Important notice: Prior consensus has decided that Taiwan is to be referred to as a country.
Changes to the article to refer to Taiwan as a state, island, province of China, or other definition are not permitted and may be reverted. See here for the 2020 RfC in which editors reached this decision.
Please do not add Simplified characters and tongyong pinyin to the country infobox.
Please refrain from adding "(Taiwan)" all over the article as this article includes substantial information about the Republic of China prior to the Taiwan post-war era.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
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.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Determine whether Taiwan should be called a 'country' or 'state'
Complete: Consensus has been reached for Taiwan to be called a 'country'. The consensus was 33 for country, 10 for state, and 5 for some variation of state. Here is the page on which consensus was reached
Add a short section about the culture and the geography of the ROC territories (with links to the main articles)
Review alt text of images
Should the role and influence of Sun Yat-sen be introduced in the History section?
Taiwan was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Keoni Everington (2020-06-15). "Wikipedia finally designates Taiwan as 'country'". Taiwan News. Retrieved 2020-06-16. In a request for comments (RFC) page created to debate the proper status of Taiwan in its Wikipedia entry, editors in May fiercely debated the merits of referring to Taiwan as a "state" or a "country."
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Taiwan was copied or moved into Sports in Taiwan with this edit on 22 October 2019. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Limited recognition, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the coverage of entities with limited recognition on Wikipedia by contributing to articles relating to unrecognized states and separatist movements. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join our WikiProject by signing your name at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.Limited recognitionWikipedia:WikiProject Limited recognitionTemplate:WikiProject Limited recognitionLimited recognition articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
Currently, the map of the claimed territory of the Republic of China (Taiwan) includes Mongolia as a claimed area, which is out of date. In 2002, the ROC recognised the independence of Mongolian Peoples’ Republic and removed the Mongolia Area from all official maps of the Republic of China. Because of this, I feel that we should find a map that doesn’t include Mongolia as a claimed territory to replace that one that has Mongolia as a claimed territory. As a note, the Republic of China still claims parts of Myanmar, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Tajikistan, along with mainland China as it never withdrew these claims. Hankow idk (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not; that would be an inappropriate level of clutter for any polity infobox; we should pick one or the other. Remsense ‥ 论16:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure there's really justification for presenting the "historical" claims (other than being more eye-popping, which is absolutely not appropriate reason for such choices), though I haven't looked at the recent discussion. Remsense ‥ 论16:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current phrase that used for the referring map is okay, the caption of the map is depicted as "Show map of Taiwan (dark green) with Mainland Area and historical ROC territorial claims (light green)", which clearly states that the map is not only restricted to the political claim over the mainland China but also other historical claims over territories that are no longer considered Chinese territories. Sheherherhers (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall one was the one I made here, what do RS say, and as I recall it was just "Tawain no longer publically claims it" and not "they have officially recognized Mongolia as independent". Slatersteven (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. In the Mongolia–Taiwan relations page, it literally says that “The Republic of China continued to show Mongolia as part of its territory on official maps until 2002 when they recognised Mongolia as an independent country and established informal relations between the two sides.”. Hankow idk (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Then the person that said that is wrong because Taiwan DOES officially recognise the independence of Mongolian Peoples’ Republic. Hankow idk (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, as a conversation here is based upon the sources produced, and (as I said) no source was provided that stated Tawain officially recognized Mongolia. We do not take user words for it, they must provide sources, if they do not, well that is not our fault. Its is theirs, the WP:ONUS is on them. Slatersteven (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall tno one did not in the last conversation about this. As I said the best we got was that Taiwan no longer publically claims it. Slatersteven (talk) 17:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What? I don’t understand what you are saying. I literally provided above that in the Mongolia–Taiwan relations Wikipedia page, it says that “The Republic of China continued to show Mongolia as part of its territory on official maps until 2002 when they recognised Mongolia as an independent country and established informal relations between the two sides.” Hankow idk (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is one reason (also) why the last (the last not this one, not any other article here) came down against this, people not listening. I shall say it once more (And for the last time) the last discussion we had about this (here, not anywhere else) did not produce (as I recall) any sources (here at the time of the last conversation, here not anywhere else and then not now) that stated Tawina now officially recognized Mongolia). We can only act upon what people said (back then, not now) here, not anywhere else. Slatersteven (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think theres a good argument to be made to leave out the historical claims map entirely rather than quibble over which to include or exclude, its more trivia at this point than relevent to the modern country. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been any retraction, e.g. Taiwan endoring the McMahon line or anything like that. If you think this is all too theoretical to bother including, as I said I wouldn't really mind excluding a map with claims altogether. Remsense ‥ 论18:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now I'm digging, and now I've become more inclined just to omit a claims map altogether. Like HEB said, it seems like trivia, as the ROC's claims (save those in the South and East China Seas) are simply never discussed or illustrated. They're pretty theoretical save for the broadest contingency about continuity, One China etc. Remsense ‥ 论18:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But considering the fact that the South Korean page includes it’s current territorial claims (North Korea), it would make sense for this page to include the current claims of the ROC. Hankow idk (talk) 19:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because other articles may have errors (or content that is right in that specific instance) doesn't constitute an argument for what we should do in this article, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Remsense ‥ 论19:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of what we write about on Wikipedia (possibly as opposed to, say, matters of style), accuracy within each article is always more important than consistency between articles. Remsense ‥ 论19:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, there is no evidence that the territorial claims of the Republic of China changed after it withdrew its claim of and officially recognised Mongolia. Because of this, the 2005 map of the territorial claims of the Republic of China would be suitable for the purpose. Hankow idk (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not saying the claims aren't still extant (i.e. a WP:V problem), we're saying they possibly aren't important enough to be included in such a prominent position (i.e. a WP:DUE problem). This isn't something that must appear in the infobox atop an article; like any other piece of information it largely should be judged on its importance for each article on an individual basis. Hence my mention above about how these claims are never emphasized or even depicted by the contemporary Taiwanese government. Remsense ‥ 论19:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is simply not true. We exclude an infinite amount of data about Taiwan from the infobox; that's not denial, it's just presenting what data is important and omitting what isn't. Remsense ‥ 论19:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the territorial claims of the ROC on the mainland are kinda important because it heavily influence mainland-ROC relations and politics. The world would be a very different place if the ROC were to withdraw its claim of the mainland. Hankow idk (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I said that above. But are the precise boundaries of those claims important? Taiwan itself doesn't seem to think so. Remsense ‥ 论19:52, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about precise boundaries (we have already came to a consensus that the ROC does not claim Mongolia). Right now, we are talking about whether to have a map of the territorial claims of the Republic of China. Also, by not having a map of the claims, it would kinda imply that the pre- 1949 ROC and Taiwan are separate political entities, which they aren’t (at least officially). It would also imply that sometime between 1949 and now, the ROC simply disappeared and that it is now an entity of the name of “Taiwan”. Hankow idk (talk) 20:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of that. As I said above, we already agreed on precise boundaries that define the territorial claims of the Republic of China. Hankow idk (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And we disagree on whether they are important; again, Taiwan itself doesn't seem to think so. The aspects you are worrying about denying through omission (It would also imply that sometime between 1949 and now, the ROC simply disappeared and that it is now an entity of the name of “Taiwan”) are all explained in prose in the article itself; we are judging what level of prominence should be afforded, as the infobox is for key facts at a glance. I'm not sure this is a key fact; equivalently its presentation as such can have a distorting effect. Remsense ‥ 论20:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very important to not misguide readers into thinking sometime between 1949 and now, the ROC simply disappeared and was replaced by an entity by the name of “Taiwan”. (And also, it’s kinda weird that Wikipedia has a pre-1949 ROC page and a Taiwan page). Hankow idk (talk) 20:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Readers will not think this upon reading the article, nor will it have been implied to them if they only peruse the infobox. Remsense ‥ 论20:32, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Remsense in that I think we should remove the claims map altogether, because it is not meaningful to the modern country. I have expressed this view in the previous map discussion. What I disagree with is the assertion that Taiwan has a current claim with precise boundaries. The only basis on which the map is constructed is the claiming of territories administered by the modern PRC and Mongolia states - this is an assumption rather than a direct definition/source. For these two reasons, I suggest we remove the map. Butterdiplomat (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather see an independent legal textbook on international law constitutional law rather than make a call based on what maps Taiwan publishes and statements by their politicians. Otherwise, this is just synthesis. Note also that circumstances are sometimes vague or nuanced, and if they are the article should reflect. TFD (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will reiterate the arguments I made in the previous discussion.
The historical territorial claim was the policy of ROC government during the KMT one-party rule era. As Taiwan democratized, the foreign policy continues to evolve. This source mentions "the ROC dropped its claim to the mainland and has been open to dual recognition since 1991".[1] The current ruling government's position is that the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People’s Republic of China should not be subordinate to each other.[2]
That the ROC has not openly announced the renunciation of territory does not mean it continues to make the historical claim. Some people may say that the ROC constitution claims the mainland, but that is the KMT's perspective of the constitution, and the current ruling party does not share the same perspective. The ROC constitution does not specify the exact boundaries, only vaguely saying "according to its existing national boundaries", thus there is dispute over what it actually includes. See [3] for more details about the dispute, where DPP legislators argued that the ROC constitutional claim does not include the mainland and asked the constitutional court to clarify the exact boundaries. The constitutional court refused to clarify, saying it is a Political question and the dispute should be resolved politically rather than legally.--108.53.191.58 (talk) 21:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show that this conclusion has consensus support among experts before it can be stated as fact. Can you provide a legal textbook that says this? TFD (talk) 22:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All statements made in articles must be reliably sourced [Wikipedia:Reliable sources] and and cannot be based on editors personal conclusions. [Wikipedia:No original research]. Also, " Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." [Wikipedia:CONTEXTMATTERS] Only a legal textbook or similar source can be used for a claim about constitutional law.
