Talk:Taiwan

Wonky layout due to pictures

There's a lot of white space with no text to scroll through due to the number of pictures along the right side of the article. Can some of the pictures be moved into a gallery format to help cut down on that? Psu256 (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There are a few excessive images, e.g. in the Military section, but the real problem is more the three overloaded infoboxes at the start of the article, which push the illustrations for the early sections into a huge stack. Kanguole 18:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes the images are somewhat excessive, but another problem of whitespace is the overwhelming pile of images on the right side. I have moved some to the left to help with the logjam. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

As I say, the real cause of the logjam is the excessive infoboxes. Also, when you move an image near the end of a section to the left, that can bump the next section heading to the right, which looks awful. Kanguole 20:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It can do that regardless of whether it's near the end or not. But there's no way for me to tell since everyone has a different window size to view the page. There were (and still are) too many pics on the right side. It looked perfect from my end. But yes... that first infobox is long, but I think shorter than the United Kingdom infobox. But then we have two more ridiculous infoboxes that really interfere with photos. Strange, I tried adding the "collapse" attribute to the two extra infoboxes, but it doesn't seem to work for me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the name boxes:

• There is no need for images of the characters, when we have the characters as text just below.
• The Tibetan, Zhuang, Mongolian, Uyghur and Manchu versions of "Republic of China" are out of place here. Deleting them would not be a loss of information, as they are duplicated in Republic of China (1912–1949), where they make more sense.

There's a fair bit of cruft in the main box too (deputy speaker??). Kanguole 22:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gallery formats are deprecated since they don't honour user's preferences for image size. WP:IMGDD states "Don't set fixed image sizes". They're also a bad idea because they tend to move apposite images away from relevant text.

Kanguole has correctly identified that, as with many Wikipedia articles, the excessive length of the right aligned infoboxes pushes images too far down the page and away from the text they relate too. This is most acute where the leading text is short but, even with long ledes like in this article it can remain a problem.
Moving images to be left aligned is no real solution since, depending on screen width and enlargement, text can then end up in a thin worm, sandwiched between a left aligned image and either the extended infobox or, heaven forbid, an opposite, right aligned images.

Folks need to realise that it is inherent to the way that W3C standards work that there will be thousands of versions to the way that articles visually display since there are very many permutations of browser and screen widths.

I'd also point out that many specialists think it best that humans don't face away (rather than into) body text.

Losing cruft and collapsing boxes by default (well done, Fyunck(click) for attempting this,) may be the way forward, but it will be a constant battle - drive-by editors just love adding (and arguing about) crud (they would say pearls of information) to infoboxes and the fact that the code is always towards the top of the first things they see, assists in the inexorable growth.--BushelCandle (talk) 00:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I suggest we remove the Japanese from the Taiwan language infobox, and the China section of the Republic of China infobox, as both are quite minor in usage these days. CMD (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Sandwiching

I'm afraid I take issue with this edit and the edit summary that accompanied it of "Everything piled on one side make the article look a bit amateurish." Consequently, unless someone can advance policy-compliant reasons for why it should be endured, I intend to negate it.

There are good reasons why MOS:IMAGELOCATION advises Most images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement:

1) It is really highly subjective and a matter of personal preference as to whether articles look better with most images consistently on the left, consistently on the right or alternating at wide intervals between left and right positioning. Some prefer one layout - similar numbers of readers prefer the other.

2) However, with relatively narrow screens and many browsers, there are distinct readability advantages to having all images, infoboxes, maps, tables and other non-text elements consistently positioned on either the right or the left and this is an objective fact.

3) What we should really try to avoid is a thin worm of text that is difficult to read because it is "sandwiched" between right and left-facing images:

Military

Republic of China Navy Kidd-class destroyers

Republic of China Air Force Indigenously produced fighter airplane

Republic of China Marine Corps frogmen during the 2016 National Day celebration

Republic of China Military Police is a separate branch in the armed forces. In the picture, a military policeman stands guard in Hsinchu Air Base

To­day, Tai­wan main­tains a large and tech­nologic­ally ad­vanc­ed mil­it­ary, main­ly to count­er­act the con­stant thr­eat of in­vas­ion by the Peo­ple's Lib­era­tion Army us­ing the Anti-Sec­ess­ion Law of the Peo­ple's Rep­ub­lic of Chi­na as a pre­text. This law author­izes the use of mil­it­ary force when cer­tain con­dit­ions are met, such as a dan­ger to main­land­ers.

From 1949 to the 1970s, the primary mission of the Taiwanese military was to "retake mainland China" through Project National Glory. As this miss­ion has transitioned away from attack because the relative strength of the PRC has massively increas­ed, the ROC military has begun to shift emphasis from the traditionally dominant Army to the air force and navy.

Consequently, unless someone can advance policy-compliant reasons for why this policy-busting edit should be endured, I intend to negate it shortly. BushelCandle (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the Military section is one of the most overloaded with images. I'd suggest just the aircraft and the ships (and there are better images of this aircraft on the AIDC F-CK-1 Ching-kuo page). Kanguole 12:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree trim is needed.--Moxy 🍁 00:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Please would you explain the concept of "overloaded" and "trim is needed" when, with the consistent and default right positioning and default sizes, all of these relevant, informative and good quality images can be comfortably accommodated without the images spilling into the subsequent section?

The images removed were an important illustrative aid to understanding the quality and range of capabilities of Taiwan's armed forces. If you believe otherwise, then please advance your rationale.

If that rationale is convincing, then our policy is to, when possible, find better images and improve captions instead of simply removing poor or inappropriate ones.

Please also explain why alt text for one of the remaining images of "Two warships in dock" is superior and more helpful to the visually impaired than "Two of the navy's current destroyers in dock". --BushelCandle (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Five images is too many for a section of that size – we should select those that best illustrate what the text is saying. Not all readers are using a desktop screen.

Alt text needs to complement the caption, not repeat it. Kanguole 16:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree we need to keep WP:ACCESS issues in mind. Removing the sandwiching was correct, but even right-aligned, I don't think the section is really long enough to hold more than two images.

On the image choices, I don't find any of the three images currently included (thunderbolt truck, indigenous plane, American-made ships) as being significant aids to understanding. The removed military police one actually provides some useful information, and if space remains the fighter jet seems the most informative as it has a notable bit of information.

On sandwiching more generally, the practice of alternating images is well established, although placing images left can cause some issues such as overlapping with section headers. In my experience, country articles are prone to suffer from image overload (and other overloads), and careful selection is important. (For example here the APEC summit picture seems insignificant, and the caption from the relief map geography image could be modified to fit the köppen climage image instead.) CMD (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I think you mean the caption of the military police image, rather than the image itself. If the military police being a separate branch is so important (which I'm not sure it is), then it could be mentioned in the article text.

The destroyers are mentioned in the text, so it seems reasonable to show them (particularly for readers who know what to look for in a modern warship). Kanguole 15:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

In the Transport section, the high-speed trains seem more interesting than the row of plane tails. Kanguole 15:16, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I am taking the caption and image together in these assessments since none of the images jumps out by itself. However important the note on the Military Police is, I find it a better caption than simply identifying a vehicle. Similarly, a better caption on the ship image would be appreciated.

Agreed on the train vs plane tails. CMD (talk) 06:32, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Map

In the China Page the map has area controlled by the PRC in green and the area claimed but not controlled (Taiwan, Indian Border) in light green. Since the ROC claims but does not control mainland china, shouldn't we add claimed territories to the map in a differentiating color? Wandavianempire (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wandavianempire The PRC government is actively claiming Taiwan as part of its current territory and claiming it is under PRC jurisdiction. The Taiwanese government refers to its past claims as "historical claims" and does not claim to have effective jurisdiction over the PRC. Which map and territory would you include? Here is the official "national map" directly from the ROC Department of Land Management which does not include its "historical" territory: https://www.land.moi.gov.tw/chhtml/content/68?mcid=3224

Eclipsed830 (talk) 13:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Like Eclipsed830 said those claims aren’t active, they haven’t actively claimed China as part of their territory for at least 30 years. Just FYI if we’re being specific Mongolia is also within the territories historically claimed by the KMT *and* CCP yet you dont see Mongolia in a different color on the China map because the Chinese do not actively assert that claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2020

Change "The president appoints the members of the Executive Yuan as his cabinet, including a premier, who is officially the President of the Executive Yuan" to "The president appoints the members of the Executive Yuan as her cabinet, including a premier, who is officially the President of the Executive Yuan" Tamil 1972 (talk) 12:33, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

 Partly done: Changed to the neutral possessive "their" instead so that going back and forth each time a President of a gender is elected is not necessary. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020

Taiwan is a disputed land. Claimed by China as its territory but Taiwanese people claims themselves as separate country and not part of china Joo Chang (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2020 (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. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Joo Chang:, on the off chance that you'll come back and see this, please see the article Political status of Taiwan, which is a quite thorough discussion of the topic. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 13:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn, Goldsztajn, and Joo Chang: I agree the article needs some work, but i'm not able to be much more specific than the original request was. I would suggest reordering the information that is already in lead section, which i will try to do myself. The disputed status is already mentioned there, but not till the third paragraph. But it also needs some qualifying statements like "according to (the UN / the Taiwanese government / the PCR)" and possibly more references, this is a bit beyond my expertise. (I also added another discussion topic below.) Irtapil (talk) 07:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2020 (2)

new information Polishismyhearth (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2020 (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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The founding day of the Republic of China on Wikipedia misleads the Google search engine.

Since we all know that Google uses the English version of Wikipedia as their reference to their quick search title.

For example, by the time Oct.11 2020, if you enter "中華民國建國/成立", the founding of the Republic of China in Mandarin, it will show that the founding date is December 7, 1949. This is obviously wrong since we all know that the ROC is founded on Oct.10 1911(Wuchang Uprising) or constitutionally, Jan. 1 1912. For more information, please refer to National Day of the Republic of China. And I have to address that the public on the Formosa island is furry due to this error. here, here, and here.

As we can see, if we define the title of this page that is meant to introduce the Republic of China nowadays lousily as "Taiwan", it will shame the whole wiki community.

I proposed that we should integrate all the related pages of the Republic of China into this one since pages like Republic of China (1912–1949) constitutionally inherited by the ROC government now on the islands of Formosa.

Wikipedia is one of the most referenced "fact check" on the internet, every action in our community may arouse huge issues. We have to be clear about this.鬼米 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Don't know what happened there, but I get the correct date. —Kusma (t·c) 08:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Google corrected this error in the morning of Oct.12 GMT+8 by source their quick search to History of the Republic of China. So I assume that this problem is now a part of the section "RfC: Taiwan's official name" in this talk. 鬼米 (talk) 04:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

No, there is no problem at all now. All is perfect as it should be unless someone tries to do something "lousily" strange. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

lead section doesn't reflect official status

I think the lead section needs some major revisions. The information needs to be reordered and rephrased to fit with Wikipedia's policy of being unbiased and prioritizing the consensus perspective. I came to this Wikipedia page because I am fairly confused about the situation in Taiwan, but - as far as I know from other sources - most countries do not recognise Taiwan as an independent country? Officially it is regarded as a part of China by about 98% of international governments? This is mentioned, but not till the third paragraph. I will try reordering some of the information that is already there, but someone more familiar with the topic probably needs to do some extensive re-phrasing and adding citations, adding "according to" and other qualifying phrases where needed. Irtapil (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You say the lead doesn't reflect the official status, but then say that it does, just not early enough. I tend to agree that an early mention of Taiwan's unique status would be useful, but trying to jam the fourth paragraph into the first would be overkill. We need something concise but solid, and that will be difficult.

