On top of that, from the timeline in the history paragraph, readers can already infer there have been extensive influxes Han Chinese. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

If you can't be respectful ("group psychosis"), there's no need to continue this conversation. Of course there are no numbers. Han migration to Penghu was much earlier, but this is somewhat parenthetical. See [1] DrIdiot (talk) 10:01, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Please find RS that establishes a direct connection between disputes during the Dutch colonial era and current political disputes surrounding Taiwan. This is the core of your argument, and I think it's false. DrIdiot (talk) 10:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

How was asking an impersonal question disrespectful? The standards you hold are completely lopsided. You made your objections: "They didn't go to Taiwan until the Ming dynasty fell. The relationship isn't symmetric (and by then the Spanish were gone)," and I addressed them: "I thought this article is about ROC Taiwan, not the geographical Taiwan island. Penghu is important strategically, and the Ming was there. While the Spanish presence on the island was smaller than that of the Dutch, it was a major reason for the entrance of the Dutch in the first place." Of course, you chose to 'respectfully' misrepresent my entire argument: "direct connection between disputes during the Dutch colonial era and current political disputes surrounding Taiwan. This is the core of your argument", despite my making it clear that "These were important historical trends, regardless of their modern relevance, and should be included in the history paragraph of the lead as a high-level, one-sentence summary." WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Your argument for retaining "partial Dutch colonization opened the island to mass Han Chinese immigration" basically boils down to "Of course there are no numbers." How on Earth would it be relevant then, especially as I had pointed out earlier, the reader already can infer there have been extensive influxes of Han Chinese throughout Taiwan's history. The section you linked doesn't mention anything about the beginning of any mass immigration; as far as we know, it could have been small or large, and by no means the first wave of Han Chinese. Compared to the Spanish and the Ming, how is Dutch colonization still relevant today, considering it held no special place in terms of Han immigration? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

RS establishes that Han migration to Taiwan, excluding Penghu, began during Dutch era when they needed workers. Penghu is parenthetical; it's already mentioned in the body that migration there was earlier, but I don't think it belongs in the lead. If your opposition is to the word "mass" in "mass migration" then I am fine with removing that word. DrIdiot (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference: Chapter 4 of Chou's A New Illustrate History of Taiwan. DrIdiot (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, [2]. DrIdiot (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok would be good in the body as well. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

ROC claims the Senkakus on the basis, among other things, that they were ceded as appertaining islands of Taiwan by the Qing to the Japanese and that treaty has now become null and void. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure and what's that got to do with... 16th century disputes with the Dutch? Also the Senkaku dispute is not old. Governments make arbitrary post-hoc arguments all the time. DrIdiot (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to speculate about Taiwan's motivation behind her arguments. However, the historical event itself is factual. There's also no denial that it is critical to Taiwan's official position on a prominent controversy. It's a part of her history worth mentioning, considering we are adding only a few words. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not speculating on anything. In your point (2) you want to modify a sentence to include Ming China and the Spanish. You claim it has to do with Senkakus?, and therefore should be included? Show me RS that establishes that. DrIdiot (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Whoops I got (2) and (3) confused. Anyway, I'm still against it. I don't think it's important enough to include in the lead. DrIdiot (talk) 10:03, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In particular I don't think it's an improvement. It's a stylistic issue. DrIdiot (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In particular, it adds words "appertaining islands" without specifying what those islands are and why it's important. So, it effectively adds zero information at the cost of space. I think you are also, generally, placing undue weight on this Senkaku dispute. DrIdiot (talk) 10:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you want to explain everything in the lead then? Why is any of this important then, "Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south. The main island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometres (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third"? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

No. What belongs in the lead or not is subjective. My opinion is that I am against your proposed edits (with above exceptions). DrIdiot (talk) 11:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Why are you not against this then "Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south. The main island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometres (13,826 sq mi), with mountain ranges dominating the eastern two-thirds and plains in the western third"? These may be important facts, but if so, unexplained in the lead. Therefore, there's no precedence that requires the importance of 'appertaining islands' to be explained directly in the lead either. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed changes:

1. It's true that they weren't Taiwanese before they came to Taiwan – we should say "ancestors". "Austronesian-speaking" could be similarly criticized – most linguists would identify Taiwan as the Urheimat of Austronesian, and say that it is anachronistic to apply the name to an earlier stage. It would be good to avoid repeating "Taiwan", but we should also avoid an WP:EGG link. So I would suggest: The ancestors of Taiwanese indigenous peoples settled the island around 6,000 years ago.
2. The article does mention the connection between the first wave of mass Han immigration and Dutch colonization, but perhaps that part needs improving. The notion is well supported by references in the article, e.g. Wills (2006) and Andrade (2007). On the other hand, "vying for greater presence" is synthesis – the Ming set up a military outpost on Penghu, but had no interest in settling Taiwan. The Spanish contribution was minor.
3. As above, Koxinga claimed to be loyal to the then-defunct Ming dynasty, but his actual motives are disputed by historians, and therefore should not be baldly asserted in the lead. The great power dispute theme that you wish to emphasize is anachronistic.
4. "1911" is relevant information that takes up little space. Repeating the ROC acronym introduced in the previous paragraph is unnecessary – one instance is enough. The Japanese surrendered on 2 September 1945 and nationalist forces took over the island on 25 October 1945. It hardly seems worth twisting the sentence around (mentioning 1945 before the fall of the Qing) to cover that.
5. I agree with DrIdiot that it's not worth expanding this to cover the South China Sea dispute. Kanguole 10:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Penghu is an important strategic outpost for the country. You can't equate Taiwan with ROC yet also exclude information that's still relevant to ROC, even if it's not directly related to Taiwan island. The Spanish was not just a minor but a major influence. During the 16th and 17th centuries, they were constantly at war with the Dutch, both in Europe and elsewhere. One of the reasons the Dutch wanted to establish a foothold in China, Penghu, or Taiwan was because their trade routes were being cut off by the Spanish. Of course, in response, the Spanish also wanted to expand. The battles between the Dutch and the Spanish on Taiwan island, as mentioned in the body of the article, took place against the backdrop of centuries of globalized wars. We can use "trying to protect their own interests" instead of "vying for greater presence", but to be honest, if "vying for greater presence" counts as "synthesis", "parts of the island were annexed" would have been even more egregious, and that's been up there for who knows how long. In retrospect, it's even worse than I had realized at first, because it somehow implies only the parts annexed by the Qing were ceded to Japan. I've never seen a map from Qing China or Imperial Japan that included only parts of the island.

There's nothing disputing Koxinga's motives in the body of the article.

We should at least use "the island of Taiwan and other maritime features" so as to cover everything that's under ROC jurisdiction, without excluding items that are not technically islands, so that it doesn't appear this article is taking sides in the ongoing SCS disputes. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the cession to Japan, in addition to it being a result of a war (as opposed to other territory-exchanging arrangements), it should also be mentioned that Japan ultimately formally renounced her gains and past treaties with China. These are not to be considered occupied territories after Japan lost WW2. I think no matter how you cut it, this event warrants more context and details. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I am against changing "islands" to "maritime features". That is making the text less accessible, and I don't think the existing text can be reasonably construed as taking sides in a territorial dispute due to a single technical legal definition of "island". CMD (talk) 05:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not simple English Wikipedia. I would think the average English speaker would have no issue understanding what "maritime feature" means. Taiwan formally rejected the PCA tribunal ruling in 2016 over the concern, among others, that Taiping was classified as a rock and not an island. It is important to use accurate terminology here. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:15, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a pretty clear-cut example of MOS:JARGON. Average English speakers are not versed in maritime law. CMD (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

It can be made clearer but I guess it's not absolutely necessary. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 08:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

6. Current: After the brief rule of part of southwestern Taiwan by the Kingdom of Tungning, the island was annexed in 1683 by the Qing dynasty, and ceded to the Empire of Japan in 1895. The Republic of China, which had overthrown and succeeded the Qing in 1911, took control of Taiwan on behalf of the World War II Allies following the surrender of Japan in 1945. Proposed: Qing China annexed Taiwan in 1683 and ceded it to Japan in 1895 after the First Sino-Japanese War. The Republic of China, which had overthrown and succeeded the Qing in 1911, gained control on behalf of World War II Allies following Japan's surrender in 1945. Rationale: Due to its lasting effects on the power shift between China and Japan, on the territorial disputes and relationships between Japan, ROC, and PRC today, the transition between Qing and Japan seems more important than the Kingdom of Tungning and warrants greater elaboration at the latter's expense. Re-worded the second sentence. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The Zheng interlude, though brief, is a key part of the history. It was their presence that got the the Qing into Taiwan. It is certainly worth a few words in part of a sentence.