There is no reason not to use expert sources. "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." [Wikipedia:SOURCETYPES]
As a matter of interest, if you want to master a subject, such as constitutional law, would you reach for textbooks written by law professors or you read 20 year old newspaper articles written by reporters with BAs in journalism? TFD (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The quotes and beliefs of legislators are not the best source to use to back a claim in a topic as polarised controversial as the territorial claims and boundaries of the Republic of China. Hankow idk (talk) 00:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not use the perspective of legislators because it would be biased towards one side. Also, it is clearly known that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is pro-Taiwanisation and the Kuomintang (KMT) is Taiwanese conservative. Based on this, it is obvious that DPP legislators would support the renunciation of the ROC’s claim of the mainland and that the those of the KMT wouldn’t. Thus, based on the fact that the current (1947) Constitution of the Republic of China implies that the mainland is still claimed by the ROC. Also, what the legislators say doesn’t really matter because it is just their opinion and not the policy of the nation. Also, the Republic of China never officially renounced its claim of the mainland. Hankow idk (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But also, the DPP does not pursue independence because of the consequences. Why can't this article explain the legal position of Taiwan, both in domestic and international law, and how it de facto operates without injecting partisan rhetoric? TFD (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for agreeing that different perspectives exists. Please note that I am not saying we should add any conclusions or statements to the article. The discussion is about the map. We should not present a map as the current claim. That would be biased towards one side.--108.53.191.58 (talk) 04:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm for removing the claim map, but this is not the reason why. I need to reiterate that on Wikipedia, neutral point of view does not mean "no point of view": we do not refrain from stating claims simply because they are a matter of genuine contention. If I felt this were due for this specific case (if Taiwan were always fighting India and Burma about their occupation of its territory, say), this would obviously be an appropriate, attributed presentation of contested territorial claims. Remsense ‥ 论05:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason to remove the claims map option. For those who are not interested, don't click on it. It doesn't take up room or force anyone to view it. For those who find it convenient to refer to, because parts of the article are related to the mainland, having the map option saves them from going to other pages. This setup has worked for a long time. Regarding the claims, here is an overview from 2023: "The People’s Republic of China considers Taiwan a breakaway province that must return to the mainland’s control. Taiwan does not officially recognise the People’s Republic, and its constitution still asserts sovereignty over mainland China. This is due to a complex shared history between the two territories."[4]CurryCity (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. But instead of using the map with the historical claims, we should find (or make a map if we can’t find one) to replace it. Hankow idk (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most readers wouldn't be bothered by this map anyway. For those who opt to dig deeper, it's accurate information that ROC used to claim Mongolia. There's no need for complicated updates to the file. CurryCity (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it would be more constructive to the article that has the current claims of the Republic of China rather than the historical claims. Hankow idk (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out, there is no evidence that the original claims have been renounced, because we don't know how the ROC could do this. The Federal Republic of Germany for example amended its constitution to renounce it claims on East Germany and western Poland. Ireland amended its constitution to renounce its claim to North Ireland. TFD (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above in the very beginning of this discussion, there IS evidence that the Republic of China's claim on Mongolia and Tuva has been renounced in 2002. Hankow idk (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the current claims of the ROC (for example, mainland China and the SCS), is actually import for it defines its foreign policy and would heavily impact Taiwan if the government of the ROC is to renounce those claims. Hankow idk (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What are we thinking for option? Full historical claims map, historical claims map minus some claims, or no map at all? The middle one seems like it should be further broken up, but the only one people have brought up so far is Mongolia (for example on the same grounds that Mongolia is being argued to be exluded you could also argue for Tibet to be excluded as well as a number of other border conflicts with non-PRC countries). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, would could do a map with BOTH the historic and current claims. The current claims in a normal bright green and the historic claims in a pale green. Hankow idk (talk) 17:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've already said this is a bad idea. It only multiplies the NPOV problems instead of compromising on them. We're giving even more attention to these claims by presenting two maps for them at the top! Remsense ‥ 论22:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said the current claims of the Republic of China on mainland is very important because the world would be a very different place today if that claim is to be officially renounced. As you most likely now, if Taiwan is to renounce its claims on mainland China, it would be invaded by the mainland authorities immediately after. Hankow idk (talk) 23:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's misleading. The importance is not regarding specific patches of land that may or may not be part of China, the point is that the ROC claims historical continuity with the Chinese government pre-1949 and acknowledges only one legitimate government of China, as opposed to their government constituting Taiwanese independence. The actual character of the issue at hand is best described in prose: we're pretty much conflating unrelated issues here by visualizing other regions as discretely as we do. It misses the point and draws attention to Mongolia rather than, well, Taiwan. Nothing relevant is communicated about contemporaneous Taiwan by shading or not shading Aksai Chin. Remsense ‥ 论00:02, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then would you agree to have a map of the current claims of the Republic of China the way you like it (without the small bits of those other nations)? Hankow idk (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, because territorial surface area is not what is important. The ROC has seen itself as the legitimate government of China—a much broader idea that isn't "mappable"—and we should say that in prose. Remsense ‥ 论00:44, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I presently think that's the best representation, yes. A map is not a prestige symbol, it is a tool for presenting certain kinds of information. If a map is not the right tool for the information we want to present, we shouldn't have one. Remsense ‥ 论01:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to replace the current claims map with this one.
