Talk:Taiwan/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39

location description

I think i finally found a succinct and uncontroversial way to describe it's location in the introduction.

If anyone feels strongly about mentioning the mainland, then it's most succinctly and accurately described by adding:

But being on the "edge" of an ocean seemed to describe proximity to the mainland well enough for the intro without getting too side tracked into the PRC issue too early?

The description of the maritime borders was inaccurate.

  • previous version: "It shares maritime borders with the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south."

…and it really wasn't feasible to make it more accurate without it getting far too long for the intro paragraph, because the maritime borders are multilaterally disputed in the South China Sea.

I tried to find a way to describe it as "between" other countries, but there were no simple pairs and listing three or more neighbours gets messy. Whereas the Tropic of Cancer and the Pacific Ocean are two unambiguous and undisputed geographic features. I don't think there are any conflicting options on the location or extent of those two features?

Irtapil (talk) 05:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

That description is accurate, but it's also less accessible: one needs to consult a map to see where the Tropic of Cancer meets the Asian mainland. The previous version was more descriptive, and was also correct: there is indeed a maritime boundary in the Taiwan Strait – the issue of the South China Sea can be left until later. But we shouldn't be sacrificing information to avoid controversy. Kanguole 10:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kanguole: it's not "sacrificing information", it can be addressed later in the article. The introductory section needs to be succinct and clear, we don't need to include everything in the introduction, because that's what the rest of the article is for. If you think the maritime borders are a vital issue to cover, create a subsection for them under the geography section. If you include .gov.tw in a google search there are plenty of official statements which might make suitable references. But first check whether there is an existing separate wikipedia article on Taiwans maritime border disputes that could be linked or merged into this article. Irtapil (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kanguole: I'm open to other ideas? But the current version is inaccurate on two counts, and grossly misleading on the third.
Their maritime border is disputed with both Japan and the Philippines.
They "share" a border with the PRC but they're on the same side of that shared border, PRC and ROC both claim the entire area within the nine dash line for China, ROC just gives it another couple of dashes and call it the eleven dash line.
Irtapil (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Not seeing the inaccurate or misleading there. A disputed maritime border is still a maritime border and the PRC and ROC don't currently claim the same borders although their claims do overlap extensively in certain areas. The PRC and the ROC aren't the same country so they do in fact border each other. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
There are certainly maritime borders with Japan between northeast Taiwan and Yonaguni, and with the Philippines in the Bashi Channel. That the precise locations of these borders are disputed doesn't change that.
There is also objectively a border with the PRC in the Taiwan Strait.
The South China Sea claims are both complex and peripheral. They can be left till later. Kanguole 11:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back and Kanguole:
"The South China Sea claims are both complex and peripheral" in which case can we please remove the statement that Taiwan "shares" a border with one of the many countries making a conflicting claim in that region. "They can be left till later" this was my goal in rephrasing the section, to not bring up a misleadingly oversimplified version of the story before it could be covered properly.
"There is also objectively a border with the PRC in the Taiwan Strait." what are you basing this on? can you find me any map that shows this as an official border? The middle of the Taiwan Strait is a boundary of control that neither side openly recognise as an international border. The only openly declared political demarcation i've heard of is that Taiwan has an Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ), which is neither maritime nor a border as such, and extends onto the mainland. So if your are referring to the Taiwan strait, just call it that rather than referring to a political border? The borders are controversial and ambiguous, so to keep the intro both succinct and accurate it's much simpler to refer to physical features like the strait itself, like I already suggested: "separated from mainland China by the Taiwan Strait"
Irtapil (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: i answered your "brutal refutation" two months ago, below. But that wasn't my "core argument", my main point was that maritime borders of ROC, PRC, and their neighbours are a very complex and controvercial, and not necessary to bring up to describe its general location when "between" works just as well. Irtapil (talk) 10:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
"a disputed maritime border is still a maritime border" @Horse Eye's Back: if it's disputed its usually not "a border" but more like two or more completely different borders that only one side recognises, and the version i removed referred to shared borders, "shared" and "disputed" are pretty much opposites? The dispute in the South China Sea is about more than just the "precise" location, the disputed region covers most of the area claimed by the Philippines. There's not one border and some minor disagreements about its course, there's two totally different lines between the Chinas and the Phillipines.
I think to keep it simple enough for the introduction it's best to stick to purely physical features (Mainland, Strait, Island, Tropic, Mountain, etc.) it's not really possible to simplify the political borders without it ending up so over simplified that it's misleading, but there are plenty of undisputed physical features to refer to.
I don't think the tropic is an accessibility issue @Kanguole: it links to an article that explains the concept very well, and even if people don't want to detour to another article, they would probably have a bit of familiarity with the idea of a "tropical climate" or "tropical island", so they'd know it meant South-East Asia and not up near Russia and Korea? The main island being exactly on the topic is the most distinctive thing about it's location.
If the tropic really a problem for you then "separated from mainland China by the Taiwan Strait" probably works well enough for the opening paragraph.
If they want more detail there's a map? And if you want to make a vision impaired friendly description, it probably belongs as alt text or a caption for a map "south west of Japan, North West of… etc."
Irtapil (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
A disputed border is still shared, never come across anything in the political science literature which suggests otherwise. "Mainland China" is not a physical feature, its a political one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Instead of "it shares maritime borders with ...", we can write "it neighbors ..." without getting into whether or not the territorial seas or the EEZs are touching, overlapping, or disputed. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@WikiwiLimeli: yes, something like that possinly works best Irtapil (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I think I've managed a compromise version that addresses all the concerns raised above, "located between" seems most neutral, and works best grammatically with the list of three places arround it. Irtapil (talk) 12:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
My main concern is to have an informative description of the location in the opening paragraph, and I think "located between" does that. Kanguole 14:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Fine with me. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Irtapil: @Kanguole: So is this considered consensus among us? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: Would you like to share your input with us as well? WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
The introductory paragraph needs a succinct and informative description of Taiwan's location. Ideally it would indicate that Taiwan was separated from the other places by sea, but "borders" is not vital, and the rest of the text implies seas, so I think "located between" is adequate. Kanguole 11:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
None of the suggested versions appear to be an improvement over what we already have. No valid concerns have been raised. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: you have made no coherent objection to the consensus version we composed? this revised version had input from multiple editors @WikiwiLimeli and Kanguole: - you seem to have been the only one who objected? and you have given no REASON for your objection? WHY do we need to bring up the controversial issue of maritime borders in the introductory sentence? Irtapil (talk) 07:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
What the heck is this[1]? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I removed my own comment because it was tangential speciation / ad hominem. Irtapil (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I recognised it was tangential (and that my deduction could be over simplified?) so i removed it a couple of hours later. But you're only responding to that, and not the relevant comment that is still there. Why are you even reading the edit history of a talk page? Irtapil (talk) 22:43, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
You pinged me as part of the edit... Just FYI that makes this little red bell at the top of the page light up with an alert, when you click on "view changes" it allows you to view the diff you were mentioned in. You never responded to my rather brutal refutation of your core argument above "A disputed border is still shared, never come across anything in the political science literature which suggests otherwise. "Mainland China" is not a physical feature, its a political one." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: thanks for the tip on "show changes" i often give up on reading these cos i can't spot what's new, that is possibly a more efficient strategy. BUT given I'd already deleted it, surely that means it doesn't need a response? Irtapil (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: "mainland" is geographic, but i saw your point that the term "mainland China" specifically has political connotations, so that got changed ages ago, "mainland China" wasn't in the consensus version that you keep unilaterally reverting. Irtapil (talk) 10:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
Most parts of Taiwan is not close enough (12 nm) to anyone else for territorial waters to touch. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
I think you're getting territorial waters and territorial sea mixed up, one is often used as a synonym for the other but when we're being technical we have to be accurate. Territorial waters are to 200nm and Taiwan's touch its neighbors on all sides. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
If you use the more expansive definition, it might touch Vietnam and other south China sea nations' as well. It won't be 200nm everywhere either since the region is crowded. It's awkward and too specific to bring up maritime boundaries right in the first paragraph. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 11:48, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
This is making me think that you've never seen a map of EEZs in the region... [2]. You're way off in terms of scale. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean its awkward and too specific, that actually suggests to me that this is valuable and relevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Territorial waters are not just EEZs described by your source. The linked map doesn't even zoom in on the Spratly Islands. Do you even understand where the bulk of the complexity lies? It's as if you're using a children's book version that omits the difficult parts of the issue (and mislabels an important feature, the Paracels, as Pratas). I guess only you can so confidently believe a position to be valuable and relevant without realizing that there are problems with it. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Why can’t we call the bold name text Taiwan?

? 2601:600:9D80:1BF0:81F7:1FF0:27FD:12F2 (talk) 07:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

It is bold, in the lede section. ––FormalDude talk 08:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

ROC Provinces Question

Much like South Korea claims five provinces controlled by North Korea, why can’t the ROC article restate the claims of 35 provinces, 18 municipalities, 1 SAR, Tibet and Outer Mongolia? The ROC government has not renounced the claims de jure. —184.146.39.97 (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Please provide RS showing that the ROC affirms these specific administrative claims. I don't believe the ROC has ever employed the term "SAR" DrIdiot (talk) 09:30, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi Dridiot, there are articles that pertain to such references:

Several islands?

According to List of islands of Taiwan], Taiwan has 166 islands, but the lead says "several islands". Is 166 too many for "several"?Uaat (talk) 07:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I just made a calculation of tatal numbers of islands administered by Taipei with detailed references, that may solve the problem.LVTW2 (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I've noticed there are contradictory statements made on the page for Penghu County compared to this one, mostly consisting of the recognition of its status by both the ROC and PRC unsurprisingly. It doesn't look as if anyone has reviewed that page in recent history, could someone look into doing so and updating it with relevant sources. It would be appreciated as I feel I do not have the full understanding to do so. 209.160.133.10 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. The number of islands in Penghu Archipelago was pursuant to the official site of County Government of Penghu. [3][4] There were many criterion of defining the quantity of the islands, some of them are outdated, but we complied with the current figure given by the official statement as primary data for avoiding contradictory statements from different sources.LVTW2 (talk) 08:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Restructuring Taiwan's infobox and article division.

Since the government of the Republic was founded in 1912, why not reorganize Taiwan's history in the infobox before 1945? The political situation is complicated because the ROC on Taiwan is the continuation of the ROC regime in mainland China. If it fails, leave the section the way it is.

Also, can we split the Politics of the Republic of China into two articles:

  • Politics of the Republic of China (1912–1949) which covers the Republic of China's political history up to 7 December 1949.
  • Politics of Taiwan will cover Taiwan's political history from European rule, Qing rule, Japanese rule and ROC rule from 25 October 1945 as well as exodus of the ROC government from Mainland China from 7 December 1949.

—142.112.224.146 (talk) 04:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

A separate Politics article for the mainland period seems viable, but this would not really be a split as it is barely covered in Politics of the Republic of China anyway. CMD (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I see CMD. Since the article foreign relations of Taiwan is complicated, can the article be split into two parts: the main article should cover ROC rule on Taiwan from 1945 along with the Japanese foreign policy, with the pre-exodus article be known as Foreign relations of the Republic of China (1912–1949) or "Foreign relations of Republican China". -142.112.224.146 (talk) 05:37, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

There can definitely be two articles. Currently Foreign relations of Taiwan doesn't cover the pre-exodus period, so there's nothing to split, but I'm sure a new article would have merit. CMD (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

unactionable request, irrelevant discussion ignoring the boilerplates at top of talkpage --Mr Fink (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

change Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a country in East Asia. to Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is an area (a province) of People's Republic of China (PRC).