In general, evaluating the past through the lens of the present does a disservice to the history. Also, "gained control" is vague, while "took control" is certainly justified. Kanguole 15:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Kangoule, Tunging deserves a brief mention at least. DrIdiot (talk) 15:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Zheng got into Taiwan because he needed more of a base area after Qing took over Ming, so ultimately the reason Qing got into Taiwan was because of its own expansion. Also, the Spanish was the reason the Dutch wanted its own access to China (with Taiwan as a fallback); should we mention that as well? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

No, the original motivation of the Dutch was opening trade with China, where their chief rivals were the Portuguese. Kanguole 12:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Why can't people spend as much time researching as they do policing other editors? The Spanish and the Portuguese monarch was one and the same. After the Dutch rebelled, the Spanish cut off their trade, compelling the former to send out its own expeditions instead of relying on the Spanish/Portugese. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

These speculations about the origins of Dutch colonialism are getting quite some distance from the subject of this article. The question was why are the Dutch and Tungning more worth mentioning than say the Spanish, and the answer is that the sources say they are more significant. Kanguole 02:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiwiLimeli, frankly instead of accusing other editors of "not spending time doing research" (or suffering from "group psychosis") you could just provide an appropriate source for your claims. DrIdiot (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

See body. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

It should be noted that the people you accuse with have provided such sourcing, while you have not. DrIdiot (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

"The question was why are the Dutch and Tungning more worth mentioning than say the Spanish, and the answer is that the sources say they are more significant." Where's the RS from Kanguole? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

For example, in Chapter 3 of Chou's An Illustrated History of Taiwan, the Spanish are only mentioned in passing in the chapter about European colonization of Taiwan. If you have a general text on Taiwanese history that places greater emphasis on the Spanish, I would be curious to hear about it. DrIdiot (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Are you Kanguole? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Where's the source that proves Tungning is more important than the Spanish? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The one I just cited. DrIdiot (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, it's not a "proof" -- but you're never going to find a "proof" of the statement you want. It's an assessment of weight. DrIdiot (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

This is your own synthesis. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Any account of the period (e.g. those of Andrade and Wells cited in the article) will make clear that the Spanish colony was enormously more limited in size, duration, ambition and effect than the Dutch colony or Zheng rule. Kanguole 10:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I partially reverted edits in the intro about ROC "retaining" Taiwan. "Retreat" is better, better communicates that the government completely relocated to Taiwan. This is a major event in Taiwanese history. DrIdiot (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

"After defeating the Kingdom of Tungning on the island" is inaccurate – the Qing defeated them in a naval battle off Penghu, landed on the island and negotiated a surrender – but this is the kind of detail that doesn't belong in the lead. It also reflects a focus on events rather than periods of Taiwan's history.

When there are two mentions of a thing in a sentence, one gets a more readable result by replacing the second with a pronoun than the first. Similarly, some of the inversions of sentences were harder to read. Kanguole 15:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Will be fixed. Technically "on the island" modifies "Kingdom of Tungning" not "defeating". WikiwiLimeli (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

As noted above, some sources describe Koxinga as a Ming loyalist, while others point out that he acknowledged the authority of no Ming prince, and his motives were ambiguous. This is the sort of can of worms that we don't want to open in the brief summary in the introduction. Kanguole 11:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Independent Taiwanese and Western sources consider Koxinga as a Ming loyalist. No RS has been shown to say otherwise. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 20:49, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Independent Taiwanese and Western sources consider Koxinga to be much more complicated than that... Note that many say he *was* a Ming loyalist but by the time he succeeded in driving the Dutch from their possessions on Taiwan the Ming rump state didn’t exist anymore. The Southern Ming ceases to exist in 1662. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:43, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Irrelevant. After France surrendered to Germany in WWII, there were still elements loyal to the French Republic. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Communication was slow back in the days. Koxinga was fighting under the Ming banner; that's what counted. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:29, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The situation was complex, even before his move to Taiwan, and moreso afterwards. See the cited articles by Stuve and by Wells for more nuance. This is precisely the kind of complexity that cannot be summarized adequately in the limited space of the lead. Kanguole 10:39, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The Ming ended in 1644... The Southern Ming which ended in 1662 was at best a rump state of the Ming (most sources say that instead of a true rump state it was just a bunch of refugees and disenfranchises nobility with pretensions of grandeur). How is that comparable to WWII France? When you say “Ming banner” do you mean “Southern Ming” banner? Also communication was slow, but not decades slow... Are you suggesting that Koxinga was unaware of the fall of the Ming in 1662? Seriously? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Status paragraph in lead

I have reverted a change to the fourth paragraph of the lead, which deals with Taiwan's political status. Some specific objections:

The edit replaced

The ROC is no longer a member of the UN, having been replaced by the PRC in 1971.

with

Many states and the U.N. switched recognition to the PRC in 1971.

The UN doesn't recognize states; other states do. The fact that the ROC is no longer a UN member is pretty important, and should be stated clearly. The switch of recognition by other countries have been ongoing from 1949 to the present. Indeed the UN change happened in 1971 because that was when the PRC had collected enough states to swing the vote.

The thing is, China never changed as a member nation, only the government (ROC --> PRC) representing it. What about "The ROC no longer represents China as a member of the UN, after many nations voted for the PRC instead in 1971" [User:WikiwiLimeli|WikiwiLimeli]] (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The edit replaced

Taiwan is claimed by the PRC, which refuses diplomatic relations with countries that recognise the ROC.

with

The PRC and the ROC each required diplomatic allies to recognize itself as the sole representative of China, although Taiwan has relaxed this requirement since the 1990s.

This omits the rather important fact of the ROC claim, while expanding with the sort of detail that does not belong in the lead. If the aim is to present the situation as symmetrical, the problem is that it just isn't. (Minor point: the article cited says the recognition policy was changed in a ministerial statement in March 1988.) Kanguole 23:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t even think it was technically a switch... The KMT/ROC pulled an “Ahah! But I quit before you can fire me!” when they saw the writing on the wall and withdrew from the UN. The CCP/PRC stepped into an empty seat rather than the seat being forcefully transitioned. Yes its a technicality but I think it demonstrates the perils of going any deeper in the intro than we already do, it just spirals. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

"The ROC and the PRC have overlapping territorial claims; Taiwan, but not China, no longer refuses diplomatic relations with countries that recognise the other side." WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is trying so hard to approximate a non-existent symmetry that it omits or obscures the crucial points. The ROC's claims are theoretical, and even what they are has been unclear for decades. The PRC simply claims all of Taiwan's territory and backs that claim with explicit military threats. That the ROC refused dual recognition until March 1988 is a historical detail. The PRC's policy is central to the current diplomatic situation. Kanguole 20:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Combine sentences into "The ROC no longer represents China as a member of the UN, after many nations in 1971 voted for the PRC, who claims ROC-controlled Taiwan." That PRC refuses diplomatic relations with countries that recognise the ROC is not the only reason nor the prevailing historical reason why countries switched recognition or were forced to side with only 1 of the 2 governments. It belongs better in the body with other, more detailed arguments. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Regarding this revert, "complicated" was the result of a bold edit rather than talkpage consensus. I agree that it's inadequate – quantum electrodynamics is complicated, but everyone who understands it agrees on how it works, whereas the central feature of Taiwan's status is disagreement. Perhaps "controversial" isn't ideal, but it's certainly more appropriate than "complicated". Kanguole 10:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, a bold edit where no one objects is an edit consensus, especially since SmokeyJoe announced their change here on the talk page. It's been there long enough that it has become the stable version. intforce (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

This talk page has been rather busy. The change has been there less than a month, and User:053pvr just objected and got reverted. Now that two editors object, do you have any view on the substance? Kanguole 11:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

After reading your erudite exposition above, Kanguole, I definitely agree that, while "controversial" isn't ideal, it's certainly more appropriate than "complicated". BushelCandle (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

"The political status of Taiwan is complicated". Note and read the bluelink. This is complicated, perhaps more so than quantum electrodynamics (note that political status of Taiwan is a much larger page size than quantum electrodynamics). The political status of Taiwan is frequently called a "controversy", but this controversy is not controversial, it is a very well documented and described controversy, and it includes elements that are controversial. "is complicated" alludes to there being many details, which can be read at the linked article. The controversy, the political status of Taiwan, is complicated, but not controversial. English is funny. The lede sentence of the fourth paragraph, which this is, needs to flow. As a matter of writing flow, I think "is complicated" works better because the rest of the paragraph unloads complicated details, not controversial details. I like "is complicated" because it is a common Chinese euphemism used on these sorts of matters. Looking at synonyms, of controversial, of complicated possibilities include: "contentious" or "in dispute", or "can of worms". Whatever the word choice at the end of the sentence, the paragraph needs to expand on it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with your linguistic analysis – it feels like a mismatch to say that the political status of Taiwan is a controversy. It is an issue, or a question, about which there is much controversy.

The fact that "is complicated" is being used as a euphemism, or to stand for one, is precisely why it should be avoided in encyclopedic writing.

Of the alternatives, "contentious", "in dispute" or "disputed" would be fine, and reflected by the rest of the paragraph. Kanguole 10:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The other article starts with “The controversy regarding the political status of Taiwan”. That works. “the political status of Taiwan is a controversy” does not work.
"The political status of Taiwan is contentious”. I think that works. It is certainly contentious to some. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:04, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

What about "contested"? DrIdiot (talk) 04:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

"The political status of Taiwan is contested"? I think "no" because it is not contested that Taiwan has a political status. "The independence of Taiwan is contested", but that is a bigger can of worms, Taiwan does not claim independence, a lot more words would be needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with "contentious" DrIdiot (talk) 14:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Current: Many countries maintain unofficial diplomatic ties with Taiwan through representative offices and institutions that function as de facto embassies and consulates. International organisations in which the PRC participates either refuse to grant membership to Taiwan or allow it to participate only on a non-state basis. Taiwan is a member of the World Trade Organization, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation and Asian Development Bank under various names. Domestically, the major political contention is between parties favouring eventual Chinese unification and promoting a Chinese identity contrasted with those aspiring to independence and promoting Taiwanese identity, although both sides have moderated their positions to broaden their appeal. Proposed: Many countries maintain unofficial diplomatic ties with Taiwan through representative offices that function as de facto embassies. Taiwan is a non-state member of the World Trade Organization, Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, Asian Development Bank, and a few other international organizations that allow its participation regardless of PRC pressure. Domestically, a major political contention is between parties favouring the status quo or eventual Chinese unification as opposed to those promoting Taiwanese identity and aspiring for independence, although both sides have moderated their positions to broaden their appeal. Rationale: The current version is often repetitive, disorderly, awkwardly worded, as well as presumptuous in its generalizations. I omitted reference to Chinese identity because it was not conveyed accurately, in the sense that the Chinese identity promoted in Taiwan is alongside and inclusive of, not exclusive of, a Taiwanese identity, which might not have been some readers' impression. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I think there are two totally separate issues here. One is participation in international organizations, and two is domestic politics. For (1), maybe "despite" is better than "regardless" otherwise seems okay but other seems mostly horizontal to me. The main difference to me is that the new one says explicitly that Taiwan cannot participate as full members in organizations where PRC has a say, and has an explicit allusion to PRC pressure, whereas the old one kind of takes a passive voice.