Also, the first sentence is very heavily contested. It would be better to get consensus here before trying to change it. Kanguole 09:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"Officially it is regarded as a part of China by about 98% of international governments” not true, most countries (like the US) actually have “no opinion” as their official opinion. They avoid answering the question entirely which allows them to continue doing business with both parties. This is why the US can sell advanced weapons to Taiwan when selling arms to China or a non-country would be highly illegal, same goes for all the European countries who export goods to Taiwan that the EU banned for export to China after Tiananmen... If they considered Taiwan part of China they would be breaking their own laws. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph could be placed as the second paragraph. Would probably also make more sense as the first paragraph ends with saying that Taiwan is not a of the UN.Finn.reports (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Irtapil As the others have stated, officially most (many?) countries do not take a specific position regarding the Taiwan question and consider it "unresolved". They do not have "diplomatic relations" with Taiwan, but also do not recognize that Taiwan is part of the PRC. This is the case for the United States, Canada, Japan, UK, France, etc. etc. Most of these other countries simply use ambiguous statements such as "acknowledge the Chinese position" (USA), "take note of the Chinese position" (Canada), "understand and respect" the Chinese position (Japan), etc. Eclipsed830 (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed paragraph

• Ok so its pretty clear that people (such as OP) are getting confused by our current paragraph. I also think its out of line with WP:DUE because it gives way more detail than needed and is too long. However I think we should increase the prominence and I agree with @Finn.reports: on where to put it. I propose moving the fourth paragraph into the second position, moving the end of the last sentence of the first paragraph and and shortened to:

“Taiwan is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN). The political status of Taiwan remains uncertain. Taiwan is claimed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Domestically, the major political contention is between parties favoring eventual Chinese unification and promoting a Chinese identity contrasted with those favoring eventual independence and promoting a Taiwanese identity, although both sides have moderated their positions to broaden their appeal.[28][29]”

The phrase "Taiwan is claimed by the People's Republic of China" has good intentions but it is ambiguous to the average reader. It would be more precise to state that "The entire country of Taiwan is claimed by the Chinese government (People's Republic) as part of China's sovereign territory"... this can be continued with "although Taiwan has historically been governed by previous Chinese regimes, Taiwan has never been governed by the contemporary People's Republic, which holds China's seat in the United Nations and is recognised by the majority of countries around the world as China's legitimate government." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree that the fourth paragraph should be trimmed (maybe not as much as that), but placing it at the end of the first paragraph would be disjointed. It would also not meet the objection of the OP, which was that Taiwan's status was not mentioned up front.

I believe that we need to revisit the first sentence, including "country", painful as it may be. I think the points that need to be made in that sentence are: Taiwan is self-governing, but it is claimed by the PRC and recognized by a small minority of countries. In that case the "most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)" bit could be dropped. Kanguole 20:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan is a de facto country, that much is certain. It is one of ten de facto countries around the world, according to this Wikipedia article: List of states with limited recognition. Referring to it as precisely that, a "de facto country", could be considered neutral, though I would certainly object to any notion that it is a breakaway state (i.e. "renegade province") or merely a self-governing region (i.e. "self-governing island"). The PRC's diplomatic claim to Taiwan should be acknowledged by this Wikipedia article, but not recognised. Any claims in this article that Taiwan is anything other than a country that rules itself would be placing undue weight on the PRC's claim to Taiwan and would hence be tacitly supporting a potential PRC invasion and annexation of Taiwan; i.e. it would not be neutral. Neutrality, in the case of Taiwan, doesn't mean placing equal weight on both the claims of the "independence activists" and the opposing territorial claims of the PRC. First and foremost, the Wikipedia article about Taiwan needs to be about and for Taiwan and the Taiwanese people before any weight is placed on foreign views towards the region. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It is recognized by almost all countries, to what extent they recognize it is another question, for instance the US recognizes them in all ways (economic, educational, cultural, intelligence, military, law enforcement, etc) besides diplomatic. The “country” question is settled, I’d wait a few years before trying to change it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I support the potential improvement in removing the "and is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)", which reads to be trivia at best, is unsourced, and is not present in the body. CMD (talk) 04:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove the words about "the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)". That is not important when describing Taiwan. WestCoastSaint (talk) 08:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe that Taiwan's political situation can be accurately summed up as follows (this is a pretty long description, so not really a summary): "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China, is a country in East Asia... ...Taiwan's political status is heavily disputed both within Taiwan and outside of Taiwan. Significantly, China (the People's Republic of China; not to be confused with the Republic of China) claims Taiwan as part of its territory, specifically as 'Taiwan Province'. Since China is a United Nations (UN) member state with veto power, Taiwan has been unable to rejoin the UN ever since it was ejected in 1971, having previously held the seat of China in the UN from 1945 (the UN's founding date) to 1971. Taiwan is the most developed and most populous country that is not a member of the UN. Within Taiwan, major political parties hold opposing views on the sovereign identity of the country; on one hand, the Pan-Blue camp supports the idea that Taiwan is part of China and that the Republic of China (the official name of the Taiwanese government) is the legitimate government of China (including territories governed by the People's Republic of China), whereas, on the other hand, the Pan-Green camp supports the idea that Taiwan is an independent country, either as the "Republic of China on Taiwan" or as simply "Taiwan". Historically, the Republic of China was the internationally-recognised government of China from 1912 to 1949; following the Chinese Civil War, the government fled to Taiwan, an island which came under its control in 1945, having previously been a colony of the Empire of Japan. The Republic of China retained recognition as the legitimate government of China from 1949 until 1971 among many major countries in the developed world (mainly the West) despite losing control of over 99% of its territory to the People's Republic of China in 1949. Presently, Taiwan is recognised by 15 UN member or observer states around the world." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the proposed idea is a good one but i think to make it more clear something like "Taiwan is claimed by the People's Republic of China but governed and controlled by the Republic of China." so people would easily know that the PRC doesnt govern taiwan but only claims it.Finn.reports (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The phrase "Taiwan is governed by the Republic of China" is somewhat problematic since it implies that Taiwan is a subnational region under the rule of a foreign power (admittedly, this was the case w.r.t. the ROCxTaiwan, from 1945 to 1949), rather than being, you know, a country that rules itself. As far as I'm concerned, and I think many people would agree with me, Taiwan and the Republic of China are, effectively, one and the same. The dispute within the country is more to do with the "national identity" rather than control over territories. The current leader of the "Republic of China", Tsai Ing-wen, is ethnic-Taiwanese (Chinese) and rules over not just all Taiwanese people but also all "mainlanders (in Taiwan)", who, as far as I'm aware, don't necessarily see themselves as a separate ethnic group. --- Overall, it would be more accurate to state that Taiwan is the Republic of China, which could be phrased as "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China... etc." It's also a case of undue weight to start off with "Taiwan is claimed by the People's Republic of China". That information is important, but not as important as the goings-on within Taiwan itself. The PRC doesn't govern Taiwan and never has. It has international leverage over Taiwan on a diplomatic level, but Taiwan has always been self-governing ever since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949. Before that point, the PRC never did govern Taiwan, though the direct predecessor of the PRC, the ROC, did. Since the PRC claims to be the successor state to the ROC, and since most countries of the world recognise this, a case can be made that the PRC has some kind of sovereign right to Taiwan (albeit indirectly). Though, Taiwan's status as even being a sovereign territory of the ROC is disputed; this dispute goes all the way back to World War II, back when Taiwan was under Japanese rule. The only parts of "Taiwan" that aren't disputed as ROC territory are the island groups of Kinmen and Matsu. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that Taiwan and the ROC are the same but i think that in someway there need to be stated that the prc claims Taiwan although it has no authority over it earlier in the article. Because the PRC claiming Taiwan is a large part of the conflict between Taiwan and the PRC. a solution for that could be to move the 4th paragraph between the currenr 1st and second paragrapgh.Finn.reports (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The PRC claim to Taiwan is important, but the article should first make clear that Taiwan is a country in its own right. For comparison, Belize, a Central American country that has official diplomatic relations with Taiwan (ROC), is claimed almost in its entirety by the neighbouring country of Guatemala (which, strangely, also has official diplomatic relations with Taiwan (ROC)). However, the article about Belize doesn't start off by saying "Belize is claimed by Guatemala but it's ruled by Belize". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article calls Taiwan(ROC) a country and that would mean that the PRC claiming Taiwan as a part of its territory would come later as i suggested that the 4th paragraph should become the second paragraph.Finn.reports (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

As I said, the information about the PRC's claim to Taiwan should be included in the introduction to the article, but the core information about Taiwan as a country should come first. The way you phrased it earlier, "Taiwan is claimed by the People's Republic of China but governed and controlled by the Republic of China." came across as problematic to me, for the reasons that I explained. If it were to be rephrased whilst still conveying similar information, it might be more acceptable. The specific phrase "is controlled by the Republic of China" came across as conveying the non-neutral notion that Taiwan's sovereignty (under the name Republic of China) is illegitimate. The more neutral way to phrase this information would be something like: "Taiwan (Republic of China) is a country... China (People's Republic of China) maintains a territorial claim to the entire country of Taiwan." [Subsequent references to Taiwan and China needn't reference the ROC/PRC official names.] Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I get that "Taiwan is claimed by the PRC but governed and controlled by the ROC." might have not come across as neutral after you made that comment that is why i said after it that it should be more clear that the PRC claims Taiwan and i think the easiest and maybe the best way to do that is to make the 4th paragraph the second paragraph as i said earlier.Finn.reports (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, there's not a huge difference between having the paragraph about Taiwan's political status placed as the fourth paragraph versus as the second paragraph. The introduction of a Wikipedia article is supposed to be a summary of points that are elaborated on in the body of the article. The introduction is not really supposed to be an "advertisement" or political statement. In fact, looking at the actual contents of the body of the article, the segment on Taiwan's history is clearly placed higher up than the segment on Taiwan's political status. If you were to rearrange the introduction as you've suggested, you would have to rearrange the body segments as well. Frankly, I think that's a pointless exercise, though you have every right to attempt to convince other editors that it's a good idea that will be productive and give additional substance to the article as a whole. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan and the ROC are not the same. The same thing would not have different histories (History of Taiwan vs History of the Republic of China). Currently, "Taiwan" is just an expedient common name of the ROC; end of story. They are actually two different entities. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

The Republic of China was a different entity pre-1949 when compared to post-1949. On Wikipedia, this is actually the current consensus since there's clearly an article titled "Republic of China (1912–1949)". Taiwan (Republic of China) and the People's Republic of China were both successor states of the Republic of China (1912–1949); the country having effectively been split into two post-1949. The original Republic of China government fled in exile to Taiwan and took over the administration of that territory, though that doesn't necessarily indicate that Taiwan (Republic of China) is a direct continuation of the Republic of China (1912–1949). Nominally, it is, but realistically, it isn't, and it hasn't been for decades. The boundary between the Republic of China and the modern Taiwanese republic (that is nominally still called the "Republic of China") is very vague, though one could consider the country to have changed regimes in 1996 when the first direct presidential election was held (often, it is considered to have changed a few years earlier, back in 1987, when Martial Law was lifted by the dictator Chiang Ching-kuo). EDIT: Actually, the descriptor "original Republic of China government" is somewhat misleading. One cannot deny that Chiang Kai-shek's KMT-led ROC regime on Taiwan came under heavy scrutiny, especially from former politicians of the ROC who remained in PRC-ruled mainland China, with regard to exactly how "legitimate" it was, and whether it represented the country of China as a whole, or was merely a "clique" of a failed dictator more interested in preserving his own power than serving the people. EDIT2: Here's the first sentence of that article that I linked: "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as China is a historical sovereign state in East Asia that was based in mainland China between 1912 and 1949, prior to the relocation of its government to the island of Taiwan." EDIT3: Here's an older version of that first sentence, since I noticed that it had been recently changed: "The Republic of China (ROC) was a sovereign state based in mainland China between 1912 and 1949, prior to the relocation of its government to the island of Taiwan." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the ROC fled to Taiwan in 1949. But Taiwan and the ROC are still two different entities, and that's why each has its own history. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