Reliable source: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/member-states#gotoT

which proves Taiwan is NOT a COUNTRY. IRIS CAPET (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@IRIS CAPET What exactly does this prove? This is a list of UN member states, not sovereign countries. Taiwan is not a UN member, as this website indicates... that is a fact. However, the United Nations does not have the power to decide who is and isn't a sovereign country as the United Nations isn't a government itself. Directly from the United Nations website: "The recognition of a new State or Government is an act that only other States and Governments may grant or withhold. It generally implies readiness to assume diplomatic relations. The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government.". There are many examples of countries that aren't or weren't a member of the United Nations... for example, Switzerland wasn't a member until 2002, so do you believe Switzerland wasn't an independent country prior to 2002? What about the PRC? Eclipsed830 (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
The problem is not the UN. The problem is the Chinese translation of the English word "country" basically means "sovereignty country". The edit requester is apparently a PRC citizen. Matt Smith (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Regardless, Wikipedia is not the place to claim sovereignty. The accurate description should be "Taiwan is a region where certain people believe it is a country, and others don't." or "Taiwan is a country recognized by XX countries" something like that. Simply put "Taiwan is a country" is not the accurate description and does not follow Wikipedia guideline of truthfulness. tigerwang (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
If we can put "Taiwan is a country" when it is still a controversy, then we should also be able to put "Donetsk is a country" or "Luhansk is a country" on Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic.
We need to always have a consistent standard as Wikipedia editors, not as people from different campaigns. I can accept describing all of Taiwan, Donetsk, Luhansk and other controversy regions as countries, or none of them. What I cannot accept is double-standardism. tigerwang (talk) 13:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Are you aware that there is actually a difference between "case-by-case situation" and "double standard"?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for another example of double-standard. tigerwang (talk) 19:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wangxiaohu: FYI, Taiwan aka the ROC is never a "breakaway state" or "renegade Province" as the communist China favour to use, which constitutionally regarded itself as a continuation of the former Chinese Republic with its own sovereignty that never ceases to exist, plus the fact that the Communist regime in Beijing never have actual rule over any part of Taiwan in its history, the PRC actually has no ground for pursuing the political propaganda about Taiwan as any form of "renegade Province". This is the basic factual and historical difference about your comparison with breakaway states of Donetsk or Luhansk, nothing is similar between them. The cross-strait relations are basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China", so it's in fact more similar to the case of Two Koreas, in which they are both regarded as "countries" as well, and by your criterion, neither of them enjoy universal recognition. The terminology in referring the ROC as a "country" is based on the essence of history, which is also in conformity with the standard of other existing rival states. LVTW2 (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely understand your point, but I guess you don't have any clue about mine. Yes, it's not part of Communist regime. The narrative of "Taiwan is not a country" is more about that it's part of China in terms of country land, not in terms of country governance.
Simply from editorial perspective simply stating "Taiwan is a country" or "Taiwan is not a country" sounds more like campaign slogan which I don't think it aligns the fact of this topic. That's why I suggest making it more aligned with status quo. I believe Wikipedia should not be a place that favors any side of the fence.
It's OK you don't get my point. I don't expect I am able to convince you, and vice versa. Otherwise we wouldn't call this topic controversy. tigerwang (talk) 20:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
The status quo is that Taiwan is a country under the ROC designation, the two other arguments are that it is a renegade part of the PRC (and thus not its own country) and that it should be/is a country under the "Republic of Taiwan" or "Taiwan" designation (that is separate from the historical legal entity of the ROC). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
@IRIS CAPET What I can agree is that ROC is a country and Taiwan is a part of ROC. And the term China can be interpreted as ROC or PRC in the international society. In the constitution law of ROC it also includes mainland, Kinmen and Penghu. Although mainland is not currently under ROC governance, but Kinmen region and Penghu islands are still under governance of ROC, along with Taiwan island. Saying Taiwan is a country does not comply the current constitution law of ROC.

Until the constitution is changed by ROC government, Taiwan being a country is still under debates rather than being a fact. That's why this Wikipedia page should be updated to align.

Other than this, I agree with the rest of your statement. tigerwang (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Talk:Taiwan/Archive 36/hat

RfC: “Taiwan” or the “Republic of China” as the main article name? Also can we call it either a “country”, “state” or “partially recognized state”?

PROCEDURAL CLOSURE
Per WP:RFCNOT: The RfC process is not used for requesting moves. CentreLeftRight ✉ 08:09, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

I’m renewing a subject that User:Stephen Balaban began two years ago. Because Stephen had use the term “country”, can we renew the debate whether it’s a “country”, “state” or “partially recognized state”? The term “country” seems to be used by the Democratic Progressive Party and the Taiwan independence movement, but I prefer “partially recognized state” to be more neutral because the Republic of China only controls Taiwan, Penghu and the two small islands of Fujian Province while claiming the territories controlled by the People's Republic of China.

On a contrary, the article’s name “Taiwan” is getting out of hand. Because Taiwan is the island controlled by the Republic of China, its status is still controversial since 1945 since that regime fled the mainland in 1949. There has been much debate and no consensus formed over whether to use the name of the article "Taiwan" or the "Republic of China" when referring to the ROC-controlled territories.

Sound off below. -142.112.224.106 (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC) — username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The island is Taiwan, the political unit controlling the island is the "Republic of China". When I was there in 1966 on R&R from Nam it was simply Taiwan and no one referred to it as the "Republic of China". Seems anyone with a geographical clue should know and recognize Taiwan if mentioned in conversation, however few would find "Republic of China" meaningful. Retain the common name for the article and discuss the political term Republic of China in the article lead and/or in a politics section.--Vsmith (talk) 00:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
(Summoned by bot) It's not clear to me exactly what is being asked in this RfC. Is the question about whether the article should be moved to Republic of China, as suggested by the first sentence of the section heading? If so, a requested move is more appropriate per WP:RFCNOT. Is the secondary question whether the article should describe Taiwan (or ROC) as a "country," "state," or "partially recognized state" in the first sentence of the lead, or how it should be described in all articles more generally? Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
I seem to have missed the box at the top of this talk page that reads, Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated, especially about "country" vs "state", and "Taiwan" vs "Republic of China", and "Taiwan is a part of China", and "Taiwan is a province of China". Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting on that topic. There seems to have been consensus for a proposal late last year to put a one-year moratorium on proposals on the topic of Taiwan's status, though it was never formally closed. Regardless, this RfC is undoubtedly malformed per the stated guidelines at WP:RFCNOT and WP:RFCBRIEF and should probably be procedurally closed. Aoi (青い) (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Please don't rehash perpetual arguments. Taiwan is the name of the modern geographical and political country in English vernacular. This argument is perpetual, and settled. Opening a new RFC every few months trying to exhaust people is bullshit. Can some admin please speedy close this as bad faith? The IP user who opened it has an edit history just 12 hours old, he's anonymously stirring up shit for the purpose of arguing for the sake of arguing, not making a better encyclopedia. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 02:39, 14 May 2022 (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.

ROC as a rump state

I’ve realized the ROC only has Kinmen and Matsu which is the original territory of the ROC although it can be a rump state or not. But when the central government fled to Taiwan, that and Penghu were still under Japanese sovereignty which led them to become a government in exile. I don’t get why the ROC isn’t treated as a rump state when they had control of Hainan, Kinmen, Matsu, the islands of Chekiang, Tibet, and the SCS islands when Taiwan and Penghu were under allied occupation? -142.112.236.29 (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The ROC is listed as a rump state in the article for that topic. It is not described as such in the lead because that is not the primary descriptor used for the ROC. For example, the PRC describes the ROC as a "rogue province" and an "indisputable part of China", and the ROC and its allies have not described (and for obvious reasons would not describe) the ROC as such either. CentreLeftRight ✉ 03:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Official name is Republic of China (Taiwan)

The government website https://www.taiwan.gov.tw/about.php says that official name is Republic of China (Taiwan), not Republic of China. This site is meant for introducing the country and its official name, and published by the government itself, which is more reliable than other sources per WP:RSCONTEXT. While there are plenty of news articles saying that the official name is Republic of China, it is mostly mentioned as passing by information not related to the principal topics of the publication, and nor do they engage in fact-checking, such as interviewing government officials to confirm the official name.--100.8.28.32 (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME DrIdiot (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
It is not a reliable source for the official name, per extraordinary claims. More likely, it is the name that they now use. TFD (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Not sure I agree, if it is an official government site stateing official government information its about as official as you can get. Yes, it may well be "the name they use now", but as they get to decide what they all themselves I do not see how this is not an RS for their claim. Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The ordinary defintion of official is legal. So one would expect to find a law that makes this the official name, which your source does not provide.
A similar discussion occurred with the status of U.S. unincorporated territories, such as Puerto Rico. Some U.S. government websites say they are part of the U.S., while case law decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and legal textbooks say there are not.
There were similar discussions also over the official name of Canada, which some sources say is the "Dominion of Canada." But there is a consensus among legal experts that was never the official name.
This seems like an example of searching for a result one wants, and choosing a source that supports it. What is the problem with finding an expert source for the answer?
TFD (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Both are used by the ROC government, e.g. in the English translation of the Constitution ([5]) the Constitution is referred to as the “Constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan)”, but within the Constitution itself, only “Republic of China” is mentioned. I don't think it's worth discussing because in Chinese only “中華民國” is used, which means “Republic of China”. Even if there would be an official announcement to consistently use “Republic of China (Taiwan)”, that would only be binding on the ROC government and not on Wikipedia. De wafelenbak (talk) 19:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
Per https://www.taiwan.gov.tw/about.php, Republic of China (Taiwan) is acceptable. It’s a clear statement by the subject itself on its own name. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Addition of Foxconn to High tech manufacturing

I have attempted to add Foxconn to high tech manufacturing despite it having less factories in Taiwan than in China, (New Taipei Factory). But it keeps on getting deleted so I'm just going to create this talk section to settle this debate. I think that Foxconn should be in high tech manufacturing despite it is mostly in China, due to Foxconn being headquartered in Tucheng. Foxconn being listed on the Taipei stock exchange, but not on the other Chinese stock exchanges(to my knowledge). And the fact that they began in Taiwan, and then spread out to other parts of the world, according to the company's website. Good day, or night --Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

"Formosa" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Formosa and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 4#Formosa until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vpab15 (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Austronesian

It is anachronistic to refer to the Neolithic settlers of Taiwan as Austronesian-speaking. Most linguists agree that Taiwan is the homeland of Austronesian, but to project the language family further back is unjustified, and you won't see academic sources doing it. "Austronesians" is even worse, an umbrella term for the diverse peoples currently speaking Austronesian languages, and even more inappropriate for that period. The most we can say is that these settlers were the ancestors of today's Taiwanese indigenous peoples.