For (2), the framing of status quo as being on the same side as unification is totally false. Status quo is vague, think "independent voter." If you want "evidence" just look at the Chengchi poll -- how could the DPP ever win any election if status quo meant pan-Blue? I agree that identity issues don't always line up exactly with political issues, but I think the original is a good enough approximation: one side is clearly more committed to a sense of Taiwanese identity and the other side clearly more commited to a sense of pan-Chinese identity. DrIdiot (talk) 15:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok, see below. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"and consulates" seems accurate and reasonable.

I don't think the proposed version is more explicit, as it fails to mention the restrictions on Taiwan's membership, and tacking "regardless of PRC pressure" on the end is oblique and vague. Also placing a long list in the middle of the sentence makes it hard to read. If it is necessary to make the link explicit, perhaps "Under PRC pressure, major international organizations either refuse to grant membership to Taiwan or allow it to participate only on a non-state basis." It doesn't seem necessary to list organizations.

"a major" instead of "the major" is more unnecessary vagueness.

I agree that "status quo" can't be placed on one side; in any case it is covered by "eventual" and "moderated". Perhaps "pan-Chinese identity" would be clearer than "Chinese identity". Kanguole 16:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"and consulates" is not wrong, it just doesn't seem necessary to emphasize its difference from embassies in the lead. Most readers should be able to understand the general message without it. "the major" is a judgment call presuming no other issues are as important. That might be true, but we should let the readers to decide. Regarding participation in international organizations, the PRC can't dictate which side they pick (even the UN requires a vote), only threaten to withdraw its own participation, contributions, etc. if it chooses that approach. To be clear, we can say "due to PRC foreign policy, international organizations must often choose between either the PRC or the ROC, or accept Taiwan on a non-state basis in cases such as the WTO, APEC, and ADB." WikiwiLimeli (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

"defacto embassies" rather that "defacto embassies and consulates" may be an incorrect description of many of these offices.

"the major" is well documented in the sources. In such a situation, we should be clear.

The final proposal is more faux symmetry. I suppose it is technically correct, but it is completely misleading, as in fact all major international organizations have included the PRC and restricted Taiwan. Kanguole 11:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, the proposed sentence never claims to include every single one of such offices, and therefore there is no need to make sure that the term we use covers every single case of them. As long some offices function as de facto embassies, the sentence would be correct. Second, the linked article is titled "de facto embassy", and its body already covers consular services. There's no need to waste words in the lead for such a minor, unnecessary point of differentiation.

There's no such thing as 'faux symmetry'. Something is either symmetric or not. The fact is organizations do have a choice, under no threat of force or coercion. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 06:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point? "Faux symmetry" means your sentence asserts a symmetry when there isn't one. The symmetry being asserted is that ROC and PRC have similar stances regarding each other's membership in orgs. The claim is that this is not true, i.e. "faux". DrIdiot (talk) 09:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

You are just making sh_t up now. First, each country historically required third-parties to recognize itself exclusively. Second, what I proposed was that international organizations have a choice between the two countries, which is true. You are the one who keeps coming up with lies and falsehood about me. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Calm down. Which side, the ROC or PRC, is making organizations choose? Is it one, or both? DrIdiot (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I claim it is only the PRC. Statements about "choice" should reflect this asymmetry. That's the point. DrIdiot (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The asymmetry that Kangoule refers to, appears to be different, i.e. that most organizations have chosen the PRC over ROC. That is, there is an asymmetry in result. DrIdiot (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your remark that organizations have a choice under no threat is also false. The PRC threatens to pull out. To orgs, this matters for various reasons, e.g. resources, but also legitimacy. This is a critical point and shouldn't be waved away as organizations merely exercising "choice". DrIdiot (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You might be misunderstanding what threat means, what false means, and what choice means. The critical fact is that there's no actual "threat" from PRC against international organizations. They were never entitled to PRC participation, its resources, a greater level of legitimacy, etc. For that matter, neither are they entitled to having ROC or both countries onboard. International orgs cannot lose what they were never entitled to in the first place. It's the same with diplomatic recognitions. Countries can choose PRC for a greater benefit to them or ROC for less. Whichever choice they exercise, and they can do so freely (which is why ROC still have official diplomatic allies), they only stand to gain more or gain less but not to lose. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:34, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The PRC threatens to break off ties should orgs admit ROC. The ROC does not threaten to break off ties with orgs that admit PRC. That is an asymmetry. "Choice" does not communicate it properly. I'm opposed to the wording. DrIdiot (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

PRC threatens to withdraw itself, not against orgs. The asymmetry relates to PRC vs ROC foreign policy, not to the choice that the orgs have. You are confusing 2 different things and switching back and forth between them. The proposed wording is true and accurate regarding both the orgs as well as PRC's policy: "due to PRC foreign policy, international organizations must often choose between either the PRC or the ROC, or accept Taiwan on a non-state basis in cases such as the WTO, APEC, and ADB." But we can also say "in order to secure PRC participation, international organizations often do not admit Taiwan, or do so only on a non-state basis as it is the case with the WTO, APEC, and ADB," if this sits more closely to what you want to emphasize. Difference in policy stance between PRC and ROC would go into an earlier sentence near where diplomatic recognition was first brought up. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the current wording is best. It describes the status in indisputable terms (ROC is not a member if PRC is) in a way that suggests the reason (the PRC) without specifics that cannot be verified. There are problems with what you suggest because the reasons are complex, variable, and somewhat unknown (i.e. not clearly documented). It's also bloating the lead. It's unclear what your objection is to the original text is. DrIdiot (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

My objection to the current text is that instead of organizing ideas point-by-point and going through them, it patches together diplomacy, claims, NGOs, not being admitted, being admitted, jumping between points and sprinkling similar ideas throughout the paragraph. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Another important issue is non-state member vs. non-membership. The PRC doesn't have an official policy that prohibits Taiwan from participating as a non-state member. Yet they exercise their influence to prohibit Taiwan anyway (e.g. WHO), often as a political weapon. Your wording doesn't account for this. DrIdiot (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Dude, you're going around in circles. The part about PRC influence prohibiting Taiwan (altogether) is already covered by my proposed statement in the part that says "international organizations often do not admit Taiwan". Also, PRC supported Taiwan's participation in WHO during the previous administration, so its policy is not against Taiwan categorically but also depends on the administration. The level of nuance you brought up is a better fit for the body, but in any case, that scenario is already covered as stated earlier. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Honestly can't even find your latest proposed version, it's gone through so many partial revisions. Can you re-state it? DrIdiot (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

OK I see it: "in order to secure PRC participation, international organizations often do not admit Taiwan". The problem is this is not true. Excluding Taiwan isn't a condition for PRC participation. As you say, sometimes they allow it, sometimes they do not. The point is: the PRC applies pressure in myriad ways to exclude or limit Taiwan or otherwise, for variable purposes. It's probably best if you re-propose the text you would like to add for clarity. DrIdiot (talk) 09:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I suggested "PRC pressure" initially but you and Kanguole were somewhat ambivalent about it. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I compeltely misread the proposed text, I thought it said "due to PRC pressure." I agree "regardless of PRC pressure" is puzzling. I'm in favor of the original text, it's vague in the right ways. It just says what the outcome is, and doesn't assert it to be the outcome of a particular policy. I'm fine with "Under PRC pressure" if we can find an RS. DrIdiot (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

WikiwiLimeli, I don’t think you posses the necessary competence when it comes to this topic to be drafting sections for the lead... Within Taiwanese domestic politics there are *three* major camps not two, status quo is a position in its own right not part of the two others. I would also note that status quo factions exist within both the KMT and DPP and in fact those factions are currently dominant within both parties. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A lot of this churn in the lead is pointless and reduces clarity. For example, here the PRC claim and refusal of double recognition is moved from before the small number of recognitions, with which it is directly connected. Kanguole 11:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The re-positioning of "claims" was suggested back on 07:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC). The part about refusal of double-recognition was moved up together because it's been PRC's long-standing practice since the change in the UN if not even earlier. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 03:10, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

A chronological organization makes sense for the history paragraphs, but for the status paragraph it makes more sense to group things that are related. Kanguole 23:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Kangoule. DrIdiot (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking for help expanding the Tangwai movement article

Seems rather short considering that it's linked to so many pages.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Demonym