There's some truth to your point here, but there are different definitions as to what "Taiwan" is. Taiwan is a single island, it's an archipelago (the main island plus minor surrounding islands) and it's a country. Those are the three main definitions of Taiwan here on Wikipedia. So, true, Taiwan the island is not the same thing as Taiwan the country... But Taiwan the country... is a country. "Taiwan" is an alternative name for the Republic of China. By that logic, Taiwan is the same thing as the Republic of China. Even if "Taiwan" is not the official name of the country which is known as the Republic of China, it's still a very commonly used name for the country, and even government officials and administrative bodies within Taiwan refer to the country with that name (alongside the official name). For Christ's sake, the Republic of China passport has "TAIWAN" smack bang in the middle of it. So, your argument is not that Taiwan and the Republic of China are different things... Instead, you are arguing that the already well-established practice of referring to the Republic of China as "Taiwan" was wrong from the beginning, should have never gained traction and should be done away with immediately. Unfortunately, there's a fat chance of that ever happening, since the majority of people around the world know the Republic of China as "Taiwan" these days. When people do come across the name "Republic of China", they often mistake this for the official name of mainland China's government; even Donald Trump made this mistake, I recall. So yeah... The Republic of China is Taiwan simply because that's what international society as a whole believes. So, you're not gonna win this argument. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Says the guy who failed to make clear his definition of "Taiwan" before making the "one and the same" assertion. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I've removed "and is the most populous country and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations (UN)" per the general agreement here. I don't see much agreement for any other particular changes. CMD (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan is a country!

The latest change is extremely confusing, and is only and obviously made to reflect the views of the CCP, which banned wikipedia in china, so there's really no point in kowtowing to this government! Tysonbanana4554 (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@Tysonbanana4554: It's not just mainland China, it's most other nations. Just one example: "Australian Government does not recognise the ROC as a sovereign state and does not regard the authorities in Taiwan as having the status of a national government."

The most recent few edits were contrary to longstanding community consensus and I have reverted them. Thanks for highlighting it. Île flottante (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a double standard on Wikipedian geography. There are many other regions on Wikipedia that are called anything BUT a country (de facto state, break away state etc) even though those regions self-declare themselves a country but are not de jure status, and basically only 15 or less countries recognize them as a country. I see that a news article was more credible than UN, are news sources really what Wikipedia deem more credible than actual organizations that deal with politics? --XiaoSiWoLe (talk) 11:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I think the point you might be missing is that only one thing can be true at a time “de facto” but there may be infinite "de jure" truths at the same time. Thats the brilliant thing about law (especially international law), multiple contradictory things can be true at the same time. De jure Taiwan is *simultaneously* an independent country (Republic of China), an independent country (Republic of China, Taiwan), an independent country (Taiwan), a mere body politic, a rump state, a transitionary postcolonial state, a separate customs territory, and a province of China (there are a few more but today I’m giving explaining this on a wikipedia page not giving a polisci lecture). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

The issue here is that the ROC no longer has "de jure" sovereignty, as the majority of the UN recognizes the PRC as the successor to the ROC. The ROC has lost de jure sovereignty, and so is not a country. Just like Kosovo, the SADR or Abkhazia, the ROC should be called a de facto state. StrangeSponge (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Thats not what de jure sovereignty means. Also welcome to Wikipedia! I see that this is your first post. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I see your point now. Since the ROC is a legitimate government of China, I think Taiwan should be called something along the lines of "partially-recognized country".StrangeSponge (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

How did you get the take-away from what I said that "the ROC is a legitimate government of China”? I never even mentioned legitimacy which is a different concept so far undiscussed here.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

XiaoSiWoLe Using the UN as a source to how we define a country introduces a poltiical bias though. The United Nations is a political organization, they take sides on political matters. Think of it like a private golf club; if a private golf course tells you that you are not a member and therefore not a golfer. Does that really make your not a golfer even if you are indeed a golfer? Eclipsed830 (talk) 08:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Bravo to Horse Eye's explanation! Finally someone explained the Taiwan question perfectly. The ROC should be de jure ruler of all China but what can be considered by a lot of people as 'de facto' is in reality de jure Mtonna257 (talk) 15:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, to actually say, an edit I made on my country's wiki was reverted. Don't know why! Citing the Constitution was deemed as false info and vandalism!! Mtonna257 (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Merci! Let's brace for more controversies Tysonbanana4554 (talk) 13:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it’s better to stick to the own Wikipedia guidelines and keep actual information which states Taiwan Island a “de facto” State and not a “country” which is not since it lacks “de jure” status. Keeping facts neutral is the best way to go whether you fancy CPC or not.

Have a nice day Tyson! Junxin02 (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

It might be helpful for you to stop using “de jure” and “de facto” since you don’t know what the terms mean. A state exists de jure when three conditions are met: a determined population on a determined territory with an effective independent government. Whether other states recognise said state has no bearing. Consequently, a State exists when three conditions of fact are met which means that a de jure state and a de facto state are perfect synonyms. Using Latin expressions you don’t understand doesn’t lend your argument the credibility you might mistakenly think it does. Île flottante (talk) 13:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No, those conditions would make it a de facto state. It would be a de jure state if it actually governed the territory and population that its constitution says it does. TFD (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

No, again your use of the term of de jure is incorrect. The conditions for statehood are never determined by the internal constitutional order of a state. The de jure conditions of statehood are posed by international customary law and they are not affected by whether a state controls the entirety of its claimed territory. By your own logic, any state which has a territorial dispute over land it does not effectively administer would not exist de jure but simply de facto. Were your assertion correct, India would only be a de facto state (part of its claimed territory is administered by China), as would many other major states. The term distinction between de facto and de jure states is one that is wholly alien to the law and only used by those who do not understand the elementary principles of public international law. Île flottante (talk) 15:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Since 1991 the Constitution has defined Free area of the Republic of China to mean the same thing wikipedia mean by Taiwan. The current constitution does not claim to govern the mainland or its population. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

TFD As others have stated, the Taiwanese government limited their effective jurisdiction and the areas for which ROC constitutional law applies to during democratic reforms in the early 1990's. Here is the official "national" administrative division map of the ROC at all levels ("國家各級行政區域圖"), directly from the ROC Department of Land Management. Eclipsed830 (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The government of the the Republic of China only governs Taiwan Territory and makes no serious claim to the mainland. However, de jure (under the "Constitution of the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" which is the supreme law, it claims the mainland. Laws in any constitution can only be changed under the procedures set out in the constitution. "Effectively," which you used, means "actually but not officially or explicitly" (OED) or de facto rather than de jure.

Île flottante, we would say that de jure the Republic of India includes all the territory claimed in its constitution, while de facto it governs only a small area. So if it were reduced to a small territory and the world recognized an other regime that effectively controlled the rest of India, we would no longer call it the de jure government of India. TFD (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

TFD (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

TFD I'm not sure if you missed a ":" and were replying to my comment or not- but which article of the ROC Constitution specifically "claims" the "Mainland"? Also to be clear, the ROC Constitution itself does not change, but constitutional law can be amended through the Additional Articles of the ROC Constitution. Many parts of the ROC Constitution no longer apply, as there isn't even a National Assembly anymore. Eclipsed830 (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Eclipsed830 "Article 4 The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly." Since the National Assembly no longer exists, Article 12 of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China provides a new method to amend the constitution: it must receive a 3/4ths vote in the Legislative Yuan followed by a vote over 50% in a referendum "in the free area of the Republic of China." TFD (talk) 15:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don’t understand your point, both "existing national boundaries” and "free area of the Republic of China” are synonyms for what we on Wikipedia call Taiwan. In no way is that passage claiming sovereignty over the PRC/the mainland. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

TFD Exactly, the Free Area of the ROC is the territory that the ROC Constitution applies within. Article 1 of the Additional Articles also canceled out Article 4 of the Constitution: "The provisions of Article 4 and Article 174 of the Constitution shall not apply." Furthermore, the ROC Supreme Court was asked with Interpretation 328 in 1993 if Article 4 defined the ROC territory, for which they essentially stated Article 4 merely established instructions for changing the territory, and that defining "existing national boundaries" would be a political question that could be solved through the political process detailed in Article 4, but not by the current constitutional law or the judiciary branch (effectively abstaining from defining "existing national boundaries"). Eclipsed830 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Article 1 of the Additional Articles does not cancel out the territory of the ROC, it cancels out the original amending formula, which it replaces. And the "existing national boundaries" should mean those in existence or claimed when the constitution was written in 1947 in mainland China. I can't follow the Judicial Court document. Do you have an reliable secondary sources that say it means that the ROC no longer claims mainland China? TFD (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

TFD I think my wording is a bit confusing as I didn't want to turn this into a discussion forum, but I was specifically talking about the ROC claims with respect to the Constitution. My point is that the ROC Constitution isn't specific in defining its own territory. You are saying "existing national boundaries" refers to those boundaries in existence when the Constitution was written in 1947, but by 1947 the KMT already lost much of the north, the south was still controlled by Cliques and Mongolia was already recognized as an independent country by the ROC. Some people will make the argument that "existing national boundaries" refers to the territory of the ROC on 1 January 1912 after the Xinhai Revolution, but then "existing national boundaries" wouldn't include the island of Taiwan since the Qing signed it away to Japan with the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Here is an opinion piece in that mentions Interpretation 328, but honestly there aren't many articles on this issue in English. Eclipsed830 (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I believe the recent change you're talking about is due to a video (Wikipedia Takes Political Stance, Calls Taiwan a "Country") on Youtube uploaded lately. I would suggest you watch that video yourselves, because it really made a strong point that how WP is inconsistent in statements.

And I'd like to remind Tysonbanana4554 (who also created this subtitle), whenever you're accusing opinions supporting mainland China of being conducted by CCP, there might be someone to question your identity or the neutrality of WP, likewise. So please stay away from those words. There's no need to question the motivation. Just follow the Wikipedia guidelines, and things will be settled.

This (here in the Talk page) is actually my first edit on WP, and I'm still trying to understand the policies here, so I don't expect myself to be involved in a lot of discussion here very soon.

So far as I understand the policies/guidelines in WP, I think this might just be an issue as simple as Conflicting sources (WP:CONFLICTING, or alias WP:THISORTHAT), because there are plenty of reliable sources (WP:RS) in mainland China that don't regard Taiwan as a country. Reading the RfC: Taiwan, "country" or "state" that supported the change (from "state" to "country") in May/June (This and this, to be specific), however, I don't find anyone mentioning WP:CONFLICTING (or alias WP:THISORTHAT).