That most linguists believe that Taiwan is the homeland of Austronesian is an interesting point, and is mentioned in the body of the article, but not everything belongs in the lead. Kanguole 11:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

“Taiwan is the homeland of Austronesian”?
I see Taiwanese sources write this, but it is not likely. Taiwan may be a homeland of Austronesian people and language, and may even be the oldest ongoing homeland, but “the” homeland? No, that’s an extraordinary claim. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Island country

@Morrisonjohn022: What exactly is your objection about island country? Taiwan's an island. It's a country. That makes it an island country. John Yunshire (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@John Yunshire: Their edit may have been procedural (as a precaution), but I do not think that a community consensus is necessary for such a change since it does not go against the existing consensus to call Taiwan a "country". Yue🌙 20:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I think it works either way, just noting that the category "Island countries" has been longstanding. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan is a State, not a Country. See: JOINT COMMUNIQUE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_China#United_States_policy SoCalGoetz (talk) 21:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The words “state”, “nation” and “country” have different meanings, and you need to understand the differences before making statements like that. The common modifier “sovereign” to country shows that “country” doesn’t imply “sovereign”. Read more at country. My version: if you use “country” you are emphasising the land, not the people. If you use “state” you are emphasising the politics, not the land. If you use “nation”, you are emphasising the people, not the land or the politics. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2022

Taiwan is not “officially the republic of China” Taiwan is officially Taiwan. China has zero diplomatic control over Taiwan. 185.245.240.4 (talk) 07:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Taiwan's official name is Republic of China; that's what the country calls itself. This doesn't mean the People's Republic of China has diplomatic control. NytharT.C 07:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Is Taiwan a Country?

That's debated, but it is a democracy! SoCalGoetz (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia consensus and sources it's clearly a country. Check out the talk archives. You seem to be fixated on this and your own personal talk page says you will change the info as soon as you get rights to it... whatever than means. Anyone can edit the article but I'd advise not to go against sources and consensus. This talk page is where we discuss specific changes... it is not a forum or blog. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is there a HDI ranking? No UNDP HDI ranking exists for Taiwan

The lead section and the infobox puts Taiwan HDI as 0.916, and at 23rd. The "23rd" leads to List of countries by Human Development Index, whereby obviously Taiwan isn't there. Taiwan is not in the United Nations and therefore there is no HDI for Taiwan complied by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The infobox doesn't seem to make any note of it too. Based on the source, it seems to be self-ranked by the Taiwanese government, which really shouldn't be placed on equal standing to the UNDP as there is a lack of impartiality. 58.125.149.68 (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you should enlighten us as to what Taiwan's true HDI figure is, then. While impartiality may be a concern, I do think 23rd is a fair ranking. John Yunshire (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
The author of this discussion is arguing for the removal of an unfounded HDI ranking, so I'm not sure why you are asking them to give their personal estimate or "enlighten" you. What you or other editors think or what the Taiwanese government ranks itself as is irrelevant. The HDI ranking is determined by the UN. Governments cannot simply slot themselves in however they see fit. Given that the HDI ranking is an official list compiled by the UN and does not feature Taiwan, it should be removed. Sarrotrkux (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't seem unfounded to me, we clearly explain where the number comes from and as far as I'm aware the calculation is reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Which part of "What you or other editors think or what the Taiwanese government ranks itself as is irrelevant" did you fail to understand? Whatever you think about whether it's "reliable" or not has no basis on the fact that the very concept of a HDI ranking was introduced by the UNDP in 1990. It was invented by them. It's not up to governments to decide where they "think" they belong on the index if they weren't even ranked by the very organization that complies the ranking. It will negate the HDI itself, because then any government could just rank themselves wherever they see fit, which is exactly what the Taiwanese government has done. Do you see Taiwan here? Wikipedia doesn't reflect any HDI rankings for North Korea, Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, Somalia, and Tuvalu, because they are not ranked, and Taiwan shouldn't be any different. 116.91.23.215 (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Check those links, there are clearly HDI ratings in some of those... "What you or other editors think or what the Taiwanese government ranks itself as is irrelevant" is not a policy or guideline based argument, its not possible to understand because it has no logical basis. Congratulations on your first wikipedia edit BTW. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Looking at the links, the HDI on Somalia is completely unsourced, while the source for San Marino is an unofficial PDF from 2009 by the single researcher not with the UNDP. I can't find the 0.875 figure within the PDF either so it's quite dubious where that came from. No HDI present for the other examples. 112.172.71.46 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Glad you finally took a look at the articles, next time do that *before* linking them not after. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
It certainly violates RS to include this information. We do not AFAIK include this information for other subnational units. What for example is the HDI for Scotland? If we include it at all, it should be in the body and we should use a reliable secondary source. If self-serving claims by governments were treated as facts, we'd have a lot of changes to make to the North Korea article. TFD (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
You are mistaken, Taiwan is a national unit not a subnational one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
If we're talking national units, that's the Republic of China. Taiwan is used as a colloquial name as its territories are almost entirely made up of the province itself and obviously to avoid confusion with the People's Republic of China. TFD didn't make a mistake. 112.172.71.46 (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
And you my friend would appear to be confusing Taiwan and Taiwan Province. This page is about the national unit (also known as the Republic of China), not the province. Also note that Taiwan is not "almost entirely made up of the province itself" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
It's similar to the use of the term province or Ulster when describing Northern Ireland. Strictly speaking it's not correct, because the Province of Ulster has different boundaries from Northern Ireland. But it's a common expression. TFD (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Nobody says "Taiwan" when they mean "Taiwan Province." Taiwan Province barely exists anymore, read the article about it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is tangential to the main discussion of the article. We do not have HDI fields in the info-boxes of any other subnational divisions, whatever you choose to call them. There is no reason to make an exception here. TFD (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

We already addressed that error, Taiwan is a national unit not a subnational one. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Taiwan is regarded as a national entity on Wikipedia. Otherwise, this entire article wouldn't even exist. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Name change from Formosa

Why is there NO information on why and when Western governments and media made that change? When I was in 5th or 6th grade, Formosa, Quemoy, and Matsu were in the news. Would have to have been between Sept 1959 and Jan 1961, because President Eisenhower was involved.2602:306:BC65:5CA9:B44E:1014:B6CD:E818 (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You might want to take that up with the Taiwanese who say it. is Taiwan, the west did don't change it, the locals did. Slatersteven (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you.
How do we know? Do we have a source on that? It also seems to me we should provide the year that happened. Thanks again! 2602:306:BC65:5CA9:B44E:1014:B6CD:E818 (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Well it has been referred to as Taiwan since at least the late 1700's. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm talking about Western governments and media. As I said, in the 1959-1961 period, when it was in the American news, the islands were only referred to as Formosa, Quemoy, and Matsu. 2602:306:BC65:5CA9:B44E:1014:B6CD:E818 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Why does it matter when they started using they name? Slatersteven (talk) 15:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Normally, when there's a change in the way foreign countries are referred to by English-speaking countries, a date, or at least a year, is given. I know this cz I'm historically-minded, and I note these things in my personal summaries when I look them up in Wikipedia.
I was shocked the first time I saw "Taiwan" in the news. It took me a while to understand they were talking about what we'd all been calling Formosa. 2602:306:BC65:5CA9:B44E:1014:B6CD:E818 (talk) 15:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
As far as I know it has never been called Formosa as a country, ROC, Nationalist China, but never Formosa. Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The most likely explanation for that is that you weren't consuming American news in the late fifties.
During the incident I'm talking about, I kept hearing the phrase "Formosa, Quemoy, and Matsu" over and over again on the news. 2602:306:BC65:5CA9:B44E:1014:B6CD:E818 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Here's one example:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1958-60v19/d177 2602:306:BC65:5CA9:B44E:1014:B6CD:E818 (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Ike's terminology: "...Formosa, where the government of Free China is now located."
https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/report-to-the-american-people-regarding-the-situation-in-the-formosa-straits/ 2602:306:BC65:5CA9:B44E:1014:B6CD:E818 (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Reading your comment more closely, you could be right. The COUNTRY was called ROC, etc. (I'm not sure about "Taiwan.") But the islands themselves were Formosa, etc.
My fault for not originally specifying what I was talking about. 2602:306:BC65:5CA9:B44E:1014:B6CD:E818 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
And wikipedia is not just about Americans view of the world. So what they used to call it is not more relevant than what we (or the French) did. Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I think what English-speaking counties call other countries is more relevant in en.wiki.
In my experience, the US and Commonwealth countries tend to use the same names, and change at the same time. They usually take their cue from the other countries' governments themselves. When approved names change is usually noted in en.wiki. One example is the Czech Republic finally approving the use of Czechia as an alternative in 2016. But I've seen many examples.
As we noted, Formosa was never the name of the country, just the island with 99% of its land mass. And it was a name that was, in my lifetime, in the forefront of the news and government documents.
I've always been satisfied with wikipedia's handling of name changes, but I'm dissatisfied in this case. 2602:306:BC65:5CA9:B44E:1014:B6CD:E818 (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree it's an interesting question IP, but the answers don't seem to be on the page so for the moment we can't speculate much more here. You may have more luck asking at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language. CMD (talk) 13:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
colonial name .....but a great beer Moxy- 15:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Or earlier Taiwan Prefecture. Slatersteven (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Formosa was the Portuguese name for the island of Taiwan first used by Europeans long before it became the seat of the government of the Republic of China. It was Portuguese for "beautiful island." The concept that the islands were a separate country from China would not come into use until long after the Republic of China lost official recognition by the UN and it was clear they would never retake the mainland. In recent years, many countries change the English language version of their place names, for example Peking became Beijing. But I don't know if the ROC ever made any such request. TFD (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

description for the maps

it would be better if there is a description for the maps to avoid confusion and to know what map is what. Credmaster 20 (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There already is a description for each map. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
1) Show globe (island of Taiwan highlighted)
--> This map shows Taiwan's location on the globe. Taiwan's political status is contentious. It is claimed and controlled by the ROC, claimed by the PRC, and also claimed by the Taiwan independence movement, essentially. Legally, the ROC doesn't necessarily hold de jure sovereignty over the island according to the Treaty of San Francisco, but the ROC has indeed held de facto sovereignty over the island for the past 70+ years.
2) Show map of territories administered by the ROC (Free Area)
--> This map shows all of the extra tiny islands that the ROC controls, some of which are located inside of China's undisputed territory, namely Kinmen, Matsu, and Wuqiu, which are off-shore islands of Fujian (and nobody really disputes that they belong to/with Fujian). --> EDIT: Fujian is a province of China that is 99.99% under the control of the PRC.
--> Some of the other islands shown include Taiwan's off-shore islands, including the Pescadores (Penghu) archipelago, Orchid Island (Lanyu), and Green Island (Lu Tao), all three of which are generally regarded as parts of Taiwan.
--> Further still, the islands in the South China Sea that are controlled by the ROC are shown. Nobody agrees on who owns these islands. They are part of the South China Sea islands dispute.
--> EDIT2: This map also effectively has the distinction of being the only one out of the three that shows the island of Taiwan's exact geographic silhouette. The other two globe maps show Taiwan as a trapezium, because the resolution is so low.
3) Show map of Taiwan (dark green) with historical ROC territorial claims (light green)
--> This maps shows the Republic of China's constitutional territorial claims, including the island of Taiwan, which is under the ROC's control, as well as mainland China and Mongolia (Outer Mongolia), and a bunch of other territories in continental Asia that correspond to the historical borders of the Qing dynasty (except for Taiwan itself after 1895).
--> This map also effectively shows the Republic of China's location in Asia, serving a similar purpose as the first map except with the constitutional territories shown as well. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
In reply to myself, out of all three of these maps, I would say that the most important one is the first one, because people generally care more about where Taiwan is located (than the other details). The first map is also the most neutral one since it shows Taiwan according to its post-San Francisco Treaty status, i.e. being a separate entity from China (which, yes, is considered neutral, because it's both de jure and de facto true).
The second map is pretty useful for getting a close-up of the precise territories that are controlled by the ROC. Some of these islands are really important, particularly Kinmen and Matsu, but you can't see them in the first map because they are nearly microscopic.
The third map is not very useful, but it does display the technically-accurate borders that are claimed by the ROC in its constitution. The constitutional claims are IMO a bit ridiculous since they correspond to the borders of the Qing dynasty, which was the regime in China that preceded the ROC and ended in 1911. This is essentially the borders of a country that dissolved over 100 years ago, and the borders are still technically claimed by the ROC in the present day. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:16, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
It may seem "not useful" or "ridiculous", but they are nevertheless still accurate. The claims has not been explicitly dropped in its entirety. Personal opinions of editors does not override them. 125.129.121.15 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The main reason I find the constitutional claims to be ridiculous is that they are so outdated. The ROC claims Mongolia according to this definition, as I've pointed out, but I've always found that claim to be absurd. Mongolia's days as a province of China (Qing dynasty) are long over. Meanwhile, the ROC's constitutional claim to Tuva is another fruitless pursuit; that territory is firmly within Russia's grip and has been for a long time now. The only way for the ROC to get Tuva back is if Russia completely collapses as a state (not necessarily a bad possibility at the moment, tbh). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The claims have in a technical sense been dropped, the Taiwanese supreme court has ruled that they never had legal standing. The assertion that the claims are accurate is your personal opinion which is contradicted by WP:RS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Minor nitpick in economy section