I've removed "Chinese" as a demonym in the infobox because "Chinese" refers to a much larger group than just "people of Taiwan." To quote myself from an earlier discussion in Archive 23: People from Hawaii are called "Hawaiians." They can also be called "Americans," since Hawaii is part of the USA, but we do not claim that "American is a demonym for residents of Hawaii." And furthermore, the demonym for people of Honolulu is listed as "Honolulans," and we don't list "Hawaiians" or "Americans" as alternative demonyms, even though "Honolulans" is a sub-group of "Hawaiians," which is a sub-group of "Americans." Phlar (talk) 00:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Well done !BushelCandle (talk) 05:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'm gonna have to undo that removal if you mind, because 1.) It violates WP:NPOV as Taiwan is a pretty disputed and contentious topic and 2.) There is no formal discussion or RFC yet for such a substantial and controversial change. IF in such a case that a consensus will be reached in a future discussion (the discussion archive you linked has no consensus basing from my perspective) then we can remove that from the demonyms. PyroFloe (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  How does this topic affect NPOV? The Chinese Government POV isn't that the demonym for people on Taiwan is Chinese, they use specific terms for their subdivisions like anyone else does: Beijinger, Shanghainese, Taiwanese, Taiwanese. CMD (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  Before we argue again whether or not Taiwan is a legitimate sovereign state (which was agreed that it is a state in a previous discussion) or a province of the PRC, we already have an article for Taiwan as a province of the PRC and that is here at Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China so that should be where the removal proposal should go. The news agencies you cited are sources that are owned by the Communist Party, citing WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources, it has been agreed that the two are not generally reliable and were considered for deprecation. Removing "Chinese" and maintaining just "Taiwanese" is contentious for both the ROC and PRC perspective because removing it pushes the idea that it is an independent demographic from the One China policy, and that is what both governments don't want, the sole reason why the Republic of China uses Chinese Taipei in some international organizations. PyroFloe (talk) 12:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  No-one has brought up whether or not Taiwan is a sovereign state here. The two sources you note are very close to the Communist party use Taiwanese, so clearly it's not contentious as a demonym. Similarly, the Hawaii article isn't pushing a separatist POV by not listing American as a demonym, and the Shanghai articles isn't pushing a separatist POV by using a demonym for Shanghai. CMD (talk) 13:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think you’ve misunderstood the meaning of the word 'demonym'. A demonym for a place is a name that applies only to people of that place. 'Chinese' is the demonym for all of China, a territory of which Taiwan is just one part. To list 'Chinese' as a demonym for Taiwan is to claim that this name applies only to people of Taiwan, which obviously isn’t true. People of Taiwan can be called Chinese, East Asians, Asians and Earthlings, but none of these are demonyms for Taiwan. Phlar (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"...China, a territory of which Taiwan is just one part." Excuse me? --Matt Smith (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Go ahead... do you have a question? Phlar (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand the quote correctly, but you seemed to assert that Taiwan is part of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Please ignore that clause—it can be omitted without changing my main point about the demonym. Phlar (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• If the editors here persist to remove the Chinese demonym then I will hold my concern for now. I think I understand your points that the ROC does recognize Taiwanese as a nationality, and Taiwanese is a subsection of Chinese but it does not recognize to be part of that "Chinese" (PRC). The same way Turkey uses "Turkish or Turk" rather than "Turkic" PyroFloe (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

In most Chinese languages/dialects there is a linguistic distinction between Chinese and Citizen of the PRC, I don’t know why there isn't the same in English. Damn this bastard tongue haha! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Just for the record, demonym is really unrelated to nationality and 'recognition'. See the explanation & examples at Demonym. Phlar (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

An editor just added "Chinese (historical)" to the demonym box and I've reverted it pending discussion. Taiwan Today is a publication run directly by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; I am not sure if that counts as RS for demonyms since it has an inherent political bias, especially from that time period. But I think arguments by others made above still apply historically: "Chinese" was never a demonym for the people of Taiwan; it was a demonym for the people of China, which (once?) included Taiwan. I believe that the historical demonym for the people of Taiwan, during that time, was "Formosan". DrIdiot (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think there’s a need to list historical demonyms in the infobox. They could be added to the body, perhaps within the Etymology section. However—and what I’m writing here goes against the arguments I’ve laid out above—it’s occurred to me that the demonym for "people of the ROC" certainly is not "Taiwanese", so I propose listing two demonyms, one for the common name of the country, and one for the official name:

Taiwanese (people of Taiwan)

Chinese (people of the ROC)

Phlar (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

But in the 21st century Taiwanese is used for both of those, nobody calls ROC citizens Chinese anymore. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I know many ROC citizens who describe themselves as "Chinese from Taiwan" but I haven't found a WP:RS to support this. Phlar (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Are they using Chinese as a national or ethnic term? For instance one can be a “Chinese from Tahiti” or a “Chinese from the UK.” Although I think most people would say a Chinese person from X to remove a bit more of the ambiguity. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:06, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That "from Taiwan" is appended is a pretty good indicator regarding the specificity of "Chinese" as a demonym in this situation. CMD (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, CMD, I don’t follow you. Phlar (talk) 03:31, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

They're using Chinese not as a demonym for Taiwan, but for the entirety of China. Hence why they specify from Taiwan. It was the same with the Chang Kai-Shek quote that was purportedly used for Chinese before, he specifically said "Overseas Chinese". CMD (talk) 04:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

That’s possible, but it’s also possible that the people I’m describing are using "Chinese" as the demonym for "people of the Republic of China". Phlar (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

"Chinese from Taiwan" maybe, but not "Chinese" by itself. CMD (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with CMD. The initial reasoning for removing it is strong. Even if you believe Taiwan is part of China, the demonym is still "Taiwanese." Taiwan is part of Asia, but "Asian" is not a demonym. This question isn't about personal identity or politics. DrIdiot (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I still agree that whether or not Taiwan is a PART of China is irrelevant to the demonym question, but my hesitation is over the fact that we're also saying Taiwan IS (the Republic of) China, and both the article and the infobox are about this dual-named place. We're acknowledging both the common name "Taiwan" and the official name "Republic of China" as valid names for this place. Shouldn't we also acknowledge two names for the people of this place? In a situation where someone is using the place name Republic of China, might they use "Chinese" as the demonym for the people of this place? Phlar (talk) 13:26, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The answer to the last question is basically no, not in practice. Anyway the article is about Taiwan, and IMO the demonym should reflect the people/place that the article is actually about. The article is not about the ROC "as China" (which, in some sense, only exists abstractly, not in reality) but the ROC "as Taiwan". People who say "Chinese on Taiwan" are asserting belonging to a wider Chinese (cultural or otherwise) nation (including PRC). They are definitely not asserting belonging to a group that excludes those in China. DrIdiot (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I see your point though. For me the logic is: the article is about Taiwan as a political unit. That's the starting point. This naturally leads to discussion of ROC, which is the official name of the government on Taiwan. It also leads to discussion of Kinmen, etc., because they are administered by that government. In particular, the starting point is not the ROC. This is reflected by the article: it contains a history of Taiwan, and only discusses the ROC where the two intersect. DrIdiot (talk) 14:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The main problem is this article constantly mixes “Taiwan” and “Republic of China”, which are two different concepts, even when they mostly overlap. De wafelenbak (talk) 15:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Claims over the mainland (Again)

So I wasn't able to get around to this due to personal issues at home, but I still consider the issue of having the label of "as interpreted by the Kuomintang" on the official maps to not have been resolved (original conversation can be seen [[3]]). After reading through the provided sources provided in favor of the pro-"as interpreted by the Kuomintang" label side, I couldn't find any evidence that suggested that the Mainland claims have been dropped, and also after looking through past news articles I couldn't find anything that shows the DPP has ever dropped the claims despite their official political opposition to it. Not only that, there have been recorded instances of the ROC having recorded their border claims regarding the mainland [4], and that there have been no recorded instances of any government be it under the KMT or the DPP going through any constitutional or legal method that have changed that, at least not to my knowledge. So I support reopening the discussion. JadeEditor (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