The dark green represents the Free Area of the Republic of China; the light green represents the ambiguous territorial claims of the Republic of China.Hankow idk (talk) 20:21, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to resolve: you think there should be a claims map, and I presently do not. Per below, I'm trying to dive into the sources to make sure my position is right. Remsense ‥ 论01:01, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tibet, parts of Myanmar, parts of India, parts of Pakistan, parts of Afghanistan, and parts of Tajikistan cannot be excluded because the Republic of China never renounced its claim of those areas. Hankow idk (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a proposal, we should replace the current map with this one:
This map represents the current claimed and historically claimed territories of the Republic of China. The pale green represents the area that is historically claimed; the bright green represents the current claims; the dark green is the free area.Hankow idk (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you assume that it is still claimed. That's into OR territory. I suspect it will be difficult to find a source for what they actually claim now, as they've gone very quiet on that. Kanguole20:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed: it is an extrapolation we shouldn't need to make if these claims are as important as we're trying to say they are by putting them in the infobox. Remsense ‥ 论22:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it would be very difficult to find evidence that the Republic of China indeed renounced these claims. Just because they never talk about these territories doesn't mean its claim on it has been renounced. Hankow idk (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not how sourcing works though, we aren't allowed to assume something kept happening... Sources can't be used about the future, for example a source from 2002 can't be used to make a statement about what is true today only what was true in 2002... If you want to make a claim about what is true in 2024 you need sources from 2024 not just earlier sources without update or refutation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is greater permanence implied in certain claims, but ultimately if something isn't mentioned for decades there's no getting around its actual relevance being called into question. Remsense ‥ 论23:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are times when we allow it to be ambigous (for example an undated headquarters location) but the only real exception I know of is the one which allows us to assume death 115 after birth. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem is, the Republic of China did never renounce its claims on parts of India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan. As I assume we all know, the Republic of China DOES NOT recognise the Peoples' Republic of China and the settlements they made to the latters' territorial dispute. Also, since the Republic of China is a nation with limited recognition, it would be impossible (and useless) for them to resolve its territorial disputes with the nations listed above. Also, no evidence that shows that the Republic of China renounced these claims have surfaced. Based on this, the most logical conclusion would be that the Republic of China still lays claims to parts of India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan. Hankow idk (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence for the claims being active either, if you look at media from the last 20 years. This matters: political claims are an abstraction of human tendencies and positions, and we cannot treat them as perfectly immortal just because they haven't been formally negated.
Regardless of the reasons this may be, you could not say that Taiwan actively makes these claims, as there is no recent activity or mention regarding them. "Historically claimed" is a good phrasing to handle this, but I still find its prominence to be undue. Remsense ‥ 论23:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although Taiwan does not actively makes these claims, these claims are still there. Even though "there is no recent activity or mention regarding them", these claims are still there. Also, "we cannot treat them as perfectly immortal just because they haven't been formal negated" is wrong because by saying that, you are saying that claims can just simply die or disappear if nothing is said or done of them, which is not true. By the only evidence we have, the only thing we can assume on the claims of the Republic of China on parts of India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Nepal, and Bhutan is that they are still claimed by it. Hankow idk (talk) 23:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a purely ideological preconception on your part that does not reflect actual history. You're asking us to give prominence to something because you abstractly feel it to be important, not because its importance is actually borne out in sources. This is not how Wikipedia works. Remsense ‥ 论23:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an odd tack given that most of the ROC's territorial claim have lapsed (ceased to be recognized or enforced but not officially renounced)... Thats what we're discussing here, so you are clearly aware of such instances. It also seems to selectively take up only half of the argument, is that meant to be tacit agreement that most claims are superseded not officially renounced? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Historically claimed" would not be a good phase to describe these claims because it would mean that the Republic of China DID officially renounce its claims to these territories, which it didn't. Hankow idk (talk) 23:42, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since Tuva was part of the Mongolia Area (which was a subdivision claimed by the Republic of China), the ROC renounced its claim of the Mongolian Peoples’ Republic and along with Tuva. Hankow idk (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is to remove all claims maps, but especially one that purports to show both historical and current claims. There are no sources to support current claims with defined boundaries. The fact that the ROC no longer claims Mongolia does not define its current claims (which are very much undefined in map form). Butterdiplomat (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you are saying but there is simply no evidence that surfaced (I was literally digging for hours) that show that the Republic of China renounced its claim on the territories south of the Mainland. Hankow idk (talk) 23:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but this is an active extrapolation we're having to make from silence. That is a different, inherently weaker (though not meritless) form of evidence than if the ROC government website wouldn't let you leave without seeing the territory they claim. Remsense ‥ 论23:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“The mainland” does not have defined boundaries. Or, perhaps more precisely, if it does have defined boundaries, they have been fluid throughout history. Because there is no sourcing on the actual boundaries of any current claims besides governmental maps showing essentially the main island and some outlying islands, the historical claims map in the infobox (or a current claims map) is or would be a product of original research. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion thread contains a lot of editors' conclusions based on their readings of newspaper articles from 20 years ago and other sources but no expert source that explains the legal position. Either the ROC still claims its original boundaries or it doesn't or it is ambiguous. But we need an authoritative source. TFD (talk) 22:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not going well so far—it's not really a thing authors seem interested in making a definitive statement on among paragraphs and volumes of analysis of the cross-strait relationship—even a statement that it's presently ambiguous. Remsense ‥ 论00:06, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a reflective indicator of its due weight. I found this paper an interesting read. Either way however, we probably shouldn't make up a map of supposed "current" claims, and definitely shouldn't include it in the lead. CMD (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article says, "The ROC moved away from imagining Inner China as its national centre and toward a conceptualisation of the ROC as rooted in Taiwan. [It] has ceased to press for sovereignty over greater China." But it doesn't say that these claims have been renounced.