If the conflict is about an interpretation of the facts rather than a simple matter of fact, and cannot be resolved by demonstrating some of the conflicting sources to be in error, in order to maintain a neutral point of view, include all significant points of view with appropriate attributions. In those cases, it is up to the reader to choose which source they want to believe personally and not the task of Wikipedia editors to choose for them. — WP:CONFLICTING

At the very least, we should say "de facto state" or "de facto country", but not "country".

I'm still studying policies about overwriting previous edits. I'd appreciate it if someone points me to the right direction.

PS: I'm not very happy to talk under a non-neutral title "Taiwan is a country!", which holds an opinion I don't agree with. Before you make that statement, I think you should take a look at the history of this article and see if they match up (how long it had been "state" till this April). Will it be fine if I change the subtitle to something more neutral? --In wkpd (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your point about Taiwan qualifying as a "state" but not a "country", the two terms are more-or-less synonyms, so your argument doesn't make sense. Also, as Île flottante put it, there's no real difference between a "de facto country/state" and a "de jure country/state". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you seriously cite Nathan Rich? I'm still trying to process your comment, but, sorry, that man is an absolute joke. Nothing he says should be taken at face value in any capacity. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Well we go with what RS say, not youtube.Slatersteven (talk) 17:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

What Chinese WP:RS did you have in mind? Nathan Rich certainly isn't a WP:RS, they’re a fringe YouTuber with no academic or journalistic credentials to speak of. Its hard to imagine them making any coherent point, let alone a strong one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought you all know it. But isn't it a common sense that countries around the world do contradict with each other sometimes?

Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. ... — Reliable_sources#Biased or opinionated sources

So of course sources are not consider to be not WP:RS just because they're from China.

Speaking of Nathan Rich, first of all, please don't misinterpret me. I'm not saying the video link is a RS. I sent the message here just to let you guys know what's happening. And speaking of RS, you do know Wikipedia is not a reliable source, right? However you gave me a WP link of him. Don't just throw a whole WP article to me, please be specific. I'm not saying you should believe every sentence he made. I just want you to listen to his points, and correct him if he's wrong. Why don't you just prove him wrong if you're so confident you're right? Discuss about the issue he's talking about. Don't judge by person.

And speaking of making coherent points, Nathan is one of the most coherent people I've seen. His videos are mostly based on facts, and a lot of his videos are criticising other videos that are not coherent or not based on fact. Speaking of academic or journalistic credentials, I'm glad you mention this. His videos of the COVID-19 timelines are incredibly circumstantial. I'll give you one example here. Check it out yourself. In that video, he is actually doing investigative journalism that mainstream news media should be doing but are not.

He never makes a video criticising China, and he admits it, that he's intentionally avoiding those topics, but that's just the nature of Youtube channels that involve in politics. I watch videos on both sides (supporting China and hating China), so I know that. Channels that hate China will never upload a video criticising western media's bias against China.

--In wkpd (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

This also isnt your first edit, your account has been active since 2016 and your first edit was at Drishadvati river[1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Come on, that's just adding an internal link. You know what I mean. --In wkpd (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Maybe Taiwan(ROC) should be called a de facto country as that is what the situation is and as other countries with limited recognition on wikipedia also are being stated as de facto. Or other countries who are stated as de facto should be listed as countries.Finn.reports (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your second suggestion should be implemented. All states with limited recognition, as they are listed on Wikipedia, should be described in their respective articles as "countries". In their blurb/intro, an explanation of disputes relating to their political status can be provided. EDIT: Each country's situation is different. The way that Taiwan is described on its own Wiki page should have no bearing on the ways that other countries are described on their own Wiki pages, and vice versa. Taiwan's current description as a "country" has been the result of months of community discussion and consensus that has specifically been about this one page. The discussions on this page about Taiwan should not affect the discussions about other countries on other pages, at least not directly. Personally, I do think Kosovo, Somaliland and Artsakh should be described as countries, but it's not within my power to change their descriptions within their respective Wikipedia articles without first establishing a community consensus with other editors within their own articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan should be listed as a de facto country or a country with limited recognition as that is the current situation. Of course every country that is disputed or has limited recognition has a different situation but one thing they have in common is that they are all countries with limited recognition or disputed, which makes them comparable in that way.Finn.reports (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not the point. What I was saying was that, regardless of what you personally believe, each article on Wikipedia is independent from every other article. Whatever we do and say here, on Taiwan, has no bearing on what is done and said on other articles on Wikipedia. So, really, discussions about whether to call Taiwan a "country" or "de facto country" should have no bearing on similar discussions about other countries (whether they are members of the United Nations or not) and vice versa. On that note, there's no real authority being used to determine whether these ten "de facto countries" (as listed on List of states with limited recognition) are countries or de facto countries, aside from the list of United Nations member states. However, UN membership actually isn't the definitive word on whether or not a country qualifies as a real country. Switzerland, for example, joined the UN in 2002, but I'm sure you'd agree that it was a country even before it joined the UN. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I never said that only UN member states are countries. But Taiwan(ROC) is a country with limited recognition at the moment but it is still a country as it operates as a country and has sovereignty over a territory the only thing that it doesn't has is wide spread recognition that is why i think it might not be a bad idea to refer Taiwan(ROC) as a country with limited recognisition or a de facto country (which is a country with limited recognisition)EDIT: Which is the most neutral as it describes the current situation.Finn.reports (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

In that vein of thinking, China is also a "state with limited recognition", since 16 member states or observer states of the United Nations explicitly do not have official diplomatic relations with China; those countries are Taiwan's 14 UN allies, the Holy See (a UN observer, which has relations with Taiwan) and Bhutan (which has relations with neither China nor Taiwan). China does have widespread recognition, sure, but it's certainly not recognised by 100% of countries around the world or even by 100% of UN member states. So, in fact, if you want to be EXTRA neutral, you should go over to China's Wiki page and change its description in its intro to "China is a country with limited recognition". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

China doesn't have limited recognition but has wide spread recognition as most countries recognise it. Taiwan is a country with limited recognition and that is just the current situation. It seems like you don't want to be neutral which is what wikipedia should be.Finn.reports (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Just on a purely technical note China is a state with limited recognition and there is no disagreement on that point within the Political Science literature. Arguing otherwise is like arguing that the sky is green. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt your conversation. I have a question (not an argument): Why is Palestine, recognised by 138 UN member countries and already an observer member of the UN considered a "de jure" sovereign "state", "claiming" the West Bank and the Gaza strip (it's constituents), but Taiwan, not a UN member of any kind and recognised by 14 very small countries (mainly small islands) considered a "country"? The double standard is unbearable.

I repeat that I'm just questioning, and I'm mainly concerned that Palestine is not considered a country, but that could be tolerated if there was some kind of standard. Nicxjo (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Because Taiwan has at one time (as the Republic of China) been a member of the UN and a fully sovereign state. Palestine has never been either of those.Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Because Palestine can't even enforce sovereignty within its own internationally-recognised borders. Israeli tanks drive around Palestinian soil on the West Bank daily, Israeli soldiers shoot Palestinian citizens on Palestinian soil regularly, and the West Bank is full of Israeli settlements where the Palestinian government holds zero control. If you look at this map, this is the actual control that the Palestinian government holds within its own borders. In reality, they control less than 30% of their own land. This is absolutely not comparable to the situation in Taiwan. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why saying "Taiwan is a country." as the first sentence is very wrong and misleading

File:Wikipedia article Taiwan shows up as 1st result of Google search calling Taiwan a country.png

Now the Google search result of "Taiwan" is very misleading

Why it is wrong:

1. Most countries in the world, including the United States and most other significant nations, do not recognize Taiwan as a "country".
2. The international law does not recognize Taiwan as a "country".

Why it's misleading. Especially for people in the west, they need to know the fact that Taiwan is not simply a "country". Things like not including Taiwan in map of China will cause significant consequences that Wikipedia readers absolutely deserve to know. Imagine a staff making a PPT that will include a map of China, and he sees the Google result on the right. He may choose a map of China without Taiwan, and cause trouble to his company.

We should not simply say "Taiwan is a country" or "Taiwan is not a country", which is non-neutral, misleading and may cause real life troubles to readers because of inaccuracy of infomation. Taiwan's political status dispute should be mentioned in the first sentence, because it's about its identity and may cause significant consequences.

For example, we can change from

Taiwan officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia. Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, ...

to something like this:

Taiwan, an island in East Asia, is legally a part of China (the PRC), but also broadly considered a de facto state. 

You may add "de facto" and "state" as wikilink, or add more references, or change some of the wording. But I just want to point out 2 things:

1. There's "(the PRC)" following "China" not to be mistaken with "Republic of China (ROC)". I think the term "Republic of China (ROC)" is misleading if put in the first sentence, because most people around the world only use "China" and "Taiwan". This term can be moved to 2nd sentence or later. The term "Republic of China (ROC)" is used in certain circumstances which need to be bettered explained. And what does "officially" mean? Does America "officially" calls Taiwan "Republic of China (ROC)"? I haven't done the research for now, so I can't tell for sure. Please help me do the research and comment below.
2. There shall be a footnote at the end of sentence, pointing to the specific chapter.

I'm not in a hurry to make a change. I just hope people can really discuss things, and make real progress.
--In wkpd (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

"Imagine a staff making a PPT that will include a map of China, and he sees the Google result on the right. He may choose a map of China without Taiwan, and cause trouble to his company." You honestly think this is a thing that happens? That's bloody fantastic, if true. In any case, why should I care whether some buffoon makes a PowerPoint and ends up losing his China job as a result? If he's that stupid to make such a blunder like that, then that's totally on him. Personally, I prefer not to do business with totalitarian states. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I must say, initially, I thought you were genuinely concerned with improving the contents of this Wikipedia article. Now, I know you're just salty because you lost your China job over some PowerPoint that you threw together in half an hour. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Your formatting is bloody annoying. With that aside, I'd like to point out that Taiwan is not legally part of the PRC and never has been. I will respond to the rest of your points in a moment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Right, so, first off, Taiwan has never been part of the PRC. The PRC claims Taiwan, and very few countries officially recognise Taiwan as a country, sure. But in reality, these are actually two separate issues, although they are related. It's not a zero-sum game. When countries don't recognise Taiwan, that doesn't automatically mean that they recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC. For example, the United States doesn't recognise Taiwan as part of the PRC, despite having official diplomatic relations with the PRC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

There is another point that is important to highlight. The United Nations does not have the capacity to recognise the sovereignty of states. Only states can recognise other states. { https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ0Lfe8jVBI }. The United Nations has a list of member states, which is commonly seen as a measure of sovereignty, but this doesn't technically amount to recognition. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It's true that international law does not recognise Taiwan as a country, technically speaking. More accurately, Taiwan is politically a proto-state, i.e. an emerging country. That's actually a more suitable way to describe it. However, unlike most other proto-states, Taiwan has all of the trappings of a fully-developed sovereign state, giving the impression that it actually is a proper country even though it isn't. The reason Taiwan has so much infrastructure already in existence is that it is effectively the successor state to the Republic of China on Taiwan, which was effectively a rump state of the Republic of China (1912–1949). There is an ongoing debate in international and domestic (Taiwanese/ROC) law about whether Taiwan (Republic of China) is the successor state of the Republic of China (1912–1949) or is a completely new country. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