As in you disagree it's KMT's position? Or it's more than just KMT's position? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The latter. I don't disagree it is a KMT position. JadeEditor (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The provisional constitution is not too relevant -- those clauses didn't make it into the actual constitution. Nat'l boundaries are not specified in the Constitution. In Constitutional Interpretation 328 the CC ruled that national boundaries are to be determined by LY and EY. Per LY, Act Gov. Rel. btwn. ppl. of TW area and ML area, ML area is considered ROC territory (from '91), but it's not specified what "ML area" actually is. In practice it correlates to *citizenship* and not an actual physical area of land -- EY has interpreted people of ML area = PRC nationals. However, the current map includes Mongolia, and Mongolians are not covered under the Act. With HK and Macau there is a separate Act Gov. Rel. btwn HK+Macau, but it doesn't categorize these two as ROC territory. So question: is Mongolia, or HK within ROC territory? It's vague. Weak evidence for, weak evidence against. So you are correct DPP has never acted to change this particular status quo re:ML area (but it has acted disbanded Mongolian/Tibetan Affairs Comm. + set up embassy w/ Mongolia, which one could read as changing national boundaries, but again, vague). Furthermore, the nat'l boundaries have not been made explicit: there is no ROC law that specifies exactly what the national boundaries are. So (as with everything ROC) there is some guesswork, and I'm not sure there's any RS that's tried to really nail it down. Anyway, this is all of course my own analysis. Tldr: it's a massive headache. (Note: Taiwan Area and Free Area often used interchangably.) Regarding the map, I think the most accurate way to label it might be "maximal extent of historic territorial claims of ROC" or something to that effect, if one wants to keep it at all. DrIdiot (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the provisional constitution, by what I could tell that was official ROC law, so as far as that was concerned those lands that were included were part of the ROC de jure. And considering that reforming the constitution didn't give up those claims when they changed it to the modern one, nor did the government at the time consider these territories to be no longer part of the state, I think it still fits. And during Also I don't think that something like the disbanded Mongolian/Tibetan Affairs Commission and the establishment of a Representative Office (technically not an embassy de jure, but that's somewhat pedantic), necessarily means that the claims are no longer there. Just because the administration or policy toward a certain territory of a country has changed does not mean that one doesn't claim it or that it is no longer part of the state. I do agree that the term "maximal extent of historical territorial claims of the ROC" works better though, so perhaps we can change that JadeEditor (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose I proposed it, but I support the wording "maximal historical extent of ROC territorial claims". DrIdiot (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I.e. there's a question here, which is "what does it mean for a country to claim territory?" I do not have an answer to this question. There are obvious cases (e.g. it directly administers them or explicitly claims them) -- the ROC sits squarely in the grey area. The only thing that is clearly well defined is what is the Taiwan Area [5]. DrIdiot (talk) 04:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree on the grey area, in contemporary government publications there always seems to be a level of ambiguity about what exactly the extent of the ROC is but much much less ambiguity about what Taiwan is. See for instance the 2020-2021 Taiwan at a Glance[6]. What there is absolutely no ambiguity about is that “China” alone means PRC not ROC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

If you can get something in the public domain, present it as a map approved by the ROC in year XXXX, without getting into claims and the constitution. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I did find reference to this: [[7]]. Which is legislation presupposes that the ROC does in fact claim the mainland, as the offical line regarding the mainland is that "'Mainland Area' refers to the territory of the Republic of China outside the Taiwan Area". And considering the courts have not struck it down nor have ever disagreed with it, that's a point in favor IMO. I will continue to look for more primary sources on the issue. JadeEditor (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think it's not disputed that ROC has not formally rescinded claims to parts of mainland China; in practice this law is applied to citizens of the PRC (excluding residents of Hong Kong; there is a separate act for that which doesn't specify Hong Kong as territory) and so doesn't define boundaries or resolve ambiguity surrounding what the "constitutional" boundaries are: i.e. does it include Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macau? Here is a map [8] from '47 with outer Mongolia, but it's written on the map that the ROC recognizes Mongolia and the exact borders to be determined later (and the label on the map says "ROC and Mongolia", perhaps suggesting they are two separate entities, perhaps not). DrIdiot (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

That's the issue that I started this whole conversation about though. The map on the article claims that the mainland claims as shown was merely a KMT interpretation, i.e. a position held by a political party and not much beyond that. I tried to change that as it was probably misleading at best to classify as such, but I got pushback on that which is why I started the discussion on if the ROC does claim the mainland (of which my understanding that it does). Regarding your link, while it is true that the ROC decided to recognize Mongolia, I do think there is a difference between what the state claims as it's borders and the official diplomatic relations between states. At the very least, I think we should change the label to state your "maximal extent" suggestion and continue the discussion. JadeEditor (talk) 21:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with "maximal historical extent" which is undoubtedly a true statement -- just pointing out the mainland area law doesn't address my concern regarding ambiguity as to which exactly which borders ROC constitution refer to, if that's the criteria one wants to use (and I'm not sure it's the best one either). For most countries, these ambiguities/issues are ironed out through actual live claims. However, with ROC there are many intervening factors, e.g. domestic politics, PRC pressure, historical geopolitical considerations, absence of recent live claims, etc. Separately, I think the idea of ROC territory has to be treated with a great deal of nuance to maintain NPOV. DrIdiot (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think there's a question here about whether the map should be included at all. E.g. if it's just the extent of ROC historical claims, or if it's ROC claims in year 1978, why should these maps be included in the infobox when analogous maps aren't for any other country? I do agree that this thing about the map being the KMT's claims are not quite right: both the KMT and DPP today are vague about what ROC territory actually is (in terms of what it looks like on a map, not merely the existence of a "mainland area"). If they're vague about it, and RS are also vague about it (e.g. most academic RS I've looked at do not actually say that ROC claims territory beyond its jurisdiction except for minor disputes in ECS/SCS) perhaps we shouldn't include it (in the infobox -- a discussion in the body could make sense). DrIdiot (talk) 08:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the reason it is included isn't because we want to keep track of past claims, but because it's said that the ROC on Taiwan claims these borders NOW, and as such should be shown similarly to other countries with disputed territories (see both North and South Korea, Somalia, India, etc). JadeEditor (talk) 23:39, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Just say the map shows what the ROC Constitution refers to either in whole or in part. That should cover any "existing national boundaries". I doubt anyone would argue for it to include anything beyond the max of what the Qing held. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:15, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

My understanding is that the 1947 Constitution of the Republic of China only allows for an alteration of the national territory when a resolution is passed by the National Assembly (Article 4). The National Assembly has never passed such a resolution, and when it was abolished in 2005, the requirement for a change of the national territory became even more difficult, as it now requires a referendum (as stated in the Additional Articles of the ROC Constitution). Logically, this means that the ROC national territory hasn't changed since 1947, and the ROC still claims the same areas it did back in 1947. De wafelenbak (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If we're going off the constitution, then it's unclear exactly what territory ROC was claiming in 1947, and they contradict themselves multiple times thereafter. For example, ROC recognized (outer) Mongolia as a country in 1946 [9], but then continued to claim it e.g. in 1955, without a vote in the National Assembly, for geopolitical reasons. So I think it's an actual question: which territories belong on that map? No RS I know of has bothered to investigate this question fully (probably because it has no consequence), and attempting to answer it ourselves feels like OR. My suggestion "maximal extent" above allows us to dispense with these questions, since it's maximal. (Note: Our current map appears to be based on this one: [10] and some non-RS maps are slightly different, e.g. [11]) DrIdiot (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That is a fair point regarding Mongolia, although even though the recognition of Mongolia happened before the establishment of the National Assembly method of territorial changes, there is a difference between officially recognizing a sovereign state and officially rescinding any territorial claims, just as a point to keep note of. That's not to say you're wrong though, and I think we should consider your "maximal extent" idea. JadeEditor (talk) 02:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

In the recent map published by the government, the ROC does not claim the mainland, but it claims islands in the South China Sea, including the Paracel Islands and the Chungsha Islands which are currently administered by the PRC.[12]7tiu (talk) 08:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at said source, and while that map does show mostly Taiwan as well as the South China Sea, considering that this map was made with the focus of Taiwan the conventional island in mind (you know, the modern borders of the ROC that most of the international English-speaking community associates with the term "Taiwan", I have concerns if that really seems like an appropriate map to use. JadeEditor (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Such a map is legally irrelevant, but I think this would be a good candidate for a map with “territories actively claimed by the ROC”. The current “ROC constitutional territorial claims” map could then be renamed “Maximal possible extent of the ROC national territory”. De wafelenbak (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thats an interesting statement given that the Supreme Court has ruled that the question is not a legal one and can not be answered by legal analysis if the constitution. If you’re looking for a "legally relevant” map such a thing does not exist although theoretically it could exist in the future. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the ROC position on Taiwan? Since they claim it was never part of China, then it may be that the ROC has no territorial claims at all. TFD (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it, it is maintained that Taiwan was annexed to the ROC after WW2 (as can be seen explained [[13]]). So it's not that it was "never part of China", but that "it wasn't part of China until it was". JadeEditor (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Care to elaborate??? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 04:20, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

If the Republic of China has no claim over the mainland and considers Taiwan to not be part of the Republic of China, then it would appear to have no territorial claims. TFD (talk) 04:50, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

We're just going back to what the Constitution means by "existing national boundaires" then. Although I doubt ROC is giving up any claim on Taiwan; that's like 1 of the foremost reasons not to let the PRC have it lol. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 05:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Just pointing out that in 1947, Taiwan was under ROC military occupation on behalf of the World War II Allies. The sovereignty of Taiwan still belonged to Japan until 1952, when the Treaty of San Francisco and the Treaty of Taipei came into effect. The National Assembly has never passed a resolution to include Taiwan in the ROC national territory after 1952. 7tiu (talk) 08:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

By what I can tell, the ROC government considered the territory annexed in 1945 with the signing of the Japanese surrender (of which it has been argued that the Japanese right then gave up their claims to Taiwan), thereby superseding the National Assembly issue. To my understanding this was because the surrender indicated adherence to the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. JadeEditor (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Re:TFD When they are saying Taiwan was never part of China, China=PRC, Taiwan=ROC≠China. The confusion comes from the sloppy English translation of the country name. The Chinese name of ROC does not imply that ROC is China. 7tiu (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

So the sequence of events is:

1912 ROC founded as successor state to the Empire of China

1945 ROC acquires Taiwan as its administering state

1946 ROC recognizes Mongolia as separate country

1949 ROC cedes mainland to PRC

1912-2021 sometime between these two dates, ROC no longer considers the mainland to be part of the ROC

That leaves the ROC with no integral territory. But it continues to administer Taiwan as a colony, protectorate or overseas territory.