This line due to its wording is basically nonsense:

->TSMC was founded 21 February 1987 and as of June 2022 its market capitalization accounts for roughly 90% of Taiwan's GDP.

The market cap of any company accounts for no portion of GDP as that is not what GDP measures. The wording in the linked source actually makes sense (replace 'accounts for' with 'equates to') 2601:190:67F:9B10:2C3E:8148:5609:E378 (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point. Done. Phlar (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

"The PRC refuses ... and requires ..."

"The PRC refuses ... and requires ..."

The PRC cannot **require** "all nations with which it has diplomatic relations to ... [recognize] its claims to Taiwan" as the PRC doesn't have the legal authority to force any other sovereign nations to do anything.

As such, the word "requires" should be changed to "extorts" here, as "extorts" is the correct English word for this forceful behavior. Also, please don't falsely argue that use of an incorrect word, such as "requires,", guarantees a NPOV ... Using "requires" in the article only guarantees that Wikipedia may be used to promote state-sponsored authoritarian propaganda and terrorism. 68.54.0.181 (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It can "require" this in the sense of making such recognition a necessary condition to making and maintaining diplomatic relations between the PRC and the other country. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
That doesn't really make sense, the US for example has diplomatic relations with the PRC but has never recognized their claim over Taiwan they've only acknowledged it which is way different. Most countries who have diplomatic relations with China seem to do the same thing, they acknowledge China's claim but they do not recognize it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
This is a very good point. The statement in the article would be more accurate if instead of "make a statement recognizing its claims to Taiwan" it says "make a statement acknowledging its claims to Taiwan." Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
That was pretty much what I was getting at. I only used "recognize" because that's the way the question was phrased. The important point is that China can make it a condition of diplomatic relations that the other country at least not directly contradict their position on Taiwan. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
WP:RS seem to say that the only condition is that they *not* recognize Taiwan. So its not about what they recognize but what they don't. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
The PRC doesn't actually have the ability to force other countries to recognise Taiwan as a part of its territory. Indeed, the PRC has been successful in forcing the United Nations to recognise this, but that's because the UN doesn't recognise Taiwan, so there's no one present in the organisation to protest this (aside from Taiwan's allies). There's probably at least 60 countries that outright don't recognise Taiwan as a part of China, and there's maybe another 100 countries who have no strong opinion on the matter. Then, there might be something like 40 countries who toe the CCP line that Taiwan belongs to China (e.g. Cambodia). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan is not member of IMF

It does not matter if you are politically driven or biased or there was previous consense etc. taiwan(Republic of China) is not a member of UN, IMF, World Bank etc. actually everywhere where China is a member, taiwan is not. So each article related to international organizations should not include taiwan or at least mark it with color or other means to show its real status. Otherwise it shows the low level of wiki, hurts credibility of wiki and spreads stupidity and ignorance. Simply put, it is not professional. 77.179.106.121 (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Do we list them as a member? Slatersteven (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2022

Someone edited the first line to state that Taiwan is not a country. Please adjust this and remove the words "is not". 2601:647:C800:1C49:ADBF:D53E:2CF8:E551 (talk) 05:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

 Already done --*Fehufangą (✉ Talk · ✎ Contribs) 05:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Taiwan Country

Why does Wikipedia recognise the Republic of China as a country and not the State of Palestine?

the State of Palestine has UN observer status and has more recognition than the Republic of China 31.111.51.202 (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably because most of the world treats Taiwan as a country (really a State). They just don't say it technically at parties. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Country applies to Taiwan because in the non political sense a country is well defined if it has natural boundaries. Palestine doesn’t really have natural boundaries.
This is a rationalisation for why sources use “country”, it’s not a Wikipedia decision. Wikipedia follows the sources. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
I don't get what the real issue concerning the term used in the article of the State of Palestine. "Sovereign state" is actually a more precise word than a "country" in reference to one's statehood. For example, Both Scotland and England are also referred to as country, but they're not defined as "sovereign state". LVTW2 (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't you be asking that on the State of Palestine Wikipedia Talk page instead? Eclipsed830 (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Each decision is made separately. As I stated above, I do not think that the description in this article is consistent with Wikipedia policy. How issues get decided on individual articles frequently depends on how the majority of editors involved in that article interpret policy. However, not calling a state a country is not necessarily denying that it is one. Note that Wikipedia editors have created a new concept of "sovereign country." TFD (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I think a better comparison is Korea. Since the ceasefire of the Korean War, North and South Korea operate as independent states, even though technically they're one country (Because no treaty has been signed that says otherwise). Likewise, China and Taiwan operate as two independent states, even though both are part of one country (until some treaty is signed that says otherwise). So there are three options--China can become part of Taiwan, Taiwan can become part of China, or they can continue to operate independently. It seems logical that if China doesn't want two states, but Taiwan doesn't want to be controlled by China, then the only option si that China should voluntarily submit to Taiwan. 73.67.242.64 (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
It's controversial to assert that China and Taiwan are part of one country. International treaties which are related to Taiwan do not support the said contention. Matt Smith (talk) 08:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
There's two significant differences between DRK-ROK and PRC-ROC. Firstly, as Matt Smith has said above, the island of Taiwan is not necessarily under the de jure sovereignty of either the ROC or the PRC. The Treaty of San Francisco (1951/52) left Taiwan as effectively a non-self-governing territory, akin to present-day Western Sahara in western Africa. There was never a legal international treaty that was signed to cede Taiwan from the Empire of Japan to either the ROC or the PRC, even though the ROC gained effective control of the territory (Taiwan) and has been ruling it from 1945 up until the present day. Secondly, the ROC was established several decades before the PRC, which means that there's a clear hierarchy of the ROC coming first in history and the PRC coming second. By this logic, the ROC that has been exiled to Taiwan can be considered simultaneously a rump state and a government-in-exile, whereas the PRC is the newcomer under the principle of the theory of the succession of states. On the other hand, the DRK and the ROK were created at roughly the same time, so it's difficult to argue that either one of them is a rump state or a government-in-exile. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Comparing to the lead sentences of other articles, currently Kosovo and South Ossetia are referred to as "partially recognized states", while North Cyprus and Somaliland are called "de facto states". The fact that Taiwan's disputed status isn't mentioned until the 19th sentence of this article feels inconsistent with this, and not exactly neutral. Of course, the ROC has had de facto control of Taiwan for much longer than those other examples, but it's still only officially recognized by 13 UN member states. I think a NPOV approach would be to mention the disputed status of Taiwan immediately, while also being clear on how long the ROC has had de facto control of the island. Maybe something like this:
"The Republic of China is a partially recognized state which since 1949 has maintained de facto control over the island of Taiwan (also claimed by the People's Republic of China). As of 2022, 13 of the 193 UN member states officially recognize the Republic of China, while many others maintain unofficial relations."
Tim314 (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
FYI, Taiwan aka the ROC is never a "breakaway state" or "renegade Province" as the communist China favour to use, which constitutionally regarded itself as a continuation of the original Chinese Republic dates back to its establishment in 1912 with its own sovereignty that never ceases to exist even after the Chinese Civil War, plus the fact that the Communist regime in Beijing never have actual rule in its history over any part of Taiwan, the PRC actually has no ground for pursuing the political propaganda about Taiwan as any form of "renegade Province" seceded from the communist China. This is the basic factual and historical difference about your comparison with breakaway states of North Cyprus and South Ossetia which were established from secession, nothing is similar between them.
The cross-strait relations are basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China", so it's in fact more similar to the case of Two Koreas, in which both Koreas are regarded as "countries" as well, and by your criterion, neither of them enjoy universal recognition. The terminology in referring the ROC as a "country" is based on the essence of history, which is also in conformity with the standard of other existing rival states. LVTW2 (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
The ROC is essentially a rump state. The main contention to this definition is the fact that the ROC doesn't necessarily hold de jure sovereignty over Taiwan on the basis of the Treaty of San Francisco (1951/52), although the ROC has held de facto sovereignty over Taiwan since 1945. Some people argue on the aforementioned basis that the ROC is instead a government-in-exile. With that being said, the islands of Kinmen and Matsu were never covered by the Treaty of San Francisco due to being fundamental parts of China, so the ROC is indisputably a rump state with regards to only the islands of Kinmen and Matsu (and Wuqiu). This effectively makes the ROC the smallest rump state in the world as well as potentially the smallest rump state in the history of the world, if you exclude Taiwan from the definition of the ROC's de jure territories. The ROC is also effectively one of the only rump states in existence in the present day, although there is arguably some kind of an Afghan rump state after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban (2021). Some people argue that Russia is a rump state of the Soviet Union, but this is debatable. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
The Rump state question is better addressed at Talk:Rump state#ROC, part deux. Rump state includes Taiwan, but ambiguously. This page doesn’t mention “rump”. Political status of Taiwan doesn’t include “rump”. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Just correct the beginning to read "Taiwan,[II] officially the Republic of China (ROC),[I][h] is in East Asia," in accordance with Wikipedia policy that "zero information is better than false or misleading information" as the United States does not officially recognize the State of Taiwan. SoCalGoetz (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is Taiwan still called a country when this exists? https://7news.com.au/politics/world-politics/snickers-apologises-for-ad-in-which-it-calls-taiwan-a-country-c-7776287. Media lying? Gold Wario (talk) 23:47, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the special relevance of the United States here? CMD (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, obviously not everyone agrees that it's a Country. If you give me rights to the page I'd be happy to replace the word "Country" with "island." I'm sure I could find a reliable source that Taiwan's most certainly an island. SoCalGoetz (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Although if you gave me the rights to the page I'd probably also specify which part of East Asia SoCalGoetz (talk) 07:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Republic of China consists of more territory than just the island ‘taiwan’

Taiwan should not be the first name that appears on this article, since republic of China (roc) governs territories that aren’t part of the taiwan island. Thus, calling republic of China simply Taiwan is a misnomer.