I do not think the article should promote the legitimacy of the DPP's current position or indeed its official claim to be the legitimate government of China or the PRC position that it is a rebellious territory. TFD (talk) 12:35, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map says nothing of the PRC position though? And we should consider WP:DUE when it comes to different partisan positions. The fact is, the historical claims have neither been officially renewed nor renounced, and it would be original research to impose a map (precise boundaries) representation of these claims. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A map of historical claims doesn't say much about the DPP either. We can map the historical claims without OR, it's the diffusely different current claims that we can't map. CMD (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, believe we're in agreement that a historical map is better than a current one, which is the status quo. As others have pointed out, though, whether this historical map should be included in the infobox is a different topic and one of relevance. The TW government no longer publishes official maps that include “mainland” territories as it used to, for a couple of decades now, and this is in contrast to the PRC claims and maps. Sure, this is not an official renunciation of historical claims, but (1) their currentness is definitely ambiguous, and (2) they are not considered important by the government (i.e., the key participant in the claims). Butterdiplomat (talk) 16:44, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't got a strong opinion at the moment on the claims being in the infobox. The last similar discussion I am aware of was for the Pakistan article, after the government published a new map which 're-claimed' so to speak a historical claim which had lapsed for a few decades. As you point out, Taiwan has not published similar maps for awhile, so it seems editorial judgment as to how long a map has to not be published for it to lose due weight. My main concern in this conversation was the supposed current maps, so I'm glad consensus is against them. CMD (talk) 18:25, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hankow idk has a point that the most important part of the claims, current or historical, is the Chinese mainland part which is the PRC. Vacosea (talk) 07:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a claim isn't "active" doesn't mean it doesn't exist anymore. Unlike animals or any other beings, a territorial claim does not have a lifespan. Hankow idk (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something may or may not exist does not mean it should be included in map form in this article. The currentness of these claims are not the only thing in question. Butterdiplomat (talk) 02:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting absurd, territorial claims absolutely have a lifespan (exactly as long as the claim is active). This is just ignorance of diplomacy and foreign policy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current Constitution of the Republic of China and the ruling of the Supreme Court have never mentioned the specific territorial scope, and the relevant laws only mention mainland China as its claimed territory, excluding the disputed territories of other countries. The specific scope of the mainland area is also very clear, only Including "areas controlled by the Chinese Communist Party", see https://www.mac.gov.tw/en/News_Content.aspx?n=4F2E0C155DF44564&sms=2C46F5E37DC2E1D2&s=4597A146F5AF7D3C
The so-called "disputed territories" with India, Myanmar and other countries are not included in this scope. These former claims of the Republic of China do not exist in Taiwan's current laws. The administrative divisions before 2005 have been abolished.
If we consider Taiwan's laws on cross-Strait relations, its claimed territory only includes the areas actually governed by the People's Republic of China. If we follow the government statements of President Tsai Ing-wen and President Lai Ching-te, then "the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are not affiliated with each other." In the past, the Republic of China had Mainland China’s claim is also invalid N1m2s3l4 (talk) 02:15, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/БмхүнThe case mentions a sockpuppet who has long been using multiple VPNs and accounts to engage in discussions, which has at times affected decision-making processes. The account N1m2s3l4 admitted on zh.wikipedia.org (zh:Special:diff/84221546) to being blocked and attempting to continue abusing sockpuppetry through multiple accounts, while also seeking assistance from @唐吉訶德的侍從to replicate the edits made during the period when other sockpuppet accounts were being used. Due to this self-disclosure and clear misuse of sockpuppet accounts, the account has been indefinitely blocked. Please be cautious when addressing N1m2s3l4's comments, as they may be mixed with contributions from other VPNs or accounts. It is currently known that VPN Special:Contributions/103.232.212.80/28 is in use. I would prefer not to see a repeat of cases like Talk:Prayagraj Airport#Requested move. Rastinition (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per @CMD, I've so far thumbed through the following volumes trying to get a firmer sense of what the territorial claims of contemporary Taiwan meaningfully are:
“
At first blush, the PRC position might strike some as absurd given Taiwan’s more than 50 year existence outside the mainland’s grasp. It is noteworthy, however, that the leadership in Taipei maintains a similar stance toward the government in Beijing. In fact, it claims that “mainland China is part of the territory of the ROC.” In short, Taipei contends that the government in Beijing does not exist—a position that the island’s independence activists blast as “total nonsense.” It is also noteworthy that the government in Taipei rejects claims by independence groups that suggest that the island’s international status is undetermined.
”
— Blanchard, Jean-Marc F.; Hickey, Dennis Van Vranken (2012). New Thinking about the Taiwan Issue. Routledge. p. 3. ISBN978-0-415-68453-8.
“
These culminated in Taiwan’s first direct legislative elections in 1992 and the first direct presidential election in 1996, thus marking a symbolic redrawing of the boundaries of the ROC’s national ‘imagined community’ (Anderson 1983). As only residents of Taiwan were enfranchised to vote in these purported ‘national’ elections, henceforth the ROC’s electorate no longer included mainland China, and in practical terms the ROC became synonymous with Taiwan and its surrounding islands. In the 1996 presidential election, three-quarters of the votes went to two candidates that Beijing considered as either overt or covert ‘Taiwan independentists’. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s 1994 White Paper on Relations across the Taiwan Strait declared that Taipei ‘would no longer compete with Beijing for the right to represent China in the international arena’, thereby further cementing the notion of Taiwan and China as two separate nations (Dickson and Chao 2002: 225).
[... going on to relate the post-90s back-and-forth with no terminus ...]