TFD (talk) 15:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

You forgot Kinmen, Mazu and Wuqiu, which have continuously been part of the ROC. The ROC never ceded the Mainland to the PRC, so that is definitely also part of its constitutional national territory. And the ROC most definitely considers Taiwan a full part of its territory. De wafelenbak (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"1949 ROC cedes mainland to PRC” this part never happened though (can you imagine El Generalissimo doing that?). The PRC wasn’t even done taking the mainland yet, that would take them into the 1950s. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, when I said that the ROC claimed mainland China, you replied, "As has been explained to you a half dozen times now thats not true, please stop spreading disinformation (you know its false at this point, there is no excuse). [15:21, 7 December 2020][14] So is it now your opinion that the Republic of China claims that mainland China is part of the Republic of China?

You’re offering a false dichotomy, nothing about those two positions is mutually exclusive. Do you wish to supply WP:RS which say that in "1949 ROC cedes mainland to PRC” because none that we currently have on the page appear to. Note that mainland China includes Hainan which the KMT didn’t lose until 1950 as well as Tibet which the CCP did not take until later in the 1950s and which the KMT never controlled. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

This discussion thread is called "Claims over the mainland (Again)." Is mainland China (whether including or excluding Hainan or Tibet) part of or not part of the ROC? TFD (talk) 03:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

When? If the answer is today then no... If the answer is in 1912 then yes. Between those two points most answers are less black and white. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering that I couldn't find any reference toward the borders having officially been changed from them, in my view the answer is yes, at least from a de jure perspective (de facto that's obviously not the case). JadeEditor (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back, I changed the entry to reflect your input. But the conclusion would be that same: "That leaves the ROC with no integral territory. But it continues to administer Taiwan as a colony, protectorate or overseas territory."

JadeEditor, that was always my understanding. However, some editors hold a different view and I was trying to understand it. I believe they are saying that the PRC has no legitimate claim to Taiwan and that the ROC only claims Taiwan, hence Taiwan is a sovereign state. But my question is if Taiwan was never formally integrated into the ROC, then how can the ROC claim it is part of the ROC today.

TFD (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The PRC point is in my view irrelevant to the purposes of discussion, since this is an article about the ROC, not the PRC. And regarding that point of the ROC not having a claim to Taiwan, not even pan-green administrations that I know of have gone down that path. Both Chen Shui-bian and Tsai Ing-wen admit that they are or were the President of the Republic of China, which governs Taiwan. Heck, by what I can tell, that's the whole point of their legitimacy to govern Taiwan to begin with. So I don't think it would be too out of character to classify the fact that "Taiwan is part of the ROC" has a mass consensus in contemporary law and politics in Taiwan. JadeEditor (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 03:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I think TFD is assuming certain arguments are the only arguments behind ROC claims. We try not to dismiss alternative viewpoints outright here, but overall the big picture is pretty straight-forward. Both PRC and ROC base their claims on the Qing. Of course, there are debatable points due to historical complexities, but for the most part it's accepted. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say that the ROC did not claim Taiwan, but that according to some editors, it claims it as an external territory, i.e., administered by the ROC but not part of the ROC. By comparison, Puerto Rico is claimed by and administered by the U.S., but not part of the U.S. That is consistent with the Treaty of San Francisco 1951 that held the status of Taiwan to be unsettled and seems to be the position of the U.S. government and Taiwan separatists. Incidentally, when I said that some people think the PRC has no legitimate claim to Taiwan, I was not referring to the position of the PRC. (FYI, the PRC claims that Taiwan is part of the PRC, not that it matters.) Incidentally, when I describe a position, that does not necessarily mean that I agree with it. TFD (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe to get things moving, some concrete proposals for a new caption:

• (a)Maximal historical extent of ROC territorial claims
• (b) 1947 ROC territorial claims

Feel free to propose your own. My concern with anything more specific is ambiguity over Hong Kong and Mongolia. Both tend to be included in old maps. However in practice the government has not treated residents of these territories as people in the "mainland area" which they would be constitutionally bound to do so by definition in this act [15], i.e. the government is deliberately ambiguous regarding its claims today. DrIdiot (talk) 22:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Hong Kong and Macau, I don't think we'll have to worry about that since Hong Kong isn't really shown too much on the map to begin with (it's so small that I can't tell if it's highlighted or not). But the Mongolia issue you do have a point. I personally do still think the Mainland claims still apply, but in line with keeping it as vauge as possible in order not to upset any potential controversy something like "Maximum extent of ROC territorial claims should at the very least be an improvement, although I will still note that even if we change it this conversation still isn't over. JadeEditor (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:37, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah you can't see Hong Kong on the zoomed out map. But if you zoom in, it is definitely shaded in. DrIdiot (talk) 06:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd go with (a); (b) is a bit too specific considering the vagueness of the 1947 Constitution itself. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. The 1947 constitution only establishes methods of changing official borders, not what the border itself is designated to be. Even though the constitution does mention the "mainland area" in passing, it's still not exactly state in the constitution what that specifically is. JadeEditor (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I'll make that change then. DrIdiot (talk) 18:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor added the following reference [16] where the MAC interprets: Outer Mongolia is not within the constitutional borders because it was not recognized as such in 1947 and the termination of ROC-Russia treaty and rescinding of recognition did not alter national boundaries since it was not approved by the National Assembly. This is quite explicit, and per CI 328 I suppose it is binding. (Side note: it's really funny to me that CI 328 decided that national territory, which can only be modified by a very strict procedure, are actually up to interpretation by executive fiat and legislation -- are there limits to this flexibility? Not yet tested, I suppose.) In particular this should discredit the notion that any ROC maps from its early days are indications of what is considered "constitutional territory". On another note, per [17] the "Mainland Area" would refer to territory controlled by the PRC, though strictly speaking it doesn't *define* "Mainland Area" as such), so can be viewed as side-stepping the issue again. DrIdiot (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I view this as a point in favor of avoiding language such as "constitutional claims" and in favor of vague language like "maximal extent". DrIdiot (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@DrIdiot: I agree. The statement "such and such is the constitutional territorial claim of Taiwan/ROC" is mainly theoretical rather than grounded in reality. The reality of the situation on the ground is that Taiwan's territory has consisted solely of the island of Taiwan and some nearby minor islands (Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu) since 1949/1951, and the territorial claims to mainland China are virtually ceremonial at this point. The ROC did control mainland China in the past, excluding Tibet, (Outer) Mongolia and some other regions, so it can be said that the constitutional claims of the ROC were actually the "greatest extent" of the country, and in the present day, the country is a lot smaller than what it used to be. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is disputing the situation on the ground regarding the ROC. That part is probably the most obvious one. It's just that people want to acknowledge the territorial claims outside of that should we have a map of them, which to a certain legal extend to exist, it's just that as of recent years those claims have become more and more vague. JadeEditor (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are getting into original research. We need a secondary source that interprets the constitution. Even CI 328 presents a problem because we have no secondary sources for it. TFD (talk) 14:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to look, but my hunch is you won't find a source that states precisely what the constitutional borders are because the ROC has been deliberately vague and sometimes contradictory about it. In any case, in the absence of RS, the default should be to be vague, which is the current solution. I am not suggesting that we attempt to interpret the constitution. DrIdiot (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Linkfarm

The list of external links and sections of external links seems excessive and should be reduced. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I switched the order of the first sentence

I am aware that there was a discussion to keep the article at "Taiwan", but I switched the order of Taiwan and ROC in the first sentence so it doesn't seem to be pushing a “台湾国” POV. I believe it should be fine, as many articles don't start off with the titular word, and mention the official term first, such as the article for the CCP. Félix An (talk) 00:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

And plus, the infobox says ROC and not Taiwan in the bolded title. Félix An (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The article for China also has "People's Republic of China" in its infobox with the bolded title, yet "China" is listed before "People's Republic of China" in the first sentence of that article. This logic doesn't seem convincing.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The article for China begins, China, officially the People's Republic of China (PRC), is a country in East Asia. It is the world's most populous country, with a population of around 1.4 billion. The article for Vatican City begins Vatican City (/ˈvætɪkən/), officially the Vatican City State (Italian: Stato della Città del Vaticano; Latin: Status Civitatis Vaticanae), is the Holy See's independent city state, an enclave within Rome, Italy. The article for Mexico begins Mexico (Spanish: México [ˈmexiko]; Nahuan languages: Mēxihco), officially the United Mexican States (Estados Unidos Mexicanos; EUM [esˈtaðos uˈniðoz mexiˈkanos]), is a country in the southern portion of North America. The article for San Marino begins San Marino(/ˌsæn məˈriːnoʊ/, Italian: [sam maˈriːno]), officially the Republic of San MarinoItalian: Repubblica di San Marino; Romagnol: Ripóbblica d' San Marein), also known as the Most Serene Republic of San Marino(Italian: Serenissima Repubblica di San Marino), is a microstate in Southern Europe completely enclosed by Italy. In each of these cases, the WP:COMMONNAME is included before the official name of the country, and I think we should mirror that in this article that is titled Taiwan. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

If you're interested in looking at countries with a contested status, Transnistria begins Transnistria, officially the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR). The article for South Ossetia begins South Ossetia (/ɒˈsɛtjə/, less commonly /ɒˈsiːʃə/), officially the Republic of South Ossetia – the State of Alania, or the Tskhinvali Region. The article for Abkhazia doesn't even mention its official name in its first paragraph. In general, it seems that the common name and article title comes before the official name in lead sentences, which we should reflect here in this article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Switching the order was discussed last year but the idea was rejected. See Talk:Taiwan/Archive 30. Phlar (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

This topic has been discussed to death and the consensus has been for a while now that "Taiwan" should be stated first, before "the Republic of China". Please refrain from making such rash edits. Edits like these will be reverted immediately without further consideration. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Note - the discussion was a huge snowball close for not moving. Nothing to see anymore. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration discussion

There is an ongoing discussion at the arbitration committee regarding China-related articles if you want to participate. -Silence of Lambs (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Note - this case was overwhelmingly declined as frivolous. Nothing to see. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Geographic description for intro

It's misleading to mention PRC in the intro without mentioning their complicated relationship.

current version: "Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south."

