From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Demonym

While Taiwanese is the common demonym in the infobox, the Constitution of the Republic of China articles 26, 64, 91, 141, 151 and 167 officially states that the people living in Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu are officially Chinese citizens despite a bunch of people Kinmen and Matsu misidentified as Taiwanese by the media. Let me know what you think.

TLDR: Kinmen ≠ Taiwanese Silence of Lambs ( talk) 16:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Unless you also want to say that inhabitants of Isla de la Juventud are not Cuban, then this idea can be rejected as simply ridiculous. -- User:Khajidha ( talk) ( contributions) 17:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Strong disagree. The ROC Constitution is not a reliable source; various recent sources characterize Kinmen and Matsu as Taiwanese islands or Taiwan islands, further solidifying the usage in English of “Taiwan” as the common name for the ROC. This is consistent with the existing consensus. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 18:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Taiwanese as nationality but note that they may identify under other names as well. Chinese would be an alternative ethnic name. CurryCity ( talk) 23:05, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply
I would note that the demonym specifically refers to what is used to denote inhabitants of a particular place (i.e., not explicitly related to ethnicity). For example, the United States’ demonym is simply American, not the various different ethnicities Americans may identify as. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 23:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Aye, as far as I'm aware Han waishengren and benshengren are both constituents of "Han Taiwanese". Remsense 诉 23:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply
They might not live on Taiwan but are also legally considered part of the "Taiwan Area". The Taiwan Area is defined as " Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, and any other area under the effective control of the Government." Eclipsed830 ( talk) 17:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply
Disagree. Your argument makes no sense at all, how come we should exclude the outlying islands that are not geographically located in Taiwan and making a separate demonym for their inhabitants? Hawaii is not geographically in America, and that’s technically wrong to refer them as “Americans”, so do we call a separate demonym for Hawaiians? Ryukyu islands are also not geographically attached to the mainland Japan and some of Ryukyu people don’t even consider themselves “Japanese”, the Northern Ireland is also not geographically a part of Great Britain, and identify themselves as Irish instead of “British”. According to your perspective, do we also have to distinguish them from other parts of those countries and create a separate demonym for them? Gogoropath ( talk) 06:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Qing dynasty

In the article at the beginning it says that the Qing Dynasty was overthrown in 1911, which is wrong because the Qing Dynasty was only overthrown on February 12, 1912. Kilouser ( talk) 13:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed. This was updated. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 19:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

"Current ROC territorial claims" vs. "historical ROC territorial claims"

Wanted to discuss the recent edit in the infobox to replace the historical ROC claim (including present-day PRC and Mongolia) with a "current claim" including PRC territories. I think this is a misleading label since Taiwan/ROC has not actively claimed the whole of PRC-controlled areas since at least 1991; the claiming of actual territory is nominal and more accurately described as "historical."

Further, is there a source that outlines any active claims by the Taiwanese government which includes actual territorial borders, etc.? Or is the area simply derived from the historical claim of being the legitimate government of China in competition with the PRC (thus taking PRC-controlled territory as claimed by the ROC)? As recent as 2021, government publications show territorial claims included only Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, and islands in the South China Sea (some administered by the PRC). Butterdiplomat ( talk) 19:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Per Two Chinas, Taiwan "still opposes treating the People's Republic of China (PRC) as a legitimate state", and only acknowledges that the PRC "controls" mainland China without stating if that control is legitimate. Treating it as a separate state would be a de facto endorsement of Taiwanese independence, hence it is also mentioned that "Since then [1991], the ROC has neither actively asserted these claims nor denied them." Leadership has taken slightly different positions over the years, however, with former President Chen Shui-bian stating "with Taiwan and China on each side of the Taiwan Strait, each side is a country", and former President Ma Ying-jeou stating that relations between the PRC and Taiwan are a "special relationship" not between two Chinas/states but between two regions of one country. HapHaxion ( talk / contribs) 19:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I think Two Chinas might either be dated or wrong then. The current situation appears to be that Taiwan supports treating the People's Republic of China (PRC) as a legitimate state... Its the PRC which opposes Taiwan treating the People's Republic of China (PRC) as a legitimate state. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think "current claim" is inappropriate since Taiwan/ROC has not actively claimed mainland China for a long time. This source mentions "Although the ROC dropped its claim to the mainland and has been open to dual recognition since 1991..." [1]-- 2601:44:8902:4800:AEE5:C5C3:796:F0C5 ( talk) 03:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