The page should say: “The republic of China (roc), informally or mistakenly named Taiwan…”

I advice this change since Wikipedia should be as accurate as possible. 84.26.190.194 (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia consensus and sources are against this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
Please know that whether the ROC has territorial sovereignty over Taiwan (island) is debatable, too. Therefore, the assertion regarding Taiwan (island) in your section title is controversial. Matt Smith (talk) 02:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
There were countless discussion over the title and which made a firm ground to adopt "Taiwan" as common name and generally recognizable term in English language Wikipedia. The decision made by the community consensus is here to stay. The following are a few examples of the same issue that have been discussed:
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] LVTW2 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Cuba controls more than just the island of Cuba. Jamaica controls more than just the island of Jamaica. And so on and so on. Either we need to change a lot of articles or you are simply speaking nonsense. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Taiwan can be thought of as the name of all of the islands under the rule of the ROC (aka Taiwan). Historically, Penghu/Pescadores has been regarded as a part of the Taiwan archipelago. The main contentious islands are Kinmen, Matsu and Wuqiu, which have historically belonged to Fujian Province in China. However, those islands are much smaller than Taiwan, so in the grand scheme of things, they don't really matter all that much. They can be mentioned in the introduction of the article, but they shouldn't warrant the entire article's title being changed. For a comparison, Spain rules some tiny territories in the north of Morocco, including Ceuta and Melilla, among others. And yet, we don't call Spain "Spain plus some bits of northern Africa" on Wikipedia. That's because those bits are so small so as to be negligible in notability. It's the same with Taiwan and the Fujianese islands. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Kinmen, Matsu and Wuqiu still belong to Fujian Province. Matt Smith (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
They legally belong to Fujian Province, but they geopolitically don't. Again, these islands are so negligible so as to be insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Like I said, they are of similar importance as Spanish-controlled Ceuta and Melilla in Moroccan-claimed territory. Both of these territories are super tiny. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
You understand that there are two Fujian Provinces, right? Both Fujian and Fuchien Province, Republic of China are geopolitical entities. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
There are two Fujian provinces, but they represent the same cultural entity despite being politically separate. The division of Fujian is akin to the division of Korea. Ultimately, the goal would be to reunify the two portions of Fujian (with one portion obviously being immensely larger than the other) unless the smaller portion wants independence (presumably by acceding to an independent Taiwanese republic). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Interestingly, the first map doesn't even show Kinmen and Matsu since the resolution is so low (as I've explained in a section below). Indeed, some of my comments are contradictory since I've simultaneously said that the islands are "really important" and also "negligible". Their importance is relative. In the PRC-vs-ROC-vs-Taiwan dispute, the islands certainly are significant. However, in a global context, they really don't matter all that much. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Status as a partially recognised country/state

Other countries like Kosovo and Western Sahara share similar amounts of formal/legal recognition, yet on their respective pages, they are reffered to as partially recognised states while Taiwan isn't. Given that Taiwan *is* a partially recognised state, I'm not sure why this ephitet isn't used? Genabab (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

FYI, Taiwan aka the Repuclic of China is never a "breakaway state" or "renegade Province" as the communist China favour to use, which constitutionally regarded itself as a continuation of the original Chinese Republic dates back to its establishment in 1912 with its status as a sovereign state that never ceases to exist even after the Chinese Civil War, plus the fact that the Communist regime in Beijing never achieve actual rule in its history over Taiwan, the PRC actually has no ground for pursuing the political propaganda about Taiwan as any form of "renegade Province" seceded from the communist China itself. This is the basic factual and historical difference about your comparison with breakaway states of North Cyprus or Kosovo which were established from secession, nothing is similar between them.
The cross-strait relations are basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China", so it's in fact more similar to the case of Two Koreas, in which both Koreas are regarded as "countries" as well, and by your criterion, neither of them enjoy universal recognition. The terminology in referring the ROC as a "country" is based on the essence of historical context, which is also in conformity with the standard of other existing rival states. LVTW2 (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The question is not about regarding Taiwan as a renegade province, but whether the government on Taiwan (the ROC) is internationally recognized, which it is not by the vast majority of UN member states. In a similar way, calling South Ossetia or Transnistria as partially recognized is not a claim about the actual rightful status of those territories. Dhawk790 (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
The United Nations is a group of members, but the United Nations itself does not have the power to recognize individual states, directly from the United Nations [11]: "The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government."
And for your information, Taiwan a.k.a the ROC was a former member before 1971 and even a founding member of the United Nation, UN Resolution 2758 in 1971 removed Chiang Kai-shek (although technically he quit the UN before the vote) and thus the ROC discontinued as the representative of "China", but it did not determine a final position of territorial sovereignty or representation over Taiwan within the resolution. Just that the KMT-dominated ROC government no longer represents the seat for "China". If it matters so much to you to stress on the acknowledgement by the UN recognition, should you add additional information over China's article highlighting about the historical fact that "the PRC was not recognised by the United Nation and the majority of the world states as legitimate government of China from 1949 to 1971" to make more consistent on both sides? By your definition, the People's Republic China only came to be a "country" from 1971 onward, isn't it?
You are free to arise the issue as many times as you like whereas the similar arguments have been brought up countless time, I reckon the consensus would be any diffrence. LVTW2 (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
They stated that the vast majority of UN *member* states did not formally recognise Taiwan, as opposed to the UN itself not recognising Taiwan. That on its own should be grounds enough to classify it as a partially recognised state.
The historical context behind the ROC and how China was then recognised by the PRC instead of the ROC, fundamentally speaking, does not change that Taiwan lacks formal recognition by the majority of UN member states.
Perhaps a middle ground would be to state that it is partially recognised, though many countries have informal relations with the ROC? Genabab (talk) 10:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a good suggestion or there could be a footnote that lists who recognizes the ROC. I think something similar has been done for Kosovo. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Kosovo-note Dhawk790 (talk) 17:27, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
How about something like:
"Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a partially recognised country with significant informal recognition, in East Asia, at the junction of the East and South China Seas in the northwestern Pacific Ocean, with the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south."
With respective hyperlinks, of course Genabab (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The difference between the PRC-ROC and NK-SK situation is that multiple countries recognize both governments (NK and SK) despite their competing claims. In a similar way, about half member states of the UN recognize both Serbia and Kosovo despite Serbia claiming Kosovo as part of its territory. You can recognize a government without accepting all of its territorial claims, Russia being another good example. In contrast, the vast majority of countries do not give any recognition to the territorial claims of the ROC and no country recognizes both governments' claims. Dhawk790 (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
We already do this, in the longest paragraph of the lead. CMD (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I do not know why there is any mention of "breakaway states" here. I never said anything about them nor did any point I raise suggest that it is a breakaway state, nor did I make any comparisons between Taiwan and the TRNC.
Even if they did secede while Taiwan never did such a thing, that does not change that Taiwan is only partially recognised. Secesion afaik, has no impact on the status of a country as being partially recognised.
And while it is also true that the PRC is not universally recognised, I think there is a relevant difference between the two where with the PRC there is 7 or so nations that do not formally recognise the PRC alongside it being a permanent member of the UNSC.
Whereas with Taiwan there are only a baker dozen countries that formally recognise Taiwan (some of whom in turn also recognise the PRC).As I said, I think there is a relevant difference between the rates of recognition here. Genabab (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
What I was mentioning about is that you used false analogy to deliberately confuse Taiwan (ROC) with other breakaway states, which means you tend to oversimplify the situation to categorise them all together and disregard the historical context while making your own judgement about the use of "country" in this article as an unfair treatment upon other states with lesser universal recognition. Hence I explained to you bluntly about why your description is even more "unfair" to paint them all with the same brush for Taiwan when its government and sovereignty have existed long before the current communist regime ever bornt. Thus why I told you that there is more relevant example to be comparable, as people like you have no interest to understand the background of any decision made and simultaneously keen on accusing other people to be bias from your own subjectivity. LVTW2 (talk) 11:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
> deliberately confuse Taiwan (ROC) with other breakaway states
I feel this is a bit unfair and loaded, don't you think? I was merely going off of the fact that other countries that have similar amounts of recognition to Taiwan are categorised as partially recognised, while Taiwan is not. Assuming this to be some deliberate or malicious act is exceedingly dishonest.
> categorise them all together [...] Hence I explained to you bluntly about why your description is even more "unfair" to paint them all with the same brush for Taiwan when its government and sovereignty have existed long before the current communist regime ever bornt.
This doesn't logically follow is the issue. As a matter of fact, Taiwan does have the property of being a partially recognised state. As a result, there is no real reason why it should not be viewed as one. This says nothing about disregarding any historical context nor does it imply that Taiwan is not different from countries like Kosovo or the West Sahara. I am not sure how you arrived at this conclusion.
>Thus why I told you that there is more relevant example to be comparable
The examples you gave were faulty. The historical context of the TRNC is nothing like Taiwan and the PRC. The same is also true for the DPRK/ROK split in Korea. They are not comparable with the situation with the PRC and Taiwan.
>as people like you have no interest to understand the background of any decision made and simultaneously keen on accusing other people to be bias from your own subjectivity.
I don't understand why you are so sure that I am out to delegitimise Taiwan or something? It is no matter how you cut it, a partially recognised state? So I am let very confused as to why there is such hostility over this. Genabab (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
We don't note that China, North Korea, and South Korea are partially recognised in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps that is something you should ask on the Kosovo or Western Sahara Wikipedia talk page? Maybe a consensus on those specific countries was reached between the editors there. There are many examples of other partially recognized countries that are not explicitly labeled as such, including the country that would be on the other side of this discussion, China itself. Eclipsed830 (talk) 17:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree with adding partially recognized for consistency. Kosovo, for example, is recognized by multiple times more countries than the ROC, but it is referred to as partially recognized: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo . South Ossetia and Abkhazia are also referred to as partially recognized https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia. Dhawk790 (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Probably best to start an RfC if you have serious grounds to propose a change in consensus. The consensus to use "country" as the primary descriptor is not only longstanding, it was the result of a debate spanning multiple discussions over several years. Yue🌙 19:35, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Probably not best to waste time with another RfC given that nothing new has happened. The primary answer is that Taiwan is unique, and not simply comparable to other states. The lead devotes an entire, very long paragraph to the matter. CMD (talk) 09:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
As LVTW2 correctly points out, Taiwan is not a breakaway state. It is the portion of China administered by the ROC. Perhaps we should be guided by the article Mainland China: ""Mainland China" is a geopolitical term defined as the territory governed by the People's Republic of China." The Republic of China (Taiwan) is the term for the portion of China administered by the Republic of China, including the island of Taiwan and several smaller islands. TFD (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Slatersteven (talk) 10:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
That article should probably be tweaked given Hong Kong and Macau are governed by the PRC. As for the proposed wording, that is not how the term Republic of China is used. The page for that is Free area of the Republic of China. CMD (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
No, that's the way "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is used. The ROC (Taiwan) is treated as a de facto country that does not include the mainland. It is as LVTW2 pointed out, similar to the situation with the two Koreas, each of which claims the whole country. But we refer to each as a country because they are recognized as such by the community of nations, which recognizes each as having sovereignty only over the area it controls. TFD (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I apologise, I am not following. I thought you were suggesting treating this article similarly to the Mainland China article, which is not referred to as a country. We refer to both China and Taiwan as countries at the moment don't we? CMD (talk) 15:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a dispute in reliable sources about whether Taiwan should be described as a country as in this Historynet article. Also, while both the PRC and ROC have long claimed that Taiwan was part of the country of China, more recently the ROC has claimed that Taiwan is a country, although it has little international support. I think the article should explain the controversy, rather than come down on one side or the other. TFD (talk) 00:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
I feel the article takes a decent whack at this in the over 2200 word section on the matter, and a reasonable attempt given size constraints in the lead paragraph dedicated to the matter. I don't think a reader would come out of this article feeling the issue is unexplained. CMD (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Explanation says, "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts." As it says, "Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. The aim is to inform, not influence." I cannot think of any reason to ignore policy for this article. TFD (talk) 12:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The sentence after "Avoid stating as facts" is "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements." The government of the PRC is not a reliable source in regard to its own political disputes. The scholarly and non-scholarly (i.e. public and private media such as news companies) consensus in English media, as proven multiple times in past discussions, is to describe Taiwan as a country in all but international recognition. I am familiar with Chinese scholarship on the matter from both sides of the strait, but the argument tends to be that Taiwan is not recognised as a country and should not be acknowledged as such, but there is little debate as to whether Taiwan functions as a country. I do not think everyone is even on the same page in this discussion either; some people are pointing out the controversy around calling Taiwan a country because most UN members do not recognise it as a country, while others are pointing out to the existing consensus on Wikipedia and outside Wikipedia that for all intents and purposes Taiwan acts like a country. Function and recognition are not the same areas of concern. Should we pretend that Taiwan does not function like a country, contrary to the reliable sources given, because it makes the PRC government upset? Are we seriously entertaining the idea that we should avoid calling Taiwan a country because the PRC government makes it controversial? Yue🌙 07:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: Please do not inappropriately assert that Taiwan is a portion of China as that's obviously non-neutral. Whether China (be it the ROC or the PRC) has sovereignty over Taiwan is still in dispute. Matt Smith (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Matt Smith, why is it non-neutral? Both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China claim its territory. What other countries claim it to be a part of their territory? TFD (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
It is non-neutral because reliable sources have no consensus on whether Taiwan is a portion of China or not.
Also, just because a regime claims a disputed territory does not make it the owner of the disputed territory. Matt Smith (talk) 06:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
What sources claim that both the PRC and ROC are wrong? TFD (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
That's not our concern. What we can be concerned about is that reliable sources have no consensus on whether Taiwan is a portion of China or not. Matt Smith (talk) 09:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Generally, speaking, it is impossible to prove whether a piece of land "belongs" to a country or not. It is certainly possible to prove that a piece of land is claimed and/or controlled by a sovereign state, but in terms of providing a "mandate of sovereignty", you'll be hard-pressed to find such a thing without consulting your God/gods, because, by default, land belongs to no one (just ask the Aboriginal Australians). The facts as they stand are: (1) The ROC controls Taiwan, (2) The ROC and the PRC both claim Taiwan, (3) The claim to Taiwan by the PRC is not internationally recognised by even a majority of countries, although it is effectively recognised by the United Nations as well as a handful of countries, (4) The claim to Taiwan by the ROC is effectively recognised by almost all countries on Earth on an unofficial basis, but this claim is actively disputed by a sizeable proportion of Taiwan's own population, (5) Ultimately, Taiwan is just a piece of land with some people living on it, and two governments plus a separatist movement plus several groups of Indigenous Austronesian people claim to possess sovereignty over the land, which is something that cannot be empirically proven due to the fact that Taiwan is just a piece of land with some people living on it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces - Has it ever occurred to you that it is possible for Taiwan to belong to no one? Why does Taiwan have to belong to either the ROC or the PRC, with no other option available? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
It's not whether it has ever occurred to me, but whether it has ever occurred to anyone published in reliable sources. AFAIK, Antarctica is the only land mass that is considered not to come under the jurisdiction of any state. But it has no permanent population. TFD (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
You seem to lack reading comprehension skills. In the lengthy comment that I wrote above, I clarified that it is impossible to prove that any piece of land belongs to anyone. Ultimately, land only belongs to someone because "I say so" and "my friend agrees with me". Indeed, wouldn't you agree that all of the other lifeforms on this planet, also own the land? Or are you one of those people who believes that humanity owns not just all of the land but also all of the animals and the plants and everything else too? Do you believe that God made the Earth in seven days and gave us all of these animals to kill and trees to cut down? Do you really believe that the Earth belongs to us and is ours and ours alone for the pillaging? Think about what you are saying before you put pen to paper, sir. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:06, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion made the news in Taiwan. EchetusXe 07:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia articles should report controversies, not become part of them. TFD (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
As I said on the Palestine talk page: "What makes Taiwan so special over Palestine, or better yet, over other partially recognised nations with much more intentional recognition in multiple areas? " The fact that Taiwan's "lack of recognition" is a pure farce designed to keep China from getting all pissy? When push comes to shove, no other country really has any doubts that Taiwan is independent. But no one wants to piss off China, so they do this annoying little verbal dance around the facts while at the same time treating it the same as they do any other country (with, again, only a few words changed with no change in effect). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
How would you describe the situation where the world recognized mainland China as being part of the Republic of China governed from Taipei? TFD (talk) 06:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Pretty much the same only the other way around. Chia claiming Taiwan makes them look impotent, Taiwan caiming China makes them look delusional. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:37, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a good point.
I mentioned this earlier, but I feel that it is relevant so I'll say it again. Perhaps we should include something that explains the widespread lack of recognition, alongside the presence of informal recegnition among the rest of the world? This is iirc explained in the article, but it feels important enough to put at the start of the article due to how key it is to Taiwan.
Something I came up with was:
"Taiwan, officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a partially recognised country with significant informal recognition, in East Asia, at the junction of the East and South China Seas in the north-western Pacific Ocean, with the People's Republic of China (PRC) to the northwest, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south."" Genabab (talk) 18:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