But it should be possible to keep both sides of politics out of the intro paragraph by describing physical location without national boarders, or at least without describing PRC as a "neighbouring country".

Irtapil (talk) 12:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Apparently your preferred version[18] is

Taiwan is located long the Western edge of the Pacific Ocean between Japan to the northeast and the Philippines.

That's a huge geographical omission just to avoid a political issue. Kanguole 13:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

All countries have complicated relationships with at least some of their neighbors, Taiwan’s relationship with Japan is also complicated... Why the focus on China? You appear to be trying to insert politics rather than remove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It's confusing to say that a part of China is also a neighbor of China. TFD (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

What part of China? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Or is the question, which part of which China? --Tærkast (Discuss) 20:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Horse Eye's Back - politics and location should be kept separate. Another example is - Ireland (the country) has a complicated relationship with the UK but one wouldn't leave out the descriptive location of Ireland (the island) because a part of the island is politically part of the UK. The Ireland article and this article goes on to describe the political situation in the following sentence/paragraph of the lede so I really don't see the issue. It is important as editors that we try to read articles (especially the lede) as though we are newcomers to the subject. Clarity and simplicity. The article goes into more detail for those who want to be more informed but removing the PRC from its geographic place in relationship to Taiwan is inaccurate and misleading. Robynthehode (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Point One - "Borders", not "Boarders". Point Two - This article is a national/state article, not a geographical one, so there's no discrepancy with mentioning borders. Point Three - As another user has pointed out, pretending that China (aka the PRC or mainland China) doesn't exist creates more problems than the current situation, wherein the PRC is described as a separate country from Taiwan/ROC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

2021 年 4 月 1 日半保护编辑请求

Taiwan is a province of China, it is not an independent country. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clCRgDpqFzo Tessy-0 (talk) 04:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done: this has been discussed to death on this talk page - and over many years (see the archives). You'd need to establish consensus for a change like that, it's not something that can be handled through a simple edit request. BushelCandle (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this an april fools joke? Not to mention, using CCTV as a source out of ALL sources? This has to be a joke Tisthefirstletter (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

Taiwan is not a country. It's not recognized by U.N. 174.0.243.226 (talk) 19:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: see [19] DrIdiot (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

Edit nominal gdp of Taiwan to:

$32,123 (nominal) to align with “economy of Taiwan” wiki page. Taiwan’s gdp has increased due to strengthening exchange rates, and rapid growth during covid. 

Source: [6] "GDP: Preliminary Estimate for 2020Q4 and Outlook for 2021" (PDF). dgbas.gov.tw. Directorate-General of Budget Accounting and Statistics Executive Yuan. Retrieved 22 February 2021. 73.231.12.156 (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done I reviewed the source, the Economy of Taiwan page, and similar country pages which I noticed were already using 2021 preliminary estimates as well. Therefore, it was a reasonable and consistent change to make. Thank you! TimSmit (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

Its not people’s republic of china , its a independent country so do remove that . 103.217.232.115 (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The article doesn't say that it's part of the PRC, just that the PRC claims it (which is unambiguously true) Vahurzpu (talk) 18:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Taiwan is a separate country not republic of china. 2409:4071:2119:EE76:46F3:FC79:7279:1D6D (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done, situation explained in the article. CMD (talk) 10:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan being ignored by the world

All official outlets have begun to change the status of Taiwan from being an independent country to now a republic of china. Unless they have been officially annexed, this cannot be allowed to pass. Scorpion1138 (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2021

Change Taiwan being a republic of China to an Independent country being threatened of annexation by China Scorpion1138 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See also the notices at the top of this page and many, many discussions throughout the archives of this talk page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:16, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There is no county such as Taiwan.

Taiwan is a province under Republic of China or People's Republic of China. So Taiwan is not a country.

Please make correction.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.135.136 (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

While it is true that there is technically no sovereign state claimed or otherwise that goes by "Taiwan", as I understand it, Wikipedia labels most countries with their common English vernacular names, of which in the case of the Republic of China, is commonly known by as "Taiwan". JadeEditor (talk) 06:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the OP means Taiwan Province or Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China. Note that neither includes the entire territory of the political entity known as Taiwan. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Petition to change name to True China

Petition to change name to True China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.23.40 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

see all the talk page discussion about this in the archive, this is not going to swim.Slatersteven (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

True China sounds like what a rapper would name their kid... No we will not be naming this article that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Country with limited recognition

I think it should be stated in the first lines that is a country with limited recognition. It is a important fact and keeps the article impartial. Also i dont know why are the references 15 and 16 in the first line, they are not related to that sentence. Astroch00 (talk) 22:05, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I know that the CCP and its robots obsess about how much recognition Taiwan has or doesn't get (and announce that this is a reason to commit armed aggression) but the rest of the sane world doesn't wake up and go to bed each day with the largely unrecognised status of Taiwan as a major concern.

That Taiwan is a country with limited diplomatic recognition is mentioned clearly in the last paragraph of the lede (and explored at length later in the article) and this means that due and impartial weight has been given in our article to the PRC's bully boy tactics and flouting of the UN Charter rights of self-determination.

"By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter." (The United Nation General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV): Declaration of Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, 24 October 1970) --BushelCandle 23:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death [20] just a few months ago and you're not bringing up any new points. DrIdiot (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I do feel like the lead section is not impartial because the three first paragraphs treat Taiwan as any other country, only the fourth paragraph really explains the complicated sovereignty issue. In my opinion, other versions of Wikipedia (French, German and Chinese) are much more neutral/impartial. Even in the article on China itself, the fact that sovereignty over China is disputed is already mentioned in the second paragraph. De wafelenbak (talk) 11:46, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I just had a look at the China article's introduction. While you are technically correct, the two segments on disputed sovereignty within the introductions of the China and Taiwan articles are not truly comparable. The China article's introduction consists of four paragraphs. The first is the brief geopolitical summary. The second, which contains almost three times as many words as the first, outlines the fundamentals of China's history from ancient times up until the present. Meanwhile, the third discusses Chinese politics and human rights issues, and the fourth discusses the Chinese economy and the Chinese military. There are brief comments about the Chinese Civil War towards the end of the second paragraph, including the fact that the Republic of China took refuge in Taiwan in 1949 and has remained there ever since. The information is not entirely accurate, or it is otherwise misleading. For example, it says "resulted in a division of territory", which, while somewhat true, is also blatantly false, since Taiwan was never under ROC sovereignty, but rather occupation, from 1945 up until 1952. The San Francisco Treaty of 1952 also never legally ceded Taiwan to the ROC, although it did relinquish Taiwan from Japanese sovereignty. Furthermore, the idea that "Both the PRC and the ROC currently claim to be the sole legitimate government of China" is also outdated, since the current ROC government, under the DPP administration, does not explicitly support the territorial claim to mainland China. It must also be said that the entirety of the rest of the China article is heavily biased towards favourable views of China. Additionally, the Chinese territorial claim to Taiwan, whilst never outright supported, is frequently alluded to, on the basis of "Taiwan is a province of the ROC that is claimed by the PRC". Taiwan is never ascribed its own agency as a distinct entity throughout the article. | In the Taiwan article, there are also four paragraphs in the introduction. The first is the brief geopolitical summary. The second is the history segment, much shorter than the China article's equivalent history segment. The third is about Taiwan's politics and economy. The fourth is about Taiwan's political status, the territorial dispute with China, and the Taiwan independence movement. It is comparatively the longest paragraph, around double the length of the three others, and around two-thirds the length of the China article's history paragraph (which is far too long, in my opinion). The fourth paragraph in the Taiwan article's introduction heavily delves into Taiwan's political status, with much more nuance and differing opinions, and does not just attempt to present opinions as facts, as the China article does. In fact, the China article does a poor job of explaining the entire situation, relegating Taiwan to the status of a mere island that is contested by two rival Chinese governments, completely ignoring the native inhabitants. In my opinion, the China article's segment about the Chinese territorial claim to Taiwan in its introduction should be more like the Taiwan article's segment, not the other way around. However, it seems that certain individuals would like to see the opposite result, with Taiwan being relegated to the status of a "Chinese internal matter" or the "Taiwan question/issue/problem" within its own main article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Related move request

There is a related page move request President of the Republic of China → President of Taiwan--Uaat (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021

Change republic of china to independent 76.92.28.63 (talk) 10:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 10:48, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 12:46, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan is not part of China

Taiwan has been an independent democracy for over 120 years. It was ruled by Beijing for only 2 years in that period, so how can this listing claim that Taiwan is part of China? Rickr (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Because China claims it is, and we do not take sides.Slatersteven (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

The title of this article can be confusing. What do you mean by "Taiwan", the island of Taiwan or the ROC? If you mean the island of Taiwan, this article does not claim that Taiwan is part of China. This article only says that China claims that Taiwan is part of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

Taiwan is not a part of the Republic of China. 72.191.70.185 (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. intforce (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