What is the difference between active claim and current claim? The ROC claimed that mainland China is part of their state. Unless they renounce the claim, it remains a current claim. If they want to renounce it, we can report that, but they haven't done so. TFD ( talk) 03:39, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It would stop being both a current claim and an active if they stopped making it (which they appear to have done either in the 90s or early 2000s). If the last time the claim was made was decades ago then it is no longer current or active, even if it hasn't been renounced its now a historical claim. Sources can't speak to the future, thats just not possible... If the source says something is true in 2001 then we write "in 2001..." we can't assume that it remained true after 2001. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I concur with the above comment that there is no such thing as “current territorial claim” over mainland China by the ROC when both versions were arguably “historical claims” whether it is with or without Mongolia. The fact is different from what many people believe, the ROC constitution never defined specific territorial boundaries, only stated at Article 4 (Territory):
“The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly.”
The current ROC authority is no longer pursuing the One China policy nor the so-called “1992 consensus” which may regards itself as “legitimate China”, and the mainland territory has no longer published in the ROC yearbook by the central government since 2005, before that the “Mainland” defined by the KMT does not only encompass present-day PRC or Mongolia, but also parts of Russia, Tajikistan, Burma and India etc… including many territories that the ROC has never controlled in its history, but it is oddly acknowledged by many people such territorial claims are defined by law when there is actually none…
My suggestion is to remove the historical-claimed map from the infobox temporarily while the controversy of its legality or validity has not been addressed with sufficient evidence to support the territorial claims. If the source of the dispute material is not well referenced, we should not place it in the article. Gogoropath ( talk) 17:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There is no map in the infobox. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Maybe this is a mobile vs desktop thing but I see maps in the infobox Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I mean the country template. Gogoropath ( talk) 17:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Radio buttons, is why I did not see it. Seems to be that this is what, historically) the ROC claimed. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The argument between the ongoing edit war is that someone asserted the map without Mongolia is the so-called “current territorial claims” , I’m just pointing out how it is not standing when there is no evidence of the current government pursuing the claims, nor does its constitution. Gogoropath ( talk) 17:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Not persuing and not having are not the same thing. But see below. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Are there any sources for the claim the ROC has renou7ced its claims, not no loner makes them, actually renounced them? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Thats what Gogoropath was talking about when they mentioned the changing the maps in the yearbook in 2005. The yearbook is the official yearly report on what the ROC is and does, a change in the yearbook reflects formal changes and is equivalent to an official announcement. You don't have to announce that you are renouncing your old views, you just have to announce that you have new views. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
OK so an official map does not match ours, then we should change it to reflect the new situation. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Is there a link to it? Slatersteven ( talk) 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The official maps (examples [2] [3]) match for the most part our first map but not the second because those claims are historical not contemporary. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Are these maps of the ROC or the Island of Twaine, I am having trouble verifying the former. Slatersteven ( talk) 18:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't see any maps which just have the island of Taiwan on them. Could you clarify which you're looking at? A good rule of thumb is that if Kinmen is on the map then its a map of the ROC not a map of the island of Taiwan or Taiwan as a historical entity. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
@ Slatersteven: Has my reply satisfied your curiosity or are there really maps of only the island somewhere in what I sent? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The official website of Executive Yuan (executive branch of the ROC central government ) published its introducing chapter on land defining the Taiwan Area only. [4] Unfortunately I cannot find the English version of the chapter, but it more and less reflects the current governmental position on this subject, with a detailed map attached. Gogoropath ( talk) 18:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
"moved to Taiwan and administered the island of Taiwan and its affiliated islands, Penghu Islands, Kinmen Islands, Matsu Islands, Dongsha Islands, Zhongsha Islands, Nansha Islands and other places, effectively governingBold textSmall text the land area. 36,197.067 square kilometers." (my Emphasis), this just say they administer it, not that they do not claim the rest of China (indeed the wording implies they have not, as this only reflects what they can (not should) administer). All of this tells me this is just politicians doing politics, and not saying the quite part out loud. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:29, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There is no statue of limitation that says the government of the Republic of China does not claim to be the government of China. There are examples of modern states renouncing claims. Under the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany(1990), the Federal Republic of Germany renounced its claim to Polish territories and amended its constitution. Under the Good Friday Agreement (1998), the government Republic of Ireland renounced its claim to Northern Ireland and amended its constitution.