"Extent of Taiwan" EFN

I'm not sure how long this EFN has been in the first sentence of the article, but it definitely needs to be looked at. There are zero citations in the EFN, and it declares some very bold information. I'm also not entirely sure whether it serves a useful purpose, although I myself have edited it today (and have not added citations at this point in time). Indeed, I think a case can be made for the removal of the EFN in its entirety, on the charge of being original research and/or irrelevant/redundant or having a WEIGHT issue.

Geographically, Taiwan is a large island surrounded by numerous smaller islands. That is simple enough. The country that governs the island of Taiwan also administers numerous small islands surrounding Taiwan. Geographically, some of these islands are clearly not a part of Taiwan on account of being geographically too far away from Taiwan and too close to other landmasses to be considered as such. These are Kinmen, Matsu, Wuqiu, and the SCS Islands. They are a part of the country that calls itself Taiwan (whether officially or unofficially, I won't debate about), so theoretically, they can be considered part of the "country of Taiwan". But geographically, they are not part of the island (or archipelago) of Taiwan, which shares its name with the country.

In this sense, the distinction between "Free Area controlled by the ROC" versus the island of Taiwan itself is somewhat meaningless. The information is explained elsewhere within the article.

The distinction between the main island of Taiwan itself versus the "Taiwan group" (which includes Taiwan + 21 smaller islands) is also somewhat meaningless. Geographically, it is really rather rare for one large island to have absolutely zero small islands in its immediate periphery. So, it almost goes without saying that the main island of Taiwan will have some "satellite islands" surrounding it. Making a distinction between the main island and the "island group" is practically stating the obvious.

The only distinction that might be important is the distinction between the "Taiwan group" (including 22 islands) and "Taiwan+Penghu" (including 22 + 90 = 112 islands). Historically, Penghu's political status has been different from Taiwan's at times, and Penghu is often highlighted as a separate region from Taiwan, whether attached to the main island geopolitically or not. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

To elaborate... "Bold edit --> Removing the "Extent of Taiwan" EFN due to several problems, including (1) original research --> no evidence provided for some very strong claims, (2) irrelevance -- has nothing to do with the exact position that it is located in the text, (3) redundance --> some of the information is stating the obvious or is misleading, and (4) undue weight placement --> the discourse provided in this EFN does not belong at such an important location within the article, maybe belongs lower down."... I think the EFN is irrelevant in the exact position that it is located. The usage of the word "Taiwan" at the very beginning of the article is quite obviously in reference to the country that calls itself Taiwan a.k.a. the "Republic of China". So, the definition provided by default is "Taiwan, the country". It has absolutely nothing to do with the geography of the main island of Taiwan. For an analogy, the article about Australia doesn't have an EFN in the leading sentence in order to differentiate it (i.e. the country) from the continent of Australia. With that being said, the lead sentence states clearly that "Australia... ...is a sovereign country comprising the mainland of the Australian continent, the island of Tasmania, and numerous smaller islands." It is already clearly known to the reader that the article is about the country, not the continent. In the article about Taiwan, it is already clearly known that the article is about the country, not the island. So, we don't need an EFN clarifying the definition of the island of Taiwan and its geographic/geopolitical extent. We can, however, specify in an actual sentence, rather than in an EFN, that Taiwan "the country" includes Taiwan "the island" as well as numerous smaller islands surrounding the main island, including some specific archipelagos, namely "Penghu", "Kinmen", "Matsu", "Wuqiu", and a few "South China Sea Islands" that are controlled by Taiwan a.k.a. the ROC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Reading over the first paragraph in the lead (of the "Taiwan" article), I think I'm correct in that this EFN is redundant. Why would we need to mention the "main island of Taiwan" in an EFN, when there's already an entire sentence dedicated to this information immediately below? Furthermore, we can easily specify the exact geopolitical definitions of Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu within the already existing and well-sourced EFN in the lead a little lower down that introduces these archipelagos --> "Taiwan Area consists of...". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that recently a number of couple countries' articles have had an excessive number of clarifying efn notes added to the lead. I think editors should brush up on MOS:LEAD; the lead is a summary of the article body, not a condensed version of it verbatim. Articles like this one and China have dozens of clarifying efn notes that just repeat or paraphrase information in the article body, but unlike the article body, the notes' paragraphs of text are not accompanied by citations or full context(es). Yue🌙 22:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Re China, that was partially my fault, although I have just now removed or condensed some of those EFNs. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Demonym

It's ridiculous to describe the demonym "Taiwanese" as "de facto". Thankfully, someone has removed the EFN that said exactly this in the most recent edit to the article. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

(I mean, a similar case could be made to say that the demonym "American" for citizens of the United States of America is "de facto", due to the name "America" applying to the entirety of North America and South America. But see, it would be ridiculous to add an EFN describing this demonym as "de facto" for citizens of the United States, wouldn't it? Because that's simply what everyone calls them in everyday language. Likewise, everybody calls Taiwanese people "Taiwanese", so it's absurd to label this descriptor as "de facto", in favour of the descriptor "Chinese", which nobody ever uses in everyday speech.) Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Category issue: Taiwan established in 1912 in China?

