Talk:Taiwan

Kosovo's "with limited recognition" should be applied to Taiwan also

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

---

The description of Kosovo states:
"Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition."
I see no reason why Kosovo (recognized by 104 UN members) should have the "partial diplomatic recognition" and Taiwan (recognized by 12 UN members) shouldn't. Either make both have the "with partial diplomatic recognition" part, or make neither have it.
2604:3D08:8B80:F00:8CB1:B64A:6D54:E344 (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Because article X has this or that doesn't mean this article should be the same. It is WP:OTHERSTUFF. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 20:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Did you at all check what situations WP:OTHERSTUFF refers to? Or just trying to impress an IP editor with a cryptic acronym? — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not an acronym. It is not argument to have the wording of the article on Taiwan changed because of the wording in the one on Kosovo. And to make an ultimatum to boot ("either both or neither") is not helping either. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 21:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain what, specifically, makes Taiwan different from Kosovo? 2604:3D08:8B80:F00:8CB1:B64A:6D54:E344 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason to treat Taiwan differently than, say, Abkhazia, South Ossetia or Kosovo as regards their recognition. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:07, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The difference is those other states are relatively recent breakaway states, while Taiwan is an older rump state that emerged from a civil war. Much harder to summarise recognition, which is not as a new breakaway state as it is for the other examples given. CMD (talk) 21:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Kosovo, although recent, is a fully functional country with no countries to back it up (like Turkey for Northern Cyprus, or Russia for Abkhazia/South Ossetia). It is just as much of a functional state as Taiwan. Just because a state is older does not mean it is automatically more legitimate. 2604:3D08:8B80:F00:8CB1:B64A:6D54:E344 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

"Recency" does not automatically give a state more legitimacy. South Sudan broke away from Sudan in 2011, but no one disputes that it is a country, simply because there are no states that explicitly do not recognize South Sudan. Game2Winter (talk) 21:51, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I do: they're different countries that arose from different situations. Remsense诉 21:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you explain what makes Taiwan more legitimate than Kosovo then? 2604:3D08:8B80:F00:8CB1:B64A:6D54:E344 (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think any states are legitimate or illegitimate. I think my editorial instinct would be that the "partial recognition" guff should be removed from Kosovo, but I haven't edited that article. This is why "well what about other articles" arguments are usually seen as absurd barring any overarching editorial policy. Remsense诉 21:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Diplomatic recognition has nothing to do with legitimacy – it's a unilateral act of other states that may be done with or without a reason. When a state has been recognised by all or nearly all other sovereign states, its recognition does not rise to the point of having to be mentioned in the lead. However, when a state enjoys only limited recognition or none at all, the general practice on Wikipedia is to mention this fact in the lead section – and it's rather independent of the country's age. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is it mentioned in Kosovo's lead section and not Taiwan's? Can you name anything specific that makes the situations different? Game2Winter (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No idea, and I'm all for including this info in Taiwan article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:29, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

My position is the precise degree of international recognition or number of recognizing states is not useful in an infobox. Those points should be discussed in the article body, which they are. Remsense诉 02:15, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The information is indeed already discussed in the article. I am generally against adding this in the infobox. I would be supportive of dropping this language in the Kosovo infobox as well, FWIW. Butterdiplomat (talk) 02:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan as a sovereign state inherited from the former Chinese Republic, As a nation in its own right that is existed long before the establishment of communist China and never be placed under the PRC rule in history, therefore no one would actually consider Taiwan as a PRC province or a breakaway state seceded from the PRC, despite being asserted by the communist regime as such. The cross-strait relations are basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China", so it's in fact more similar to the current situation of Two Koreas, in which both Koreas are regarded as "countries" as well, and simultaneously they have been claiming the legitimacy over entire Korean peninsula in their respective constitution that is similar to the cross-strait relations. This circumstance would not affect the way we have viewed them as two sovereign countries exercise sovereignty in their each actual-controlled territories, rather than seeing them as “One Korea” with two governments, same applies to the ROC and PRC. Sheherherhers (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's refocus: couch this argument in terms of why it makes the Taiwan article specifically better, or don't bother. If you want to change Kosovo, discuss that there—that article is irrelevant here, that's not generally how Wikipedia works. Remsense诉 21:54, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll see if I can try to get it done. Game2Winter (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the better solution if you want to standardize is to drop that language from Kosovo, that does appear to be what your primarily interested in after all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I am in favor of this argument. It is too on the 'other states' section on the soverign states wikipage, (List of sovereign states#Other states), and is put there alongside Abkhazia, and Kosovo. While a large portion of nations recognize both of these entities, it is still there. Taiwan should be no different. BerlinEagle (talk) 01:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not an argument that holds much water on Wikipedia, per several citations of site policy above. Argue about the contents of each article on its own merits. Remsense诉 02:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Administrative problem: first level divisions

My edit of Douliu was removed and reverted by @Canterbury Tail as "disruptive". I added Taiwan Province as a first level followed by Yunlin County as a second level division. We have a big problem regarding ROC administrative divisions in the free area. So how about this: I'm opening up an RfC if we can propose two options in regards to the ROC subdivisions.