What are the defining features of cross-Strait relations? What drives them? The starting point is that both the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the People’s Republic of China (mainland) maintain sovereignty claims over the other.
[...]
Although the ROC still nominally claims sovereignty over the Chinese mainland, nevertheless it recognises the fact that its jurisdiction does not extend to the ‘mainland Area’. Thus, being short of a de jure declaration of its reduced territory, a de facto state was born out of the Taiwan Area.
Thank you. My thoughts are: (1) these sources seem to confirm that any nominal claim over mainland China is probably more appropriate for cross-strait relations vs. this article, and (2) we still do not have any sourcing for the map form of these claims that outline the precise boundaries of any current claims.
Further to point (1), to emphasize these nominal claims would be taking away real, practical claims that the Taiwanese government seems to actively impose on areas like the SCS:
“
… both the Ma and Tsai governments share common positions on the island status of the Taiping Island as defined by the UNCLOS. Similar to the Ma government, the Tsai government after May 2016 has reasserted Taiwan’s sovereign rights over SCS islands, suggested to shelve sovereign disputes for the joint development of the SCS through a multilateral mechanism, and stressed the freedom of navigation and over- flight within the SCS.
”
— Lee, Wei-chin (2017). "Taiwan, the South China Sea Dispute, and the 2016 Arbitration Decision". Journal of Chinese Political Science: 241. doi:10.1007/s11366-017-9470-2.
We are debating several aspects of Taiwan's claims to territory not under their control, specifically whether they are both well-defined and relevant enough to be shown on a map in the infobox. I've changed my mind a few times now over the course of the discussion—given the above attestation, I'm now leaning towards including a map of the claims. Remsense ‥ 论20:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an option not displayed by default, I think this is an appropriate level of inclusion given their historical and ongoing importance disagreements notwithstanding. Taiwan has never officially declared itself independent. It formally calls itself the "Republic of China." Its constitution lays claim to the whole of China, just like Beijing does.(2022 Deutsche Welle)CurryCity (talk) 18:48, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you were suggesting a collapse instead of a toggle for some reason. In any case, I still feel this to be totally independent of the question of whether it should be included, rather than being a compromise position between due and undue. Remsense ‥ 论22:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are on the same page about what is being discussed, I think. We are all in agreement that the territorial claims map, if we continue to include it, would continue to be a secondary map in the infobox. It seems to be a judgment call whether we include it as secondary or exclude it altogether, and my view is that any map that shows the historical claims is more appropriate for the historical ROC article or cross-Strait relations anyway.
Now, addressing CurryCity’s point about the ROC’s never-relinquished claim on the “whole of China” — the currentness of any territorial aspect of this claim is not evident, since it continues to be one of prestige rather than precise boundaries (as brought up in the above section). A map would not accurately represent the claim CurryCity would like to be included. The included map (including Mongolia) is certainly accurate historically since it is taken from actual maps published by the ROC government, but these maps are no longer being published. The precise boundaries of these mainland claims are thus no longer defined. If the argument for including it is its currentness, then a historical map does not seem appropriate in my opinion. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:31, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be confused. This suggestion is not (i) moving Taiwan to Taiwan(country) and making Taiwan a disambiguation page, (ii) defining Taiwan offically ROC a country, a state or sth, in other word Taiwan is a country will be remained.
Operation steps: Use a proxy to make Google detect the location as Taiwan, search Google for "What is Taiwan", and count each result one by one in order.
Note: To prevent original research, only the direct use of the word "island" and "country" is counted; the use of "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is not counted; similar expressions such as "Taiwan: Country Profile" are regarded as "Country"; "Taiwan has all the infrastructure of an independent country" or similar expressions is not counted as "country"; Using the flag does not represent a "country".
Since there is too much relevant information, please give some counsensuses directly instead of "see the top of the page" to avoid omissions, thank you. Donttellu8 (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A side note on the first 3 links in this survey, the Britannica entry is part of its "Countries of the World" series, the BBC article is clearly not talking about a simple geographical island ("They called this the Republic of China, a name Taiwan has retained"), and the same goes for CFR, which opens with "Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China". CMD (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in order to prevent original research, these links says Taiwan is an island rather than a country in the text directly, so I put them into "island". Donttellu8 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They explicitly call it a country, if they do not use country every time they say Tawain, or also describe the island in the same article, does not mean they are not calling it a country they are still calling it a country, not an island. That is where the OR lies, it is reading into the text a statement that is not explicitly made. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This exercise is pretty close to OR, since you are outlining the methodology of your research and drawing conclusion from that. If the objective here is to make Geography of Taiwan the primary topic, I think there is little evidence to support that.
From a cursory view of recent news articles that reference Taiwan, the word is almost always used to refer to the country vs. the island, involving the polity in most of those cases (e.g., president, government policy, military). This broadly reflects how readers would understand the word. Butterdiplomat (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I found similar survey in 2020 RfC. (here) That survey was accpected and I don't think this survey's method has any difference from that one. ?8 (talk) 05:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And involving the polity in most of those cases (e.g., president, government policy, military) indicates they use word Taiwan as a country? Is it an OR? ?8 (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am editing Taiwan Area these days, and I saw a comment about WP:ISATERMFOR. In the end editors regard "Taiwan Area" as a term. This got me thinking. Is the word "Taiwan" really a common name of ROC instead of a commonly used term referring to ROC? Unlike North Korea and the DPRK, there are many places where Taiwan and the ROC cannot be established as equivalent. I've seen many people support Taiwan being a common name because it is more commonly used, but they seem to ignore the non-overlapping parts, and it seems reasonable that what commonly used is the term not name.