Taiwan in it's current status was likely not established in 1912(I would say 1945), also given it's special status is it really inside China? Greatder (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

That category seems more relevant to the article Republic of China (1912–1949). Which is already in the category. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:56, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
According to a recent Morning Consult survey, 66% of U.S. voters cannot find Taiwan on a map.[12] TFD (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
@The Four Deuces: please keep on topic. Greatder (talk) 03:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Greatder: Taiwan in its current form (i.e. the political state which currently administers Taiwan) was indeed formed in 1912. The current political entity which governs Taiwan today, the Republic of China (ROC), was established in mainland China in 1912 in wake of the Xinhai Revolution which led to the collapse of the Qing Empire. After the Chinese Civil War and the proclamation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, that entity evacuated to the island of Taiwan in what is known as the Retreat of the Republic of China to Taiwan. What you’re referring to is that in 1945, the island of Taiwan was returned from Japan back to the state (the political entity which still currently governs Taiwan today) which is the Republic of China (ROC). Yeungkahchun (talk) 05:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Please note that whether the island of Taiwan was actually "returned" from Japan to the ROC in 1945 is still in dispute. Matt Smith (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes that is in dispute. I am speaking on a de-facto basis with the realities: Japan legally relinquished control of Taiwan in 1945. see General Order No. 1 {(https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/General_Order_No._1). And the ROC is de facto in control of Taiwan now. Reality holds: Japan no longer controls Taiwan as of 1945 and as of present the entity which indeed literally currently administrates Taiwan now since 1945 is the ROC.
Whether it was “returned” from Japan to the ROC is in dispute, yes.
Does Japan administrate Taiwan now? No. Does ROC administrate Taiwan now? Yes.
Those are the realities on the ground. Yeungkahchun (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
From the perspective of the Allied Powers of WWII, the ROC was assigned to administer Taiwan on behalf of the Allied Powers pending the final decision of the ownership of Taiwan. In other words, it is the Allied Powers' position that the ROC's de facto control of Taiwan is performed for the Allied Powers and does not imply ownership. Matt Smith (talk) 10:32, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
agree with your point Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Population change in 1895 and thereafter

Sources on the 200,000 and 300,000 number:

During the military troubles which followed the Japanese occupation, several thousands of Chinese left the island. Doubtless, however, this number did not exceed two or three hundred thousand, including soldiers and official employes. (p.561)
Davidson, James W. (1903). The Island of Formosa, Past and Present : history, people, resources, and commercial prospects : tea, camphor, sugar, gold, coal, sulphur, economical plants, and other productions. London and New York: Macmillan. OL 6931635M.

After Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895, between 200,000 and 300,000 fled Taiwan to escape the ensuing disorder. (p. 95)
(Wang, Gabe T. (2006), China and the Taiwan Issue: Impending War at Taiwan Strait, University Press of America)

For the 6,400 or 4,500 number who left Taiwan:

There was a heavy exodus of Taiwanese to China in 1895 and a steady stream of departures thereafter, for in exercising an option contained in the Treaty of Shimonoseki, Meiji Japan allowed the registered inhabitants a choice: to return to China by May 8, 1897 (two years after the treaty's ratification), and remain Ch'ing subjects, or stay in Taiwan (or return there by that deadline) and become Japanese citizens.27 Altogether, more than 6,400 people, or about 23 percent of the total population, are estimated to have departed for China during this two-year period, not counting those who made secretive crossings.28 (p. 208)
(Rubinstein, Murray A. (2015), Taiwan: A New History: Expanded Edition, East Gate Books

The treaty stipulated that Chinese residents of Taiwan would become Japanese citizens (obtain gaichi kokuseki) at the Japanese government's discretion if they had not sold their property and left the colony within two years of the signing of the treaty- by May 1897. About 4,500 people (0·2 per cent of Taiwan's population) did have the resources and will to leave, but the vast majority, of course, did not. (p. 110)
(Brooks, Barbara J. (2000), "Japanese colonial citizenship in treaty port China: the location of Koreans and Taiwanese in the imperial order" in New Frontiers. Manchester University Press)

Rubinstein notes that the figure for 6,400 does not count secretive crossings and applied to registered inhabitants during the two year period, hence the more specific number rather than a broader one such as 200,000 or 300,000. Brooks also mentions the sale of property for those who left, giving a number of 4,500. The specific number cited in the Chinese wiki at 6,456, if it is true, also implies that those who left did so in an official capacity. It is clear that the number does not describe any of the soldiers or others who left Taiwan in the initial turmoil. The Chinese wiki article you linked [13] does not contain any citations for its claims and Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOURCE for Wiki articles. Even if the sources do contradict each other, WP:BALANCE says "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." The claim that "The recent edits did not specify which part of the source which gave such information" is false. All the additions provided the source material as well as page number. Qiushufang (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I just add contradictory information regarding the total number of exodus after 1895 as you suggested to balance the divergent sources, which should have settled the arguments. Seabourn101 (talk) 02:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the recent change added by you: "After the Japanese takeover of Taiwan, Japanese authorities gave two-year long grace period to the Taiwanese residents who could leave freely to decide on their citizenship, at the end of grace period all Taiwanese permanent residents would be automatically considered as Japanese subjects. According to the contemporary source of Japanese official census, the exodus of Taiwanese population by May 1897 was 6,456, about 0.23-0.25 percent of total population in Taiwan" is undue by giving too much space and editorialization to the Japanese or your own perspective, especially "leave freely to decide on their citizenship", "Taiwanese permanent residents", and the inclusion of both the number of departures and percentage of the population. Whether the Formosans left or stayed was not entirely about choosing citizenship, since the choice of being uprooted and leaving is not equivalent to the choice of staying put. Nor would I have emphasized the act as being carried out "freely", since they had no say in the political decision-making. This would be evidenced by the multiple violent uprisings that ensued. Notifying User:Seabourn101 and User:Qiushufang. WikiwiLimeli (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
There's also no source for the info. Either of the above would be fine for the 6,400 or 4,500 figure. Qiushufang (talk) 06:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Source on Dayuan and Damila:

In the winter of 1602 the Japanese again took the island, and both the barbarians and [the Chinese] traders and fishermen were afflicted. General Shen of Wu-yü went to exterminate them and I, happening to have a taste to see the sea, accompanied him. When the Japanese had been destroyed we anchored at Ta-yüan,39 and the barbarian chief Da-mi-la 大彌勒, leading several tens of his men in order of seniority, paid us a visit.
89) Ta-yüan 大員 is one of several variants for the sound of the place which finally became standardized as Taiwan (p. 178)
(Thompson, Lawrence G. (1964). "The earliest eyewitness accounts of the Formosan aborigines". Monumenta Serica. 23: 163–204. doi:10.1080/02549948.1964.11731044. JSTOR 40726116.)

Qiushufang (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Why is there a HDI figure for Taiwan when the figures are not official?

Putting some footnote shouldn't validate its placement, which puts it on equal standing with the HDI figures of other countries that are officially calculated by the UNDP. There is officially no HDI figures for Taiwan, it is not 19th placed, and should be left blank. 121.172.191.59 (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan is a country?

Taiwan is not recognized as a country by the UN, it should be a de facto country to avoid bias. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

This argument has been re-iterated at this talk page dozens of times. The consensus is that Taiwan is a country, regardless of its political status. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Why was the decision like that? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
If you read the threads about it you will see why we can't keep rehashing the same points over and over again. Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
One of the key reasons that Taiwan is regarded as a country is that it is closer to a rump state than a breakaway state. Most other de facto states originated by seceding from a larger state. Taiwan has never seceded from anyone. Indeed, Taiwan's government was a founding member of the United Nations, and its constitution dates back to 1912. There are other elements at play here, including the controversy over the "retrocession" of Taiwan from Japan to the ROC, and the democratisation of Taiwan which has allowed citizens to vote for the country's leadership. Furthermore, Taiwan is far more powerful and influential than other de facto states in terms of politics, economy, culture, etc. Taiwan's population is also relatively large; around the same as North Korea, which also has a similar "pariah state" status in East Asia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The above is true, but with the point that by using “country”, as sources do, the English writer avoids engaging in the question of political status, rump state vs breakaway state. “State” carries legal tones. “Nation” carries tones of population identity. “Country” connects to the land in a way the is independent of the humans there. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Time for a FAq? Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Why an FAQ when there is a whole article of explanation at Political status of Taiwan? SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
It takes less time to type. Slatersteven (talk) 13:43, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
The description of Taiwan as a country is to provide justification for a formal declaration of independence from China. There is no consensus in reliable sources for use of this term. There is considerable discussion about this in the archives. However, there has been little interest among uninvolved editors in joining the discussion. TFD (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Taiwan doesn't need to declare independence from China. At least, not from the PRC. From the ROC, maybe. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
That would be interesting, because the ROC would then control no territory but claim jurisdiction over mainland China. I wonder how many countries, other than the newly created Republic of Taiwan, would recognize it. TFD (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
That would basically make the ROC little more than a government-in-exile, although the status of Kinmen and Matsu will be important-ish. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Reliable sources use the term, a lot. “Consensus in reliable sources” is not a sensible phrase, unless you are looking for sources explicitly discussing consensus. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The UN does not recognise countries, so the statement “Taiwan is not recognized as a country by the UN” is a waste-of-time statement.
The entire problem here seems to be that Chinese seems unable to translate the nuanced differences between “country”, “nation”, and “state”. Look at country. How would you translate “country”, in contrast to “nation”, into Chinese? SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that each of these terms have several meanings. When we select words, we should do so with the purpose that they inform readers, rather than mislead them. We wouldn't say for example that Massachusetts is a state in North America, although we would say it is a state in the United States. That's because the second phrasing implies that it is a subnational unit, whatever it is called. TFD (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Which is appropriate because Massachusetts is a subnational unit. Taiwan is a national unit, whatever it is called. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the Chinese language wikipedia, the consensus seems that the "republic of china" article is the same article that describes "Taiwan" as far as nation goes. There may be a separate article about the island of Taiwan, but there is no article like in the English language wikipedia article about the Republic of China (1912–1949) where it specifically indicates "1911 to 1945" on the article, which makes the assumption that the Republic of China, as a country, does not exist anymore. However this is not the case, and Taiwan is still officially the Republic of China. I believe it may be necessary to merge the two articles Taiwan and Republic of China (1912–1949) as Taiwan province is not the only jurisdiction the ROC government has, which includes Kinmen and Matsu of Fujian province and several other islands in provinces such as Hainan. As independence of Taiwan province itself is a politically contentious topic in Taiwan itself, I think it's in bad faith to separate the articles about the Republic of China and Taiwan, as the Republic of China is Taiwan. In the Chinese language wikipedia, the Republic of China is recognized as a country, and it shows both the officially claimed land, and officially administered land (Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, penghu, etc). I think this is a far more objective way to portray these articles and more appropriate for wikipedia. This is true in both the Mandarin language Wikipedia and the cantonese language wikipedia. For the pre 1949 era of the ROC, this is the article known as 中華民國大陸時期, which talks about the history of the Republic of China during the era.