A. First level:

• Provinces: Taiwan, Fuchien
• Special Municipalities: Taipei, Kaohsiung, New Taipei, Tainan, Taichung, Taoyuan

B. First level:

• Autonomous municipalities: Keelung, Chiayi, Hsinchu
• Counties: Changhua, Chiayi, Hsinchu, Yunlin, Miaoli, Hualien, Taitung, Yilan, Pingtung, Penghu, Kinmen, Lienchiang
• Special Municipalities: Taipei, Kaohsiung, New Taipei, Tainan, Taichung, Taoyuan

While Google Maps and some maps online treat option B as main subdivisions, do you guys want the Province on the Infobox in its second, third and fourth level subdivision articles?

It's worth noting that Macau SAR got rid of parish governments in 2001 while Lithuania abolished county governments in 2010. The ROC kept Taiwan and Fuchien provinces for administrative and statistical purposes within the government especially the ROC Ministry of Interior still uses it. Getting rid of provinces from the ROC administrative structure would provoke the PRC.

@Amigao @Remsense @Game2Winter @matt smith, you're more than welcome to debate and discuss. -- Silence of Lambs (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I am inclined to oppose any framework that uses [[Taiwan|Republic of China]], since it clearly goes against the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME. I’m also inclined to oppose including Taiwan Province in the infobox just because it has no administrative function practically. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan Province only covers Penghu, 10 counties on Taiwan island, but it could be included with the exception of six municipalities. However, Fujian can stay for Kinmen and Matsu. Silence of Lambs (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

This discussion may be better held at that talkpage or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan, as it does not directly concern this page. CMD (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks dude. Silence of Lambs (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Republic of China (Taiwan)

Add Republic of China (Taiwan) as an official name in the first sentence. According to Taiwan government website, Republic of China (Taiwan) is the official name. https://www.taiwan.gov.tw/about.php JDCohan (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Caption fix

Grammar fix in image caption in section "Relations with the PRC"; "Ma–Xi meeting was the first" should be "The Ma–Xi meeting..." 104.232.119.107 (talk) 03:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

 Done '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Taiwan is an island country

Taiwan is an island country. It's even listed on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_island_countries as such, and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Taiwan begins with "Taiwan is an island country in East Asia." Other articles like that of Japan or Madagascar also begin with "X is an island country in Y / off the coast of Z..."). It's not strictly necessary but how come this article doesn't begin with "Taiwan is an island country"?

This is pretty much an edit request (please edit the article with this suggestion if it's valid) but I'm more interested if there's a reason why it's not already since I'd assume it to be obvious. Sorry if it's been brought up before, I did check the recent archives of this talk page but couldn't find anything. Thank you 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:D9C6:AE8B:9464:59DB (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Hope it's clear this is a geographical, not political, issue 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:D9C6:AE8B:9464:59DB (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is clear, i see no reason not to add island. Slatersteven (talk) 15:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done See the 2020 RfC. Remsense诉 16:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

This request does still call it a country. Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

If RfC participants thought island country was permissible, they likely would've specified. Very few did so. Remsense诉 16:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

That would be an assumption, not covered by the close which only covers the issue of county, which this does not change. I can only go by myself, but I try to answer the RFC question asked, not any ancillary matters (so if asked whether we call dogs animals I would say yes, not yes but also call them 4-legged) Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm only an IP and I'm just repeating Slatersteven's point but I would disagree, the debate was over whether Taiwan should be referred to on Wikipedia as a "country" or as a (sovereign) "state", not over the geography. If Hungary's status was disputed for some reason you wouldn't bother specifying in an RFC that you believe it as a "landlocked country" in place of a "landlocked state", right? You would just comment "I think Hungary should be called a country", I don't think the fact that most didn't specify in the 2020 RFC is worth much. Adding "island" does nothing to dispute Taiwan's political status. Ultimately this is only a minor and not-necessary change and it's up to actual editors like you though. Thank you 2A02:C7E:3188:4C00:D9C6:AE8B:9464:59DB (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I mean we can but in general it can get a bit wordy... And there is wide variation across the project, for example we use just country for Indonesia and for the Phillipines we use "archipelagic country" but with a link to archipelagic state. Personally I would rather that they all just say country in the first sentence of the lead and do geography elsewhere in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Agree it doesn't matter much, the lead is clear it is made of islands, the inclusion of it as an adjective or not is just flavouring. CMD (talk) 02:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is just flavoring, but I think “island country” would be quite descriptive and helpful both in the first sentence and in the short description. I think we all agree this would still satisfy the 2020 RfC consensus to use “country.” Butterdiplomat (talk) 03:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Certainly agree it doesn't affect the RfC result either way. CMD (talk) 03:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favour of the change, but some people have objected to it in the past. As I recall, the arguments were (a) it's not just one island, but several little ones too, and (b) claims to the mainland. Of course the first is true of all the other island countries too. Kanguole 12:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)