What must be said, however, is that Taiwan is a proto-state that is occupying territory that, as of yet, is actually not under the sovereignty of any official country in the world. Taiwan is not under China's sovereignty, though it also isn't under the sovereignty of Japan or the United States, two other countries that are strongly legally tied to Taiwan, nor is Taiwan under Taiwan's own sovereignty. However, Taiwan also isn't terra nullius since it also clearly has a defined population. More accurately, Taiwan is a non-self-governing territory whose status has not been resolved ever since Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan in 1951 with the Treaty of San Francisco. The most similar political entity to Taiwan in the present day is probably Western Sahara, a former colony of Spain that never truly gained its independence. Spain relinquished sovereignty over Western Sahara but Mali and Morocco annexed Western Sahara shortly afterward. Mali later withdrew from the territory. Meanwhile, a localist pro-independence militia, the Polisario Front, took control of part of the territory and declared a Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, which became a proto-state. In Taiwan's case, it was relinquished by Japan in 1951. However, China annexed Taiwan a few years earlier, in 1945, and Taiwan was shortly after disputed between the ROC and PRC regimes of China as a consequence of the Chinese Civil War. Taiwan's political status was never properly resolved due to the dispute over which government of China was legitimate. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most of the paragraph above and would just like to add that, the US and the UK did not agree with China's unilateral action of annexing Taiwan and stated that the transfer of the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan needs to be settled in a peace treaty (which it was not in the later-concluded San Francisco Peace Treaty). --Matt Smith (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep. At the time that the ROC annexed Taiwan, few major world powers recognised this completely. The United States tacitly "allowed" the ROC to occupy Taiwan but never officially recognised the ROC's decision to fully integrate Taiwan into the ROC. Meanwhile, the UK switched diplomatic recognition from the ROC to the PRC very early on but still didn't recognise the ROC's unilateral annexation of Taiwan (I'm not sure whether the UK recognises Taiwan as "part of the PRC" nowadays, though). In the present day, there certainly are countries that recognise Taiwan as part of China (the PRC). This seemingly includes countries like Burma and Cambodia, both of which are dictatorships in Southeast Asia. However, there are also a number of countries that maintain diplomatic relations with the PRC but are also simultaneously ambiguous regarding their recognition of Taiwan as part of China. This includes the United States, Canada and Australia, to my knowledge. There are probably many other examples. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The ROC was responsible for occupying Taiwan and that was part of the Allies' arrangements of the post-war military occupation just like the US was responsible for occupying the Japan proper. In fact, it was the US which used its navy ship to ship Chinese occupation forces onto Taiwan because the ROC did not have usable navy ships at that time.

As for the UK's current position of Taiwan's status, from the sources I've seen so far:

• The UK "acknowledged" the position of the government of the PRC that Taiwan was a province of the PRC and "recognised" the PRC Government as the sole legal Government of China.
• The UK does not recognize Taiwan as a state.

--Matt Smith (talk) 07:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Obviously, Taiwan's equivalent of the Polisario Front is the Democratic Progressive Party, which took control of Taiwan in 2000–2008, and again from 2016–present. Additionally, Lee Teng-hui a Kuomintang politician, was secretly working for the independence movement in order to undermine the ROC's authority over Taiwan; he was the president of the ROC from 1988–2000. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The major difference between the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of Taiwan and the Polisario Front of Western Sahara is that the DPP usurped the Kuomintang/ROC rump state in Taiwan through legal, democratic means rather than violent warfare. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

In conclusion, Taiwan's political status is extremely complex. It's not a country per se, though it's also not legally part of the PRC either. I'm not totally against the rewording of Taiwan's description as a "country" in the introduction, since it's certainly not a proper country, as I've pointed out here. However, I am vehemently opposed to any notion that Taiwan is legally part of the PRC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if most countries don't officially recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country. It's doublespeak. Sure, they don't "officially" recognize it as a country, but de facto, they are dealing with Taiwan just like a country via "unofficial" channels. What matters the most here is how the media sees Taiwan, and most of them say Taiwan is a country. pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 04:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:CONFLICTING is an essay, and not a Wikipedia policy, so it bears no substance when formulating policy-based decisions. When there is a content dispute, the article content follows the established community consensus, and based on past discussion, the consensus was that Wikipedia should use the phrasing "country" when referring to Taiwan. Editors who disagree with community consensus have no excuse to engage in edit warring and other such forms of disruptive editing, as seen from 21 November onwards; while it's certainly true that consensus can change at any time, this requires editors who challenge the status quo to initiate a community discussion to change the consensus first. Plus, contrary to the allegations brought forth by Nathan Rich's video, Wikipedia consensus is not a democratic vote, but rather is based on the validity of arguments from the perspective of policy, so the claim that the current consensus was brought forth by a majority of stupid editors picking on an oppressed minority of valiant editors through sheer numbers is completely inane and nonsensical.

Now, while I'd certainly welcome a new formal RFC discussion to gauge new consensus over this issue if editors are clamouring for one so much, I do have to address a few points that have been raised by proponents who have recently called for Taiwan to be rephrased as "legally part of the PRC" instead:

• Nathan Rich's video does an extremely poor job at directly addressing the points raised by the earlier RFC that established the consensus that Wikipedia should refer to Taiwan as a country, since he frames his desired talking point first, and then builds the scene around that. He makes no effort to address the Montevideo Convention, Taiwan's de facto foreign policy, or any of the theories of statehood. He desperately clings to "the UN says this, the UN says that", as if the UN is the sole arbitrator on determining what is and isn't a country (despite that countries have existed before the UN was formed in 1945, and that countries such as San Marino did not join the UN until very late into the game).
• There is excessive focus on how other limited-recognition entities such as Palestine are described in their article lead paragraphs. However, Wikipedia does not revolve around precedent, nor is uniformity between articles stipulated by policy. There is no policy-based argument for multiple different articles to follow any semblance of consistency.
• User:In wkpd's argument that Wikipedia's phrasing harms readers and companies because they might accidentally omit Taiwan from a map of China is dubious at best, because Wikipedia does not exist to fix injustices or pursue noble causes. Per Wikipedia:General disclaimer, readers may only use Wikipedia at their own risk. If somebody is shot and killed because of one of my edits to Wikipedia, it's not my fault, nor is it Wikipedia's fault.
• The ROC no longer has de jure claim over the entirety of mainland China, the Republic of Mongolia, and Tannu Tuva as of 2005, and anyone that claims otherwise is intentionally twisting the spirit of the law with intent to deceive. Taiwan and Mongolia established country-to-country relations in 2002, so anyone who makes the argument that mainland China is "constitutionally" territory of the ROC is conveniently ignoring the case with Mongolia. Furthermore, prior to 2002, Chinese diaspora with ancestry from Tianjin, Hubei, Jiangsu, Fujian, or any other Chinese province could apply for an ROC passport with special status that did not grant right of abode in Taiwan; now, they cannot, further cementing the fact that now that Kuomintang dictatorship rule has ended, Chinese citizens are no longer ROC citizens, in the eyes of ROC law.
• Per the dogma of self-determination, a country is a country when it considers itself one. The Kuomintang is no longer in power, and the present-day official position of the Tsai Ing-wen administration of the ROC government is that "there is no need for Taiwan to declare independence, because it is already independent, and its name is the Republic of China on Taiwan". Until the Kuomintang comes back to power (and it seems more and more unlikely with each passing day, based on two-party preferred opinion polling), the Democratic Progressive Party's interpretation of the statehood of the ROC will remain the official interpretation of the ROC government. On the other hand, the PRC has never placed boots on the ground in Taiwan at any point in history, and it is the PRC that declared its own secessionist state from the ROC in 1949, and not the other way around. With this in mind, any suggestion that the PRC somehow holds enforceable sovereignty over Taiwan based on the succession of states theory is making a claim based on pure fantasy. To argue that Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires us to also give equal representation to this fantasy is a pure farce, because the neutrality policy makes it very clear that fringe viewpoints do not deserve "equal footing".

This discussion has already gotten quite messy, with it splitting into multiple talk page sections for no apparently useful purpose; it'd be much appreciated if we can have the discussion take place in a single location for the sake of comprehensibility. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I totally agree with pretty much everything you've written here. I just want to point out that In wkpd has declared lower down on this page that he only joined Wikipedia a few days ago. Furthermore, he has no prior knowledge about Taiwan, China, the ROC, the PRC, or literally anything relevant to this Wikipedia article. He's far from an expert on this topic... The topic literally has nothing to do with him. He claims that he decided to join Wikipedia and start assaulting this article on its claim "Taiwan is a country" after initially watching Nathan Rich's YouTube video "Taiwan is not a Country (even if you wish really hard)", which was only released a couple of days ago as well. I honestly have no clue what this guy's schtick is... It's just bizarre, to be honest. Like... why is he putting so much effort into defaming and denouncing Taiwan even though he literally didn't give two hoots about this issue only like a week ago? It's seriously confusing, concerning and comical. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Lets not comment on users here, if you have an issue raise it as wp:ani.Slatersteven (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're replying to me. However, I will say, I literally only just regurgitated information that In wkpd already laid out in another comment on this same talk page. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It was not a reply to any one user, hence why I did not indent it as one. It is a general notice to stop doing it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. I will say, I'm generally quite concerned about the fact that Nathan Rich's video was cited in this talk page (twice!!) without any background being provided about Nathan Rich's political motives and academic background. The statements that he made in his video were taken completely at face value by numerous Wikipedians in this talk page, and an absurd and furious debate was sparked and has been raging on for days. Again and again, I've questioned the entire foundation of this debate... Why are Wikipedians here refusing to question the veracity of the source? Several Wikipedians have claimed that "the source is irrelevant and is just a conversation starter". This argument is doubtful... Why should we permit a conversation to be started when the very basis of that conversation cannot be verified and when certain Wikipedians are actively trying to prevent other Wikipedians from even attempting to verify this basis? In my opinion, this entire situation is an attempt at gaslighting by malign actors. It is potentially even a brigade that is being sponsored by Nathan Rich himself. He has a history of doing that (he wrote his own Wikipedia article and tried to promote his business ventures there; however, he was eventually shut down by admins/moderators). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

In the space of one week, 15,000 words have been exchanged throughout this debate. Even if Nathan Rich doesn't win this battle, he will still have gained for himself a significant platform that he certainly does not deserve in any capacity. This entire situation is a publicity stunt on the behalf of Nathan Rich. No matter what happens, he will still make big bucks in the end. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Neither of your points matters. Whether other countries recognize Taiwan or whether international law recognizes it is irrelevant to Taiwan itself. A country is a country whether anyone else recognizes it or even knows it exists. --Khajidha (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Not true, I (for example) an not a country even if I now say "I am the country of Steve".Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I never said that a person who called themselves a country was a country, so I'm not sure what your point here is. --Khajidha (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