I am not sure exactly what you are proposing here. Could you be a bit more explicit? You may be hung up on the fact that the word “Taiwan” can refer to both the country and the island, but this is already sufficiently disambiguated with the various existing articles. Butterdiplomat (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page is not a discussion forum, you can either make an edit request or giving constructive opinions on how to improve the topic. Don’t just leave a question without giving explicit purpose. Sheherherhers (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be a bit more generous here. Thinking about how names work is important and this does seem plausibly related to improving the article. Remsense ‥ 论17:26, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is the word "Taiwan" really a common name of ROC instead of a commonly used term referring to ROC?
This question doesn't make sense to me. In Wikipedia, a "common name" of something is supposed to be a "commonly used term" referring to that thing. Note that WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONTERM both lead to the same article, which says, among other things: "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred." Phlar (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The classical distinction is that a name doesn't have any internal lexical meaning, while a term does. That classical distinction is flawed—in my mind, both "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" are clearly functioning as names when we use them, even though the former is made up of semantic parts contributing to its semantic whole. Remsense ‥ 论23:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what bearing does this have on the article, given that the WP policy is to use either a common "name" or a common "term"? Phlar (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed it out in order to articulate that there's not really an analogous distinction between "names" and "terms" at play here; as you say, they are essentially synonymous for our purposes. WP:NC is our policy about what names we should use to refer to concepts in both article titles and elsewhere Remsense ‥ 论06:09, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2024
Taiwan is a geographical term identifying China's largest island, which is being ruled by the remnants of the Republic of China (ROC), founded in 1911 by the revolutionary overthrow of the last Chinese monarchy. L.Willms (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"but they were abolished in 2006 and the ROC reaffirmed its recognition of Mongolia (formerly known as Outer Mongolia in Taiwan) in 2002, as stipulated in the 1946 constitution"
The 1946 Constitution here refers to the Constitution of the Republic of China enacted in 1946. The above uses the year of its implementation in 1947 as the "1947 Constitution". The description should use the name of the 1947 Constitution uniformly to avoid misleading. The current Constitution of the Republic of China was formulated in 1946 and formally implemented in 1947. "1946" should to "1947". 103.232.212.82 (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So do North Korea and South Korea, but I don't see a map of South Korea's control of Liancourt Rocks in the article about it. Itu Aba is too small. Verngel (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean they both dispute which country is the sole representative of the entire Korean Peninsula. But anyway, now I agree with you that we need to show that island on the Taiwan map, thank you for your explanation. Verngel (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the current map small light green circles are present around all Taiwanese-controlled small islands. It seems a mostly stylistic choice as to whether to have them or not, but if they are there, it seems reasonable for Itu Aba to have the same treatment as all the other islands. CMD (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know October 10 is chosen by Taiwan as its national day, but the truth is that the Republic of China was founded on January 1, 1912. October 10, 1911 was just the beginning of the Xinhai Revolution, it was symbolic but not of legal nature and there was no Republic of China in reality. Even those who started the revolution in Wuchang were not members of Sun Yat-sen's organization. Verngel (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that in the information box, the founding date of the Republic of China should be corrected to January 1, 1912, not October 10, 1911 as is being displayed there. Verngel (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for historical events, I think they are partly off topic from the article when here we only mention the events of the Republic of China with one of them even happened on the Mainland. I know Taiwan is currently ruled by the Republic of China, but after all, 99% of the territory it controls is just the island of Taiwan and today Taiwanese identity dominates the state. We should mention the prominent historical events of the island of Taiwan instead of just the Republic of China regime. Look at the article about South Korea, it does not only mention the historical events of the Republic of Korea. Same goes for articles about other countries, the issue is not just the current political regime. 113.185.47.66 (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The parameter in the infobox is about the establishment of the country/nation/state. All the links you provide above are in the relevant history section.... in most cases as main see also link to articles under the headers of the relevant sections. Moxy🍁 20:58, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of China is Taiwan, as this article proves. You should know that the government agencies and passport of the Republic of China today also use the word "Taiwan". 113.185.47.25 (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of China still claims to be the sole representative of China in its constitution, so if we only focus on the current ruling state, why not bring up the important histories of all of China? 113.185.47.66 (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this is not just the article about politics, but also about a place. If you follow your logic, all articles about sovereign nations in the world should only mention their current regimes. 113.185.47.25 (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's give an example of a Young Nation that I'm familiar with...Canada. Note how it doesn't list Indigenous nations or list colonial predecessors. It simply begins when the current nations independents/formation/creation. The article where this is covered is at History of Taiwan.... that does list many of the historical events you listed above. Moxy🍁 21:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, this is an article about both Taiwan as a place and the regime that governs it. Even Canada only gained independence in 1931. Would you like me to list articles that don't just mention the current regimes? 113.185.47.25 (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to point out that the ROC carried over plenty of institutions from the Japanese Taiwan era, including the presidential office and other gov buildings, the name Kaohsiung, among others. Taiwan did not just appear out of thin air when the ROC arrived. In the same way that China had several other events before the establishment of the PRC, there is a strong argument here to revise the list here. Butterdiplomat (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Legally, the colonial regimes that the Netherlands and Spain established in Taiwan were just overseas territories, and the Tungning kingdom de facto had nothing to do with the former Ming Dynasty and its remnants (especially after the death of Koxinga). As for Japan, it is true that Taiwan was annexed as a domestic part of Japan. But nonetheless, I think the governments before the Republic of China were important in Taiwan's history. Italinoa (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Additional Articles sound innocuous (by design), but they were a constitutional change for Taiwan at least as significant as the two listed at Canada. Kanguole21:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think they were important in Taiwan's history because they showed that the Republic of China government abandoned retaking the mainland by force and accepted to stay in the area under its control to wait for peaceful unification, paving the way for the indigenization and democratization of the regime. Italinoa (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk about "colonial", well, Taiwan is not yet legally independent as its official name is the "Republic of China" and its constitution still claims to be the sole representative of China, of course in reality the story is the opposite. That's why there are Taiwanese people who demand 100% independence don't like the DPP's vague style. Italinoa (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s worthy to note that the article did contain the significant historical events within infobox. Until 17th January, an editor deleted all the contents before the establishment of the ROC, so this is not a new idea to extend the info box contents for Taiwan history. In this topic, Taiwan is defined as an individual geographical entity rather than the governing authority, so I consider that the IP user’s proposal is reasonable and discernible.