If any part of the article asserts that Taiwan is part of the Republic of China or even the People's Republic of China, please point it out and it will be changed in accordance with WP:NPOV. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

But the article correctly asserts that Taiwan IS the Republic of China. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

The title of this article can be misleading. The "Taiwan" that the IP user and I are referring to is the island of Taiwan. While the "Taiwan" that you are referring to is a polity whose official name is Republic of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Biased

I think that this article was written by Taiwan or a person who is biased First of all it contains no Simplified Chinese and only contains Traditional Chinese second it claims to be a country when Taiwan is not consider a country by the United Nations as per United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 and United Nations considers Taiwan a part of China and not its own country Also it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.64.106 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

We do not say the UN says it's a country.Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

In English, a country is not necessarily a sovereign country. But you surely pointed out a potential confusion that the opening text isn't clear about the "country". I think it should at least link to the country article. Or better: making it clear that the subject's statehood is in dispute. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

And who made the UN the definitive source for what is or is not a country? Logically, they CAN'T be the definitive source as countries existed long before the UN. --Khajidha (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Howe about Constituent country? -- GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

That would be objected by readers who hold that Taiwan is a sovereign country. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan uses Traditional Chinese characters, so that makes complete sense. Using Simplified Chinese would be more biased. John Smith's (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hence the reason it was so long at "state" rather than "sovereign state". "Country" is a bit more ambiguous but it's what was decided by editors in the last formal discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021

You seem to have Taiwan listed as part of the chinese communist party. Taiwan is an independent nation. Just ask them. 2601:602:9A00:1570:9D62:E71C:1673:AFBD (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done It's not clear what you want done. The first sentence says that Taiwan is a country in east Asia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Change the first sentence

While the first sentence now is correct, the name of ROC is so confusing that the readers repeatedly misunderstood when reading the sentence. There are already four discussions about this in only one month. (Sections Talk:Taiwan#Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021, Talk:Taiwan#Taiwan is not part of China, Talk:Taiwan#Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021, Talk:Taiwan#Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2021)

Could we put extra emphasis when talking about this counterintuitive name, for example, change the first sentence into:

Taiwan is a country in East Asia. The official name of the country is the Republic of China (ROC).--2603:8080:1301:7F26:A147:2FD3:B401:EBDA (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

How the heck is that better than "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia." It is better the way it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence is perfect. The use of “country”, with its quite broad range of meanings, is quite good. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of the use of "country", here I would like to inform native English-speaking editors that the Chinese translation of "country" (國家) is a synonym of "sovereign country". That apparently is why there has been many non-native English-speaking readers, who are likely Chinese, disagreeing with the use of "country" in the first sentence. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I know this. But it is a problem with their translation, not with the use of the word in English. Linking to country helps considerably. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The first sentence is not perfect, readers repeatedly misunderstood the sentence. While it is a mistake on their part, we could improve the article if we can find a way to say it so that less people will misunderstand. Four people above confused ROC and PRC in only one month. If we explicitly say the official name of Taiwan is the ROC, instead using appositions, there might be less confusion between ROC and PRC. --2603:8080:1301:7F26:A147:2FD3:B401:EBDA (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

IP, it is not clear what you mean to say.

The first sentence is "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia".

This thread was about the word "country", but you want to talk about the abbreviation "ROC"? I don't think the definition of the abbreviation here confuses anyone, and its absence would confuse many. SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Reply to User:Matt Smith or anyone.

The translation

Country --> 国家

is indeed a problem. It is a classically funny case where circular translation changes the meaning.

Country --> 国家 --> Nation, State, Sovereign-country

Google has become much better at this. It used to be terrible. Here, I think the problem is of words having cultural nuances, and the two languages sharing words that match approximately, but not exactly.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/国家 is a poor translation for country. It matches an acceptable interpretation, but the Chinese word is more formally defined, whereas the English word is old, apolitical, even pre-political. "Country" can be used to mean "nation", but if we mean to say "nation", we do not use the word "country".

The following may be considered possible translations of "country":

* https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/领土 (territory)

* https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/地区 (area of land)

I have wondered why "island" (https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/島嶼) doesn't get more discussion. I think it is because in English, while "island" can mean any size up to Australia, it is normally reserved for small islands of sort of homogenous terrain. An island of mountains, plains and forests is more than an ordinary island.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: I presumed it was because the Republic of China also controls other small islands not just the main one? and the thing being referred to is the whole (whatever we're calling it) not just the biggest island? (now I'm wondering whether my island has a name) Irtapil (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Since the article title is "Taiwan", I think we need to firstly determine what "Taiwan" should be referred to as. Some claim that "Taiwan" is a country; some others claim that "Taiwan" is a province of China. The first sentence needs to make a balance between these different views, in the light of WP:NPOV. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Matt Smith: I think a "see also" liking the articles that cover it in detail would be best. e.g.

* Foreign relations of Taiwan

* Chinese Taipei

* One-China policy

* Taiwan independence movement

I tried adding a couple of them to the header or guest paragraph, but it got removed pending discussion, and i ran out of stamina for the discussion. Irtapil (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It has been done, over one year ago, at Talk:Taiwan/Archive 30#RfC:Taiwan, "country" or "state". The answer is "country". In English, the "country" doesn't belong to people or governments, it has its own identity. The problem is with non-native English speakers not appreciating the subtlety, and the poor translation into Chinese. I'm not sure what more we can do, beyond having already linked country where it is well explained. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@SmokeyJoe: lost in translation explains one side of the argument, i wondered why anyone cares so much about Taiwan being as independant as Wales, but it doesn't explain why native speakers of English are so obsessed with the word country? (maybe i should check the page for Northern Ireland…) But the more i think about it the less sure i am about who is even in which side. Irtapil (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Even Wales is a "country" in the UK. "Wales is a country that is part of the United Kingdom". You could say "Taiwan is a country in the PRC…", but I'm sure that would please nobody? The bigger problem is you need to mention PRC's point of view in the relationship as soon as you mention the PRC, not three paragraphs later, even if it's just a "see below" Irtapil (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"The bigger problem is you need to mention PRC's point of view in the relationship as soon as you mention the PRC” Why? I don’t know of anything that means we “need” to do that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

The delay is misleading, like if the article on the Hiroshima nuclear strike took till paragraph four to mention the USA did it. Irtapil (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

How is that comparable? This isn’t a page for a military action taken by the PRC. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Wales was formally joined to the Kingdom of England by the Act of Union of 1563 and regained autonomy for most local matters in 1997 when the Welsh Assembly was established. Taiwan was never and does not want to be part of the People's Republic of China. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Off-topic. CMD (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

And how on earth are you here so quick? @Horse Eye's Back: you appeared as i was neatening the line breaks. Where are you? I'm in the Western Pacific, to anyone near Taiwan the most relevant thing about it is potential violent military disputes over sovereignty. So I'm guessing you're either in Taiwan, or on the opposite side of the world? Irtapil (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC) I have this page watchlisted, I don’t know how it is for you but for me editing does not require physical travel. Through the magic of the internet I travel near instantaneously and that is how I appeared here despite it being so far away from where I live. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC) @Horse Eye's Back: Don't be silly, as i said i was asking because you seem to have a very different view to mine about what's most relevant, and being very very very far away from it would explain that. I have pages watch listed, i still don't show up within seconds. Why do you care so much if your are so far away? and why are you so determined to deprioritise points that are more important to anyone closer? Irtapil (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC) I never said anything about my geographical relationship to Taiwan and I don’t intend to. As for those last two lines you appear to be begging the question. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC) I'm not begging, just asking, will begging help? and what on earth does "despite it being so far away from where I live" mean if it's not about your "geographical relationship to Taiwan"? Irtapil (talk) 18:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC) I actually am just asking, i want to knew why your are fixated on this debate so i can understand your point of view here. I don't understand where you're coming from here, figuratively OR literally. Irtapil (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It's impossible for everyone to be pleased by the article or indeed it's title or introduction. If the PRC and ROC governments looked at the Wikipedia China and Taiwan talk pages and their archives, I'd be prepared to bet my left lung that they'd sooner come to an agreement than the bickering here over sentences, titles, etc. ceasing. Oh well. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Changes to be proposed

There is an ongoing sovereignty dispute in Afghanistan right now but how about we do the same by reorganizing the PRC/ROC articles by joining the discussion on the talk page. —-174.89.100.2 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Nope. Phlar (talk) 04:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no major confusion at all. The article is pretty solid and has been for awhile. No idea where this is coming from. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

At first you need to specify what change could be rearranged or suggested, otherwise I did not see any comparable points for Afganistan to do with this article, not at all. 123.192.182.76 (talk) 17:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2021

Change Taiwan's status as a country to a special administrative region. 2407:7000:A168:5045:FD9E:6222:295E:1B08 (talk) 03:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done since it's against overwhelming consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention reality. --Tærkast (Discuss) 17:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2021 (Hakka description and grammar/spelling)

Under the section "Ethnic Groups", for the description of the Hakka migrants, the sentence may have a grammar issue:

"The Hakka comprise about 15 per cent of the total population, and descend from Han migrants to Guangdong, its surrounding areas and Taiwan."

Taiwan is not an origin place for the Hakka; They are migrants from what is now mainland China (predominantly from Guangdong and areas around there I believe). I also recommend this sentence be changed to correct some grammar and spelling issues like:

"The Hakka comprise about 15 percent of the total population and descend from Han migrants of Guangdong and its surrounding areas." Kyng09 (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)