True, so what does " A country is a country whether anyone else recognizes it or even knows it exists" even mean? I took it to mean "it it calls itself a country" is that not the case? So is Principality of Sealand a country, or Principality of Freedonia what about Grand Fenwick?Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The first sentences doesnt say that Taiwan is a country but that the ROC is a country which it is often reffered as. I do think that the first sentence should be improved by saying for example "Taiwan officially the Republic of China is a partially recognised country/country with limited recognition/de facto country in east Asia." one of those three options would be the best in my opinion and the most factually correct and the most neutral.Finn.reports (talk) 15:19, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Why specifically single out Taiwan then? Why not do the same for China, North Korea, South Korea and Israel, all "partially recognised" countries? The consistent and repetitive focus on Palestine and Abkhazia within this discussion is cherry-picking. --benlisquare_T•C•E 16:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Because those countries are widely recognized and Taiwan(ROC) is not. You dont single out Taiwan(ROC)in that way it is just the current situation.Finn.reports (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Unrecognised in terms of reality, or unrecognised merely in terms of bureaucratic doublespeak with the aim of saving face? Can Taiwan purchase F-16V jets and M1 Abrams tanks? Does United States federal law prohibit the sales of advanced jets and tanks to non-state actors? Just like any interaction between human adults, what someone says at face value isn't necessarily reflective of their true intentions, and we should not pretend that the official statements of countries represent any form of reality, and instead look at the real-world behaviours of countries instead. Third-party reliable sources are certainly capable of distinguishing between de facto government policy and diplomatic circus, so there's no reason why Wikipedia cannot do the same. Governments say one thing, and do another; governments claim that they acknowledge the one-China policy, while treating Taiwan as a country in reality. --benlisquare_T•C•E 17:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Notes

---

To Whom it May Concern: Nathan Rich on "Taiwan"

There is a new YouTube video that has just come out on Taiwan, entitled Wikipedia Takes Political Stance, Calls Taiwan a "Country". Will be helpful if Wikipedia contributors to this article will review this most-recent take on Taiwan by an American ex-pat who lives in China, and give their opinion on some of his arguments. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi guys, I'm here to show you a little more history of the recent incident before this section was created, because it seems you didn't notice that this video had been mentioned above (in the last section). On 21 Nov, the video was uploaded. On 22, Leonhang changed "country" to "state", probably for the first time since it was changed from "state" to "country" 5 months ago. Apparently it's due to the video. This change, together with a series of edits following, caused the following event. Later the same day (12:19, 22 Nov), Tysonbanana4554 created a new setction Taiwan is a country! on this Talk page. (People here in the Talk page were unaware of what caused the recent change, so I later came here and talked about the video, in the previous section, on 23 Nov.) And then (13:09, 22 Nov), it was changed back to "country" by Île flottante, so you might not know the recent edit war just happened. There's another thing you might want to know. This Talk page has a ton of archived discussions. The most important one you should know is the RfC: Taiwan, "country" or "state" (Requests for comment) that happened this May and finally decided to call taiwan a "country". I'm seeing a lot of people discussing, but you should really read first. For example, user @Davidbena has been mentioning "double standard" (at 23:52, 25 November 2020), but it has already been discussed in the RfC I just showed you. There's no point discussing the same thing over and over again. If we don't find out the real problem here, even if we could make a consensus this time, I wouldn't be surprised if someday it is changed back again. This issue is talked about a lot of times before, including but not limited to: Taiwan is not "sovereign state" (15 February 2012) Final closing statement (22 March 2012) Taiwan...is a country? (20 April 2020) Discussing neutrality (17 April 2020) Please READ and SLOW DOWN the discussion! Taiwan has been a "country" on this page for 5 months already! We don't need to rush to an agreement! Take your time! We all need to slow down! Because of that video, I started to explore Wikipedia just a few days ago. And this is also the first time I start to google the history of relations between PRC, ROC and USA, and political status of Taiwan, and so on. So why don't you do enough research and come back to make a strong point? To be honest, you guys are throwing too much words. Everybody's typing, nobody is reading. I can't read all your replies for now, because my first priority is to read the Wikipedia policies and gidelines, and google things like "what is the difference between state and country". Another thing I strongly recommend you to read is Five pillars and Wikipedia policies and guidelines: (You can click the show button on the right to see the content, or copy the source code to you sandbox, or you can find it at the bottom of this page.) My next reply will be under the last section (Taiwan is a country!). I'm going to make a statement, that saying "Taiwan is a country" as the first sentence is absolutely wrong and misleading. If you want to hear it, then check out the last section. You might have to wait for a day or two though. It will be a short reply, with 1 or 2 real life examples. I'm not posting it in this section because I'm not here to talk about Nathan Rich. If you want to reply to me, please reply in the last section, under my first edit in this talk page, and (please use {{ping|In wkpd}} on reply). I'm inserting this blue box as a notice board, to inform you about the discussion history. So please don't reply me under or inside the box. --In wkpd (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: As far as i can see it, however valid we may find Taiwan's claim of autonomy, the Wiki article presenting a stance that about ~97% of other countries disagree with (and the few who disagree are all micro-states or tiny Pacific islands) seems to not be consistent with Wikipedia's policy of being unbiased and presenting views points proportionate to their global support.

We could even refer to it as a "country" throughout, given it's more succinct than "semi autonomous region" or other terms, but the opposing view should be prominently mentioned, or the page doesn't seem like a very realistic depiction of the current situation.

I'm not even sure what the point would be of presenting a one sided point of view?

"Reality isn't decided by popular vote", so - for example - even if half the world didn't believe in evolutionary biology the unscientific view doesn't warrant weighting proportionate to popular support. But issues about borders and national sovereignty aren't really about "reality"? Borders and countries only exist as far as others agree they exist, and an independent country of Taiwan isn't something most of the world recognises as existing?

Possibly there's some harm minimization angle i'm missing? But i can't see any that make sense? If the authors of this article want to support the residents of Taiwan, then pretending their problem doesn't exist does not seem helpful? It would be like an page on Palestine that neglected to mention Israel? Or a page about the Indigenous people of Canada or Australia that read as if colonialism never happened?

Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Who?Slatersteven (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to respond to these arguments.Davidbena (talk) 17:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS, the source you have provided does not meet those standards and as such is of no use to us. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: They were not including it as a citation in the article, so the reliable source standard is not applicable. I think @Davidbena: intended to show this as an example of the public perception of Wikipedia's coverage of this topic? Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I did I asked who he is? Why is he opinion of note?Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:, @Slatersteven:, The video is not presented here as RS, but rather the arguments raised in the video. Wasn't this self-evident? We can still discuss the issues raised by Nathan Rich and seek to verify whether or not things written here, in this article, comply with Wikipedia policies. BTW: Talk-Pages are meant for doing just this. Nathan Rich opens-up with a strong statement that seems to show there is being exercised here, with respect to Taiwan, a certain discrepancy. As for Nathan Rich, see his Wikipedia article.Davidbena (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Nathan Rich's Wikipedia article had a significant amount of content deleted by moderators earlier this year or within the past two years (I haven't checked when, exactly) because he himself, the subject of the article, was editing the article and essentially using it to advertise his brand. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW @Davidbena: i thought your purpose was entirely clear. Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

And all I have to do is look at its title "Wikipedia Takes Political Stance, Calls Taiwan a "Country"" if we called it anything it would be according to some "Taking a political Stance". This is a "please no one scenario". So we go with what the bulk of RS say. And wp:soap means this talk page if for discussing improvements to the article, not what some blokes view on the article is.Slatersteven (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: it's true that whichever side we go with is taking a side, but one major issue is that the opposing view is not even mentioned until the fourth paragraph. We could call it a country, but we should mention more prominently that this is not a universally accepted point of view. More prominently being in the first sentence, not the fourth paragraph.

And i think it is pretty obvious that @Davidbena: is pointing out that the relative weighting of points of view presented in the wiki page might be biased or inappropriately weighted. They were slightly indirect in the way they brought it up, but not unclear. Their point in showing the video is to show that people perceive this article as politically biased, and we should examine whether the article presents the topic appropriately for an encyclopedia.

Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

By "country" is obviously meant a sovereign country, without being a bona fide part of Mainland China. We find other disputed places in our world and where Wikipedia's role in portraying these countries should be neutral. I think that this is what Nathan Rich is trying to tell us.Davidbena (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

This is not a WP:FORUM, if the point of this is to "discuss the issues raised by Nathan Rich” then this discussion will quickly be closed or deleted. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: At this stage you must be deliberately missing the point? Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

No, the purpose is not merely to discuss the issues raised by Nathan Rich, for the sake of discussion without an outcome, but to see if the issues raised by him are applicable to this article. This is a legitimate inquiry. I think the question should be "how many countries recognize Mainland China's sovereignty over the break-away republic of Taiwan, and how many countries do not recognize Mainland China's sovereignty?” Let us not forget too that even the USA has signed three communiques with the People's Republic of China (Mainland China) stating to the effect that the USA agrees not to challenge the PRC's sovereignty over the island of Taiwan, but to respect China's "anti-secession law," until such time that Taiwan will be reunified with the Mainland. And although the Trump Administration has reneged on this promise, the communiques are still regarded as binding upon the parties.Davidbena (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: "how many countries recognize Mainland China's sovereignty over the break-away republic of Taiwan, and how many countries do not recognize Mainland China's sovereignty?" As far as i understand it, it's somewhat complicated by both Taiwan and the mainland claiming sovereignty over both? Irtapil (talk) 22:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

So, in that case let us take the stats on both possibilities. They will still reflect a majority opinion.Davidbena (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The Three Communiques are from 1972, 1979, and 1982 respectively. The anti-secession law came into effect in 2005. None of what you or Mr Rich are saying is grounded in reality. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: boarders and countries aren't "grounded in reality", they're a mutually agreed fiction. Irtapil (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you mean borders? None of that takes away from the fact that everything Davidbena said is factually incorrect, not least of which the “binding" communiques that apparently reference a law that won’t exist for decades (in case you didnt know binding communique is an oxymoron). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: To be clear here, the United States did not recognize that Taiwan is part of the PRC in the Three Joint Communiques. They simply “acknowledged the Chinese position” without recognizing it as their own position. This fact was clarified in point number 5 of the Six Assurances issued to Taiwan on the same day the Third Joint Communique was signed- “The United States:… Has not altered its position regarding sovereignty over Taiwan.”. Point 4 of the Six Assurances also states that the US “Has not agreed to revise the Taiwan Relations Act”, which defines Taiwan as: ““Taiwan” includes, as the context may require, the islands of Taiwan and the Pescadores, the people on those islands, corporations and other entities and associations created or organized under the laws applied on those islands, and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979, and any successor governing authorities (including political subdivisions, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof).” Eclipsed830 (talk) 03:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's one stance from an official source. "Australian Government does not recognise the ROC as a sovereign state and does not regard the authorities in Taiwan as having the status of a national government."

But looking up nearly 200 countries might be crazy, so i shoupd find a list, which actually already exists right here Foreign relations of Taiwan.

Irtapil (talk) 23:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That page "Foreign relations of Taiwan" is linked in this article, but not till the fourth paragraph, after three other quite long paragraphs. Most of the bias could be fixed by simply reordering the information that is already here, to order it according to relevance. Irtapil (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The thing to remember here is that we should NOT be supporting a double standard. In nearly all Wikipedia articles, where the majority of UN members recognise a country as being sovereign, it receives De jure recognition. In the case of Taiwan which has never declared its Independence, the majority of UN members (93%) do not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state or country. This article should be amended to note this fact.Davidbena (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I added some examples below in a new section. Irtapil (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Irtapil: Excellent. I will leave any amends relating to this article up to your discretion.Davidbena (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Davidbena: I just mean the talk page section below #not consistent with other partially recognised states. I added examples of the intro sentence of every other partially recognised country i could find a Wikipedia article about, since multiple threads in this talk page are on the same topic.

Unfortunately i seem to lack the authority to do much with the article itself. I made a couple of attempts to reorder the information in the introduction, but it got reverted within minutes.

As i said in my first response to this thread, i'm honestly fairly confused by what they hope to achieve by burying the most noteworthy information, and presenting only one side of the story. Passionate supporters of the Kurdish people or Palestinians wouldn't try to hide the story about the nations that hold conflicting claims to their territory?