And I support the idea in certain conditions. If other nations' topic such as South Korea or Mongolia can trace its historical polities back to the Gojoseon or Mongol empire even Xiongnu (notwithstanding that the actual political or ethinical relations between these hisorical polities with modern states are also skeptical), so is the case for Taiwan. Sheherherhers (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should change the name of the article from "Taiwan" to "Republic of China" to keep them as they are, but I don't think this is a good idea. Italinoa (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwanese passport If we accept the name of this article as "Taiwan", it proves that this article equates the Republic of China with the island of Taiwan, this equating is very common all over the world and especially in Taiwan itself. Even the information box in this article shows that the people of the Republic of China are "Taiwanese" and not "Chinese" or both. Today no one in Taiwan, including the Kuomintang (de facto), thinks that the ROC represents all of China, Taiwanese agree that the ROC as a sovereign country is Taiwan. Ma Ying-jeou once said: "Taiwan is our homeland and our country, the official name is the Republic of China, but the common name is of course Taiwan". He gave an example: "When a foreign person ask where you are from, he will say: I'm from the Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan; or I'm from Taiwan officially known as the Republic of China, this is very common". I heard that in 2020 Taiwan decided to drastically enlarge the size of the word "Taiwan" in English on the front cover of its passport while drastically reducing the prominence of the name "Republic of China" in English. Italinoa (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The best way I can conceptualize it, as I've articulated here before, is there's a presently a basic conflation between geography, political organization, and nationhood we simply have to accept and work with on Wikipedia, since it's so fundamental to how we organize the world. Thus, our "country" articles are simultaneously the "home base" for both the history of the region now controlled by the state representing the "country" as well as for description of the nation-state itself. So, I see Taiwan as among the most counterintuitive cases, where it's the article for the history of geographical Taiwan as an island, but also the entire history of the Republic of China. (I'm currently struggling over at Republic of China (1912–1949) to clearly state my opinion that it must be considered a subpage of this article in a sense, as odd as the result is) Remsense ‥ 论12:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My kneejerk argument against that is geographical: that would seem arbitrary given islands are pretty discrete, and splitting the pre-1950 history of a peninsula in half is both pointless and impossible. Remsense ‥ 论13:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should just point out the history of the Korean Peninsula from August 15, 1948, right? In fact, the constitution of the Republic of China declares the ROC as the sole representative of China, the constitution of the People's Republic of China also supports "One China". Italinoa (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out the complexity and contradiction here. Because you emphasize South Korea as a political entity, I said so. In fact both North and South Korea do not have jurisdiction over the entire peninsula, they even have different names in Korean (short names I mean). It's just that in the constitutions both are still in a legal dispute over ownership of the peninsula, but in reality they're still two sovereign countries, you know. If we assume one of them amends constitution, what do they have in common? If we exclude the legal issue, the only connection is that both countries share the same ethnicity, but don't China and Taiwan also have Han Chinese as their main ethnic group? And as I said, look at their constitution. Just thinking about the issue we're discussing makes my head spin. Italinoa (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The infoboxes of both Korea articles are indeed overburdened, but the sovereignty section of the infobox is not a geographical one, it is explicitly political. It is about the creation and succession of the polity in question. CMD (talk) 13:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, this article is a bit fuzzier than most, but all country articles are fuzzy for the reasons you mention. It could be worse, we could be editing articles on electoral districts. CMD (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Different issue, and with that, I oppose any attempt to add geographical information to its article, assuming silence means opposition to any suggested addition. Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not different, doesn't Britain occupy most of UK territory? It is also very commonly used, even by your state agencies. This is an article that combines both politics and geography, otherwise why not introduce the history of all of China or just the Republic of China as a regime? Perhaps all articles about other sovereign countries should also adhere to the standard you state. Italinoa (talk) 15:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should remove the timeline when Taiwan became part of the ROC to make the event section most summary and suitable for the regime! Italinoa (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale..svg){kind=small}
.svg)
.svg)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Remsense ‥ 论 14:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
_PASSPORT_2020.png)