I think this makes a strong case for merging the articlesTaiwan and Republic of China (1912–1949) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:101:f000:740::146 (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi IP, the 1912-1949 article is a history article such as the ones you note exist on the other language Wikipedias. If you read this article you will see that it quite clearly states that the formal name remains Republic of China. CMD (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
You may misunderstand the purpose for the existence of a separate topic as the Republic of China (1912–1949), which referred to the historical period of a continuing existed sovereign state, not about what the regime was end or ceased to be sovereignty after 1949. The seperate article was created to differentiate the distinct essences of two main historical stages over the same state before it was centered on island territories and not Chinese mainland, oriented towards the focus of Taiwan itself rather than being "legitimate China". For instance, the Byzantine Empire was a continuum to the former Roman Empire, people don't merge them as the same regime within the same topic, despite the fact that the people of Byzantine continued to regard themselves as "Romans" and the regime was called "Roman Empire" by the imperial authority and most of its contemporary surrounding countries. LVTW2 (talk) 12:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

developed country

Taiwan is designated as a high-income and an advanced economy by the World Bank and the IMF, respectively. But it doesn't mean that the country is a developed country per WP:SYNTHESIS. We need to change the description as "an advanced and a high-income economy designated by the World Bank and the IMF, respectively" or completely delete it. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 07:17, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The lede of developed country says: "A developed country (or industrialized country, high-income country, more economically developed country, advanced country) ..." As you said, the first and second sources given in this article use the terms "high-income economy" and "advanced economy". The use of synonyms is fine; no change needs to be made. There is no synthesis being made, unless you are contending that "high-income economy" and "advanced economy" is not equivalent to "high-income country" and "advanced country", or that we need to quote terminology verbatim from sources instead of paraphrasing. Yue🌙 09:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@Yue First, World Bank high-income economy are not equivalent to developed countries. There are developing high-income economies like Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, The Bahamas etc.. Second, some economies in transition within central and eastern Europe, like the Baltic states, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia etc. are also included in the IMF advanced economies list. Third, the UNCTAD doesn't include Taiwan as a developed country. See this. --117.53.77.84 (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
The exclusion of Taiwan in the UNCTAD does not prove anything for your points, as everyone knows well that it was largely political reason rather than the economic criterion or qualification as a developed country for Taiwan to be omitted in such group when Taiwan is not even a member of the UN... And you are trying to use a UN affiliated organisation's list to deny a general knowledge when the subject is not even part of it, isn't it self-contradictory? Seabourn101 (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Although Taiwan is not a UN member state, it is designated as "Taiwan, Province of China" (code 158) by the UN. Also, it is designated as a developing economy by the UNCTAD and the UNSD. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
That's what the IMF, World Bank and Asian Development Bank have already done. So what are you trying to prove? these economic souces are less reliable than the UNCTAD? Seabourn101 (talk) 15:50, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
FYI, Singapore as a commonly recognised sovereign state and as a UN member, is also not listed in the UNCTAD list, does it prove Singapore disqualify as a developed country? Seabourn101 (talk) 15:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
1. The IMF and the World Bank don't designate developed countries. They just designate "advanced economies" and "high-income economies". These are not equivalents to developed countries. The UNCTAD actually designates developed and developing countries and Taiwan is included in the UNCTAD's developing countries list.
2. Singapore is also included in the UNCTAD's developing countries list. I admit that another talk should be started in talk:Singapore. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Please present a direct link from the UNCTAD's developing countries list if it explicitly indicates both Singapore and Taiwan as "developing". From the webpage you attached in previous comment and by my own search, it never mentioned these two states as developing countries, please show where you information came from? Seabourn101 (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
From what I found, this is the clear list I can find, The Least Developed Countries Report 2021 [14], in which Republic of Korea is also included in developing country... Umm, I am getting confused the list you worshiped so much was even trustworthy? lol Seabourn101 (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
1. The UNCTAD says "The developing economies broadly comprise Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Asia witout Israel, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, and Oceania without Australia and New Zealand." so Singapore and Taiwan are also designated as developing economies by the UNCTAD.
2. The UNSD and the UNCTAD have designated the Republic of Korea (South Korea) as a developed economy since 2022. See UNCTAD/STAT/CLASSIF/2022/1 CLASSIFICATION UPDATE – APRIL 2022 and World Economic Situation and Prospects as of mid-2022 (download pdf). 117.53.77.84 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
So you meant that Korea suddenly becomes a developed country only since April 2022 when it has been recognized as one for at least 3 decades? From what I get from the information, the UNCTAD list does not evidence any nowadays condition for a country's development, it is largely outdated and frankly no principle was given to categorise country's economic status. Seabourn101 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
And How come I said that UNCTAD list "frankly given no principle to categorise country's economic status"? As many Eastern European countries such as Hungary, Poland, Croatia, Bulgaria and Romania, were classified as "developing economies" per the IMF, were categorised as "developed countries" in the UNCTAD list. I don't know what criterion was used by the UNCTAD to create such a list, but it doesn't seem very convincing for me, unless you can show some transparent standards adopted by the UN to judge who is belonged to developed club, and who is not? Or they simply put every EU members into developed club without any assessment?Seabourn101 (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
IP, I'm not sure that you understand the sources you're using and your argument is a word jumble. Can you try again but in a more concise way? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
First, I perfectly understand the sources I'm using. Second, several reports published by the United Nations, including the World Economic Situation and Prospects use the UNSD/UNCTAD's developed/developing economies classification. That's why we can't simly ignore it. 117.53.77.84 (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
How about you bring the same issue and supporting materials to talk:Singapore to see how other editors there respond, before that the phrase will stay the same. Seabourn101 (talk) 13:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Before making a claim that Taiwan is disqualified to be included in the developed country group, could you clarify further about your viewpoint that the IMF's list of developed economies is in different definition with the UN list? They may have different criterian to sort countries into the group that's what I agree with, but your argument regarding the UN list that is different meaning from other similar financial institutions' reports really confused me. LVTW2 (talk) 13:18, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Minor spelling error

When talking about Taiwan's name in the Asian Development Bank, it is written as "Taipei,China" in this article. There is a missing space and it should be "Taipei, China". ArchangelGabriel0723 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done: The typo was left intentionally by other editor(s) to maintain consistency with the website of the Asian Development Bank. However, I corrected the typo because leaving it is counterintuitive. My edit summary was: "Responding to a request on the talk page. There is no need to repeat verbatim typos that sources have retained, especially without an accessible note explaining why to the reader."

Big edits with lots of smallish changes?

Hi, I'm seeing a number of recent edits with a lot in the diff, but mostly minor changes as things are moved around. I think, in general, that type of editing should be avoided because it makes auditing the edits fairly difficult. And that seems really important in a potentially controversial area like Taiwan. I'd like thoughts both on the specific recent (last week or so) edits that are +/- 1000 or more and on the general sense if that type of editing is reasonable or should be discouraged. Hobit (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I would agree, it also makes it harder to rever one bad edit in the middle. Slatersteven (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you think?

The UN and most countries in the world do not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign country, in fact only 13 countries in the world recognize Taiwan as a country. So how can you say that Taiwan is a sovereign country? Maybe use another term? Fun71528 (talk) 14:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

See talk page archive, we have discussed this many times, and you have brought no new arguments to the table. Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The United Nations itself does not have the power to recognize individual state, directly from the United Nations [15]: "The United Nations is neither a State nor a Government, and therefore does not possess any authority to recognize either a State or a Government."
And for your information, Taiwan a.k.a the ROC was a former member before 1971 and even a founding member of the United Nation, UN Resolution 2758 in 1971 removed Chiang Kai-shek (although technically he quit the UN before the vote) and thus the ROC discontinued as the representative of "China", but it did not determine a final position of territorial sovereignty or representation over Taiwan within the resolution. Just that the KMT-dominated ROC government no longer represents the seat for "China". If it matters so much to you to stress on the acknowledgement by the UN recognition, should you add additional information over China's article highlighting about the historical fact that "the PRC was not recognised by the United Nation and the majority of the world states as legitimate government of China from 1949 to 1971" to make more consistent on both sides? By your definition, the People's Republic China only came to be a "country" from 1971 onward, before the United Nations said so, isn't it?
You are free to arise the issue as many times as you like whereas the similar arguments have been brought up countless time, I reckon the consensus would be any diffrence.
LVTW2 (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually they are not per WP:TENDENTIOUS there comes a point when it becomes wp:disruptive. Slatersteven (talk) 16:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Do you mean sovereign state? Sovereign country isn't really a term. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Could we also consider that ROC is on the list of states with limited recognition such as Kosovo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition
While Kosovo is referred to as "partially recognized states". 203.211.105.63 (talk) 10:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

But one cannot ignore the fact that Taiwan is among the only countries that are not members of the UN and only 13 countries in the world recognize it. I think it should be defined differently. To define it as a "country" is a concept that does not fully consider the full picture Fun71528 (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Recognize in what sense? You appear to be using that term exclusively in the diplomatic sense but that is misleading... It doesn't take into account more important forms of recognitions like economic, intelligence, or military. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

But one of the five conditions for a “country” is international recognition, currently Taiwan is not a full member and country of the United Nations and only 13 countries in the world recognize it and maintain full diplomatic relations with it. You cannot simply ignore it. In my opinion, the definition of Taiwan as a "country" is not entirely correct, it should use another term to define it. Fun71528 (talk) 02:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Again you appear to be confusing international recognition and diplomatic recognition, one is but a component of the other. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

But most of the countries do not recognize Taiwan, I do believe there should be other term to defined the status of Taiwan Fun71528 (talk) 02:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The majority of countries recognize Taiwan and have some form of relations with it. If its international recognition you want Taiwan has that. Note that Taiwan's passport is actually more recognized than China's[16]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
"Country" is a highly generic and amorphous term in English. It can't be used to relate to any particular status. CMD (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like the OP is confusing "country" with "sovereign country". In fact, most Chinese people do, because the Chinese translation of "country" basically means "sovereign country" in Chinese. I think the article lede needs to make it clear that, in English, "country" does not necessarily means "sovereign country", for Chinese readers. An example such as England can be provided. This is not the first time we have to clarify the issue and won't be the last time. The same discussion has been brought up many times and that might have constituted a need to add a clarification. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I think the root of the problem is that Chinese does not distinguish between “country” and “nation”. “One country two systems” I think is better translated as “one nation two systems”.
Ask them to compare and contrast country and nation. By “systems”, do they mean Sovereign state or State (polity). SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s not true only 13 countries fully recognize Taiwan . I think Taiwan should be defined differently because it’s special status. What do you think? Fun71528 (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Taiwan is not member of the UN , only 13 countries recognize Taiwan and have full diplomatic relations. I think because Taiwan does not have full international recognition, it’s can be called “ sovereignty state” Fun71528 (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

What is the relation of that comment to this article, which does not refer to Taiwan as a sovereign state? CMD (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
From the responses I reckon it's just a Chinese sock puppet account, it's a total waste of time to keep explaining to it. LVTW2 (talk) 15:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
You have a tendency to call a lot of throwaway spam accounts "Chinese sockpuppets", but believe it or not, even non-Chinese can peddle Chinese propaganda or government talking points (unintentionally or otherwise). If you check Fun71528's activity on the English Wikipedia, most of their talk page edits are to Israeli-related articles and most of their edits to articles are random number changes which got their editing privileges revoked briefly about a year ago. Yue🌙 20:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Use Official Name

Based on the following facts: No country named Taiwan. But there's a regime called it self The Republic of China. Taiwan is only the area under the actual control of ROC. "China" is not only the People's Republic of China, ROC is also China, but China now has ROC and PRC regimes. If Taiwan is an independent country, why not call it the "Republic of Taiwan"? I suggest to rename "Taiwan" as "Republic of China", rename China as People's Republic of China. 58.176.1.159 (talk) 12:12, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Its its wp:commonname. Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan/Archive_36&oldid=1149875651"