Talk:Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2024/June;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China: Provinces / History / Politics High‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Chinese provinces workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese history (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Chinese politics (assessed as High-importance).

Taiwan Low‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Geography Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Geography To-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : See Requested articles/Social sciences/Geography, cities, regions and named places and Missing articles about Locations
Assess : Tag related article talk pages with {{WikiProject Geography}}. To help assess the quality and importance of geography articles, please see: Unassessed geography articles and Unknown-importance geography articles.
Cleanup : See Geography articles needing attention
Deletion sorting : Listed at Geographic related deletion discussions
Geographical coordinates : See Articles missing geocoordinate data by country
Infobox : See Geography articles needing infoboxes
Map : See Wikipedia requested maps
Notability : See Geography articles with topics of unclear notability
Photo : See Wikipedia requested photographs of places
Stubs : See Geography stubs

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 12 October 2022, see discussion.
keep, 11 April 2012 (UTC), see discussion.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 18, 2008	Articles for deletion	Speedily kept

Primary sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top google scholar search for Taiwan Province notes the claim [1]. The rest is just simple English words. CMD (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I provided one above, again you can just search for yourself[2][3][4]. This is very basic information. CMD (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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