If you want something more balanced and informative than this eccentric Wiki article, i highly recommend several recent English language documentaries about Taiwan from the German public broadcaster DW, they're currently available on YouTube and not region locked, just search "DW Taiwan" (without the quotes). If English isn't your preferred language there's probably alternate versions of some them in German and even Arabic or other languages.

Irtapil (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Irtapil: If we reach a consensus, we can make the appropriate changes to this article. All depends on consensus.Davidbena (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Irtapil: do you mean DW programs like “Taiwan first Asian country to legalize same-sex marriage" [2]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: not so much that one, no. I noticed that one and might watch it later, but it's not really what i would recommend as an introduction for someone who found the wiki article lacking.

The one i had in mind was "Taiwan: China's next target? | DW Analysis". It was a bit scary in the speculative bits, but the background in the intro clarified a lot of things which i had been confused about. For any other part of the world Wikipedia is normally a reliable 101, but i this case i just got even more confused by wiki, but DW made a lot more sense.

Irtapil (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Did you happen to notice the fourth word in the title? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: eventually, it took me seven read-throughs to work out what you were getting at. I thought you were trying to convince me Taiwan are "the good guys" because they are nicer to Queer people.

If this wiki article on Taiwan went nine words without clarifying the disputed status, that would be fine, but this wiki article goes for four paragraphs before even mentioning it.

I said already that calling it a "country" is justifiable, as long as the ambiguity is clarified fairly prominently.

I might watch that one now actually, i expect they don't mention PRC without mentioning the dispute…

Irtapil (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: "country" is mentioned once by a local being interviewed, the title seems to be a quote. The DW reporter doesn't mention it, he only says "Taiwan" without any added description of status.

No mention of PCR, let alone a description of it as a neighbouring country with equal status to Japan and the Philippines "Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south."

Irtapil (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Nathan Rich's opinion does not matter

I've elaborated more on this point elsewhere. I believe that Nathan Rich is a state-sponsored propagandist. He also has an army of brigadiers, though I'm not sure whether they've been deployed here. In any case, he made this YouTube video about Taiwan's Wikipedia article purely in order to make money and rile up his fans. He is not an academic... He's a celebrity. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

QUOTE (from myself): "That makes sense. I will say, I'm generally quite concerned about the fact that Nathan Rich's video was cited in this talk page (twice!!) without any background being provided about Nathan Rich's political motives and academic background. The statements that he made in his video were taken completely at face value by numerous Wikipedians in this talk page, and an absurd and furious debate was sparked and has been raging on for days. Again and again, I've questioned the entire foundation of this debate... Why are Wikipedians here refusing to question the veracity of the source? Several Wikipedians have claimed that "the source is irrelevant and is just a conversation starter". This argument is doubtful... Why should we permit a conversation to be started when the very basis of that conversation cannot be verified and when certain Wikipedians are actively trying to prevent other Wikipedians from even attempting to verify this basis? In my opinion, this entire situation is an attempt at gaslighting by malign actors. It is potentially even a brigade that is being sponsored by Nathan Rich himself. He has a history of doing that (he wrote his own Wikipedia article and tried to promote his business ventures there; however, he was eventually shut down by admins/moderators). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC) ... In the space of one week, 15,000 words have been exchanged throughout this debate. Even if Nathan Rich doesn't win this battle, he will still have gained for himself a significant platform that he certainly does not deserve in any capacity. This entire situation is a publicity stunt on the behalf of Nathan Rich. No matter what happens, he will still make big bucks in the end. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)" Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

And wp:soap. We are here to discus hot to improve the article, and nothing else.Slatersteven (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how any of these discussions about Nathan Rich (pro tip: I'm not the one who initially brought him up) are in any way contributing to the improvement of this article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That is better, an objection based upon how we do things.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Slatersteven. What is your opinion on the attempts by In wkpd to publicly defame me? Starting with comments like "he refuses to listen to other arguments... he thinks the voices of mainland Chinese people don't matter"? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, not listening to other peoples' opinions is not a crime. You have your right to an opinion. I have my right to ignore it. (not you in particular, just people in general) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, did that bopomofo In wkpd just assume my gender? What makes him think I'm male? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Something else that is important to point out

Taiwan has never been ruled by the PRC. As it stands, for 71 years now, the Taiwanese have been ruled by an entirely separate government. The PRC has never been sovereign over Taiwan. The PRC has been threatening to invade and annex Taiwan "by force if necessary" ever since Chiang Kai-shek and his goons fled there in 1949. My question is... what do we view as being "neutral" on this topic? Does being "neutral" mean giving equal weight to both the defenders, the Taiwanese, who have lived on Taiwan for either decades or centuries and whose lives are daily endangered by a hostile foreign regime, and the attackers, the People's Republic of China, a regime that has never ruled Taiwan in history and yet threatens Taiwan with military annihilation on a regular basis? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Excellent points. I think that we can mention all these as facts, and that there is a dispute over whether Taiwan (a break-away republic) should be re-united with Mainland China, and whether or not Taiwan enjoys "sovereign" status, as the current government (the CCP) was not a viable government at the time when Taiwan was separated from the Mainland. It should also be pointed out that the majority of nations who are signatories to the UN charter do not recognise Taiwan as a sovereign state.Davidbena (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

The facts as they stand are that Taiwan's status is undecided ever since the San Francisco Treaty was signed in 1951. Taiwan was part of Japan from 1895 to 1945. In 1951, Japan relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan in the aforementioned treaty but left Taiwan's future fate up for further arbitration. Taiwan's political status ever since then has remained officially unresolved. Taiwan was never even technically legally part of the Republic of China, let alone the People's Republic of China. EDIT: Theory of the Undetermined Status of Taiwan Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

From the standpoint of a modern political entity or government within Mainland China, you are right that Taiwan was never even technically legally part of the People's Republic of China. However, after the departure of the Japanese occupying power from Taiwan (as well as due to other regional conflicts), a political entity was also established on the island of Taiwan to fill the vacuum and to give some semblance of governance and which called itself "the Republic of China." The two systems of governance (the one in Mainland China and the other in Taiwan) do not take-away from their mutually shared heritage and ancestral ties.Davidbena (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

The point that I was actually making is that Taiwan was never even technically legally part of the Republic of China (ROC) before the People's Republic of China (PRC) came into existence. The ROC was established in 1912; the 1912 constitution doesn't include Taiwan as territory of China. In 1945, the ROC defeated the Empire of Japan (EOJ) in the Second Sino-Japanese War, forcing the EOJ to withdraw from Taiwan and leave the territory in ROC hands. To be clear here, the EOJ didn't legally cede Taiwan to the ROC at this point (which is commonly referred to as "Retrocession Day"), but merely agreed to the ROC occupying Taiwan for a temporary period, pending further arbitration on the future status of Taiwan. The ROC unilaterally annexed Taiwan almost immediately after they gained control of Taiwan. However, major countries around the world, such as the United Kingdom and the United States, both of which were allies of the ROC during WWII, have condemned this decision of the ROC historically. Prior to 1949, when the PRC was established, very few if any countries recognised Taiwan as part of the ROC. The PRC claims to be the successor state of the ROC, meaning that it has the right to inherit all of the ROC's former territories. However, as I've pointed out here, Taiwan was never a historical territory of the ROC, at least in terms of core sovereignty. The PRC's current claim is based on the ROC's previous claim, which itself wasn't even recognised by the international community pre-1949. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Japan lost the Second Sino-Japanese War not because the ROC defeated Japan, but because the Allies worked together against Japan in the World War II and eventually the US finished the Japan with two atomic bombs. In fact, the battles of the Second Sino-Japanese War had nothing to do with Taiwan because Taiwan and China were in different theaters. Taiwan was in the Pacific Ocean theater while China was in the China Burma India Theater. And in the Pacific Ocean theater, the US did most of the assaults on Japan (included Taiwan). For this reason, some opinions hold that it was the US that freed Taiwan from Japan. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

This is true. However, the Second Sino-Japanese War is the war that was specifically fought between the ROC and EOJ, which is why I mentioned it. I also briefly mentioned WWII and the UK and US. Whether you view WWII as the "superior" war is a matter of opinion. My statement that the ROC won the Second Sino-Japanese War isn't false; it's true. However, just because the ROC won, that does not mean it had no support. The ROC was the primary force fighting the EOJ in mainland China whereas the US was the primary force fighting the EOJ in Taiwan, Okinawa and mainland Japan. It was the US that dealt the decisive blows against Japan in the end, though the ROC's contribution to the war was also significant. When the ROC defeated the EOJ in the Second Sino-Japanese War (with or without US assistance is irrelevant), it demanded that Japan hand over Taiwan as part of the spoils of war. This is the exact same thing the EOJ did back in the First Sino-Japanese War when it defeated the Qing Empire in a war that was mainly fought in Korea; upon winning the war, the EOJ demanded Taiwan as part of the spoils of war, although the war had not been fought on Taiwanese soil. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The ROC did not demand that Japan hand over Taiwan as part of the spoils of war when it defeated the Japan in the Second Sino-Japanese War. The ROC occupied Taiwan in 1945 because the Allies assigned the ROC this mission. And the Allies assigned the ROC this mission because they made a statement in the 1943 Cairo Declaration that Taiwan shall be restored to the ROC. It should be pointed out that, the US and the UK regard the said declaration as merely a war-time statement of intention and having no binding force of law, and that the Allies assigned the ROC the occupation of Taiwan for the purpose of waiting for a peace treaty to transfer Taiwan's sovereignty. That's why the US and the UK did not agree with the ROC's unilateral action of annexing Taiwan in 1945.

The ROC did demand this? In the Cairo Conference and Potsdam Declaration? I am pretty sure Chiang Kai-shek made his intentions clear. Ah, yeah, you've said it. There you go. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

As for the First Sino-Japanese War, from what I can see, at least 66% of the battles happened within Chinese territories or territorial waters. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

A lot of the battles occurred in Manchuria and northern China, nearby to Korea. The war was mainly fought over influence in Korea and Manchuria. The war was partially fought in the Pescadores, though not very much in Taiwan proper. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Please be accurate of your wording. The international community regarded Taiwan as part of Japan from 1895 to 1945, so Japanese government in Taiwan should not be referred to as "occupying power". Interestingly, from the viewpoints of the US and the UK, the phrase "occupying power" fits well to the "Republic of China" because both stated that the ROC occupied Taiwan since 1945. The UK even made clear that the ROC occupied Taiwan as a post-war military occupation on behalf of the Allies of World War II and that the ROC's occupation of Taiwan did not involve a cession or any change of sovereignty. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

not consistent with other partially recognised states

They all mention disputed status in the first sentence, and some of them are far more widely recognised. Irtapil (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Examples (The introductory sentence from other pages)

Transnistria	"Transnistria, Transdniestria, or Pridnestrovie, officially the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic (PMR; Russian: Приднестровская Молдавская Республика, romanized: Pridnestrovskaya Moldavskaya Respublika), is a breakaway state in the narrow strip of land between the river Dniester and the Ukrainian border that is internationally recognized as part of Moldova."
State of Palestine	"Palestine (Arabic: فلسطين Filasṭīn), recognized officially as the State of Palestine[i] (Arabic: دولة فلسطين Dawlat Filasṭīn) by the United Nations and other entities, is a de jure sovereign state in Western Asia claiming the West Bank (bordering Israel and Jordan) and Gaza Strip (bordering Israel and Egypt) with Jerusalem as the designated capital, although its administrative center is currently located in Ramallah.[ii] The entirety of territory claimed by the State of Palestine has been occupied since 1948, first by Egypt and Jordan and then by Israel after the Six-Day War in 1967."
Kosovo	"Kosovo (/ˈkɒsəvoʊ, ˈkoʊ-/; Albanian: Kosova or Kosovë, pronounced [kɔˈsɔva] or [kɔˈsɔvə]; Serbian Cyrillic: Косово, pronounced [kôsoʋo]), officially the Republic of Kosovo (Albanian: Republika e Kosovës; Template:Lang-sr), is a partially-recognised state and disputed territory in Southeastern Europe. On 17 February 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared its independence from Serbia. It has since gained diplomatic recognition as a sovereign state by 98 UN member states." (far more widely recognised, but still specifies ambiguity up front.)
Abkhazia	"Abkhazia (/æbˈkɑːziə/ or /æbˈkeɪziə/) is a de facto state in the South Caucasus recognised by most countries as part of Georgia, which views the region as an autonomous republic."
Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria	(less recognised) "The Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (NES), also known as Rojava, is a de facto autonomous region in northeastern Syria. It consists of self-governing sub-regions in the areas of Afrin, Jazira, Euphrates, Raqqa, Tabqa, Manbij and Deir Ez-Zor. The region gained its de facto autonomy in 2012 in the context of the ongoing Rojava conflict and the wider Syrian Civil War, in which its official military force, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), has taken part."
Irtapil (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Taiwan's situation is without parallel elsewhere, but I agree that there should be some mention of it in the first sentence. The above discussions seem to imply that de facto/de jure labels are unhelpful. If we are stuck with "country" for now, I suggest

... is partially-recognised country in East Asia that is claimed by the People's Republic of China (PRC).

Kanguole 08:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Which of those has been a UN member at some point in the past, the ROC has. Taiwan is a unique case, but I would not be adverse to something like "challenged by the PRC".Slatersteven (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For what it's worth, countless RSes directly use the terminology de facto state, de facto sovereign state, or de facto country when describing ROC/Taiwan. Here is a small sample that I compiled in an older comment (Talk:Taiwan/Archive 30):

• Clough, Ralph N. "The Status of Taiwan in the New International Legal Order in the Western Pacific." Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), vol. 87, 1993, pp. 73–77. JSTOR, Link.
• Barry, Bartmann. "Between De Jure and De Facto Statehood: Revisiting the Status of Taiwan." Island Studies Journal, vol 3(1), 2008. Link.
• Carolan, Christopher J. "The 'Republic of Taiwan': A Legal-Historical Justification for a Taiwanese Declaration of Independence." New York University Law Review, vol 75(2), 2000. Link.
• Ediger, Mikaela L. "International Law and the Use of Force Against Contested States: The Case of Taiwan." New York University Law Review, vol 93(6), 2018. Link.
• Otopalik, Cameron M. "Taiwan's Quest for Independence: Progress on the Margins for Recognition of Statehood" Asian Journal of Political Science, vol 14, 2006. Link.
• Cho, Young Chul and Ahn, Mun Suk. "Taiwan’s international visibility in the twenty-first century: A suggestive note." Canada's Journal of Global Policy Analysis, vol 72(1), 2017. Link.
• Article by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: link.
• Article by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs: link.
• Article by the BBC: link.
• Article by France 24: link.
• Article by NPR: link.
• Article by the Financial Times: link.
• Article by the CBC: link.
• Article by The Diplomat: link.
• Article by Foreign Policy: link.
• Article by the Japan Times: link.
• Article by The Wire: link.
• This common description is even recognized by an article in the Taipei Times: link.

— User:MarkH21 04:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

A new search easily turns up many more. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't require consistency between articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

why do people want to present a one sided story?

@Horse Eye's Back, Kanguole, Slatersteven, Matt Smith, Davidbena, Jargo Nautilus, In wkpd, Eclipsed830, and In wkpd: Can a anyone help me understand the other editors' motivations in this dispute? There's a justification for keeping harmful information off Wikipedia, for example i would expect a lot of the chemistry articles omit information that might be illegal or dangerous? but i don't understand how presenting Mainland China's side of the story is harmful? China's stance seems to present a serous that to Taiwan, but ignoring that issue seems like it would be counter productive? I don't see how leaving out this information - or burying this information under other details - helps anyone? It just leaves readers with an incomplete impression of the situation. Irtapil (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

We do not need to have the same discussion in 3 or 4 separate threads. We have made out cases in threads above, please red those and respond there.Slatersteven (talk) 13:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Irtapil All of my edits have been based on facts, not opinions or "sides". I have not taken a position on the country vs. state matter, but I personally think the term "country" is appropriate within the context of the article. While I understand that the PRC claims Taiwan as part of its territory, the fact is the PRC has never had any sort of authority, power or jurisdiction over the island of Formosa/Taiwan, its people, its government, its laws, etc. I also do not think it's appropriate to have these same discussions over and over again, as at this point they are repeating the same stuff that has already been discussed. It would be much better to focus on improving other aspects of the article, instead of focusing on one or two minor edits/details/words. Eclipsed830 (talk) 14:11, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Note that the premise of this question is false, as there is an extensive section in the article on "Political and legal status" where the PRC's "side of the story" is well represented. Zoozaz1 talk 14:18, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1: Yes, i found that article, but i am talking a about this one. But since you mention it, why is that article not linked when PRC is first mentioned in this one? This article starts with "Neighbouring countries include the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest" and doesn't mention the complexity of the relationship till after three paragraphs of other details. If it took the paragraphs to mention PRC at all that would be a bit odd, but not misleading. But mentioning PRC in "neighbouring countries" without describing the relationship then and there seems like a very deliberate omission. Irtapil (talk) 15:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Irtapil, Yes, in this article there is a section on political and legal status where the PRC's side of the story is represented. And the reason you seem to take issue with the lead is only because there is a limited amount of space. We cannot detail the complexities and nuances of the political and legal status in a sentence; if you want to discover those complexities, you should read the section above and the political status of Taiwan article in its entirety and, if you take issue with specific points, discuss them. Of course the first sentence doesn't detail the complex political relationship, because in an article about Taiwan there are more important things than some incredibly complex international legal controversy, which couldn't fit into a sentence without someone objecting to it. Zoozaz1 talk 15:37, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@Zoozaz1: why did you put "Political and legal status" in quotation marks when it's called "Political status of Taiwan"? Irtapil (talk) 15:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC) 

Irtapil, I was referring to the section of this article that you might have missed, not the separate article on the subject. Zoozaz1 talk 15:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Zoozaz1 I actually already mentioned this information days ago and it went over everyone's heads. So many people here are just trying to strongarm some kind of agenda without listening to the facts. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It gets a whole paragraph in the lead, in what way are we presenting just one side of the story? TBH we currently seem to give it undue weight in the lead, we don’t even mention that Taiwan has cornered the global market for computer chips and has surpassed even the United States in microchip technology (the most important aspect of the country from an objective point of view) yet we have a whole paragraph about something that is immaterial to almost everyone involved. I would cut the feud with China down to two sentences at most. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging you over to this section. Why saying "Taiwan is a country." as the first sentence is very wrong and misleading - Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The fundamental problem here is that people are conflating the question of "is Taiwan a country?" with the distinct albeit related question "is Taiwan part of China?". Just because Taiwan isn't a country (as I've explained in the thread of comments that I pinged, Taiwan actually isn't a country), that doesn't automatically mean that Taiwan is part of China. In fact, Taiwan is simultaneously not a country and not part of China. - Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Bear in mind that Taiwan actually is independent... It's just not a country. It's a de facto state, proto-state, whichever you prefer (I prefer the latter). It just isn't a full-fledged country. Taiwan is on its way to becoming a country. It's an emerging country, in the most basic sense. There's literally a political party in Taiwan that occupies one of the seats on the Legislative Council called the "Taiwan Statebuilding Party". Clearly, the term "statebuilding" implies that the state is still currently in the process of being built. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

There actually isn't a huge issue with describing Taiwan as a de facto state or proto-state in the lede. The main problem with doing so is that there's too much weight simultaneously being placed on the PRC's territorial claim to Taiwan. The PRC's claim is irrelevant to the question of whether or not Taiwan is a sovereign state versus a proto-state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I do agree with the notion that Taiwan isn't a country, since this is factually correct. Taiwan has never formally declared independence. At the moment, the Taiwanese independence movement has instead chosen to hijack the Republic of China's political infrastructure and subvert the pre-existing ROC rump state from within, rather than challenge the rump state's legitimacy through violent means. The Democratic Progressive Party is a Taiwanese nationalist party but it rules over Taiwan within the framework of the pre-existing ROC rump state infrastructure. The Taiwan independence movement's "queen leader", Tsai Ing-wen, is actually legally the president of the Republic of China, not the president of Taiwan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

However, many of the Wikipedians here who are pushing the notion that Taiwan isn't a country are doing so in bad faith... They are not just saying "Taiwan isn't a country", which, again, is something that I actually agree with. Instead, what they are saying is "Taiwan is not a country because it belongs to China", which seemingly sounds the same but is actually completely different. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

In truth, Taiwan is not a country because, if it were to formally declare independence and rewrite the Kuomintang/ROC constitution that Taiwan currently uses, this would prompt a military invasion or missile barrage from China. Taiwan has all the cards in place to become a country. At the present time, it actually functions more-or-less as a country, albeit a really weird one that officially carries the title of a foreign country. Taiwan's situation is quite similar to Western Sahara, as I've pointed out in the thread that I pinged. Taiwan isn't part of China, though the fact that China actively lays claim to Taiwan is enough to scare the Taiwanese into not declaring independence, at least not just yet. However, the fact that Taiwan hasn't declared independence doesn't automatically mean it's part of China. It's actually a non-self-governing territory that isn't part of any country at the moment, although it is (nominally) occupied by the ROC rump state in Taiwan (bear in mind that the ROC is basically already dead in all but name, ever since the DPP usurped the state for the second time back in 2016) and is claimed by the PRC sovereign state over in mainland China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

An appropriate summary of Taiwan's situation would be the following: "Taiwan is a non-self-governing territory that is controlled by an indigenous proto-state. The territory was formerly a rump state of the Republic of China, a former Chinese regime that ruled mainland China (1912–1949) but fled the country in exile after losing the Chinese Civil War, choosing to instead relocate to Taiwan. Taiwan is still officially known as the "Republic of China", although its political system and the balance of power in the country (between ethnic groups and political factions) have both changed dramatically in recent decades. At the same time, the government of mainland China, the People's Republic of China (1949–present), maintains a territorial claim to Taiwan, on the basis that Taiwan was historically part of China. The claim that Taiwan was historically part of China is disputed, with many in Taiwan seeing the previous periods of Chinese rule as instances of temporary occupation rather than legitimate Chinese sovereignty." Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

We don't need to talk about the motivation. My plan is to look into the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines, and see if we can find a version backupped by the policies/guidelines. It's all about understanding what Wikipedia is. So I suggest you read Five pillars if you feel confused. Dig into those principles, and you'll know what's right. If you still find this Page needs to be fixed after that, you will come back with stronger arguments.--In wkpd (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Pinging you over to this section. Why saying "Taiwan is a country." as the first sentence is very wrong and misleading - Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I've migrated the new section you opened over to my own user talk page. As far as I can tell, the topics you were discussing were irrelevant to improving this article. Stay on topic, please. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)