Of course in both cases, West Germany and Ireland had long ceased to actively pursue their claims and had established diplomatic relations with the other side. That apparently is similar to where Taiwan is not. The article should not pretend that these claims have been renounced.
TFD ( talk) 18:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I think you have it backwards, the problem isn't that the article pretends that the claims have been renounced the problem is that the article pretends that the claims are current. We don't have support for either claim so we shouldn't be making either of them. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 18:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I don’t deny that the historical claims may have existed and published as official documents in historical matters, but what we are talking about is that neither of the two versions of maps are the “current one”, and the editor tried to change the map as he considered the one without Mongolia should be regarded as the official position of the “current territorial claim”. If we’d like to define what the “current position” of the government is, it should give the evidence to clarify the validity of the map, otherwise it would be a meaningless argument hanging with different interpretations, before the actual result is addressed by the reliable source, those territorial-claimed map should be removed from the table before a better reference can support it. Gogoropath ( talk) 19:02, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
As I said, historical claims remain current until renounced. Obviously, the ROC is not currently pursuing them, just as West Germany and Ireland stopped pursuing their claims years before they formally renounced them. The ROC has never renounced its claim to all of China, including Outer Mongolia.
Unofficially, supporters of the current regime in Taipei argue that Taiwan was never part of China and they are a separate people with a right to self-determination. However, they have not declared independence, let alone had it receive international recognition. De jure it remains part of China and the dispute with the PRC is which is the legitimate government, the one in Tapei or the one in Beijing. TFD ( talk) 19:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I concured that the ROC itself can be defined as an ethinic Chinese state, but this does not make Taiwan/ROC less to be its own sovereign country. The cross-strait relations are basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China" as you said, so it's in fact more similar to the current situation of Two Koreas, in which both Koreas are regarded as "countries" as well, and simultaneously they have been claiming the legitimacy over entire Korean peninsula in their respective constitution that is similar to the cross-strait relations. This circumstance would not affect the way we have viewed them as two sovereign countries exercise sovereignty in their each actual-controlled territories, rather than seeing them as “One Korea” with two governments. Even in Chinese language Wikipedia, the main article of Taiwan also describes in the first sentence as 中華民國是位於東亞的民主共和國 ("The ROC is a republic and democratic country located in East Asia").
More specifically, I’m not arguing that Taiwan ever claims their own independent sovereignty or not, just what the current “Mainland” actually is specified by the current government. As I repeatedly stated that the claimed maps are not well referenced in any reliable source and more likely a vague concept than an actual thing or legal definition. Gogoropath ( talk) 20:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I wouldn't assume that the Chinese Wikipedia is an unbiased source. Anyway the discussion in this thread is about the ROC government's claims to territory they don't control. My objection to calling Taiwan a country is that it is ambiguous. For example, Northern Ireland is a country that is part of two other countries: the UK and Ireland. But all three can only be true because each uses a different definition of country. Terms should not be used where they are likely to convey incorrect information to readers. TFD ( talk) 03:18, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
To be clear, this is not a discussion of whether or not to call Taiwan a country. That was already settled in the previous consensus and is not relevant to the specific topic of this discussion (ROC territorial claim). Butterdiplomat ( talk) 03:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
That's why I wrote, "Anyway the discussion in this thread is about the ROC government's claims to territory they don't control." TFD ( talk) 03:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
TFD, with respect, I disagree with the two concepts you’re introducing here:
(1) the ROC not renouncing a historical claim does not make it a current claim, especially when the territories claimed are not clearly defined in map form; and
(2) the current regime (ROC) not declaring independence from China is a confusing statement, because (i) it did in fact have a defined date of establishment, and (ii) it does not claim to be part of China (rather, historically, the legitimate government of China).
Whether or not a formal Republic of Taiwan is declared has no bearing on the fact that Taiwan is the common name for the ROC, and that Taiwan/ROC is factually not part of the PRC. The Taiwan/ROC and China/PRC classification has been clear to most editors here, and there is no need to create confusion in this discussion on whether the ROC territorial claims as mapped out should be characterized as historical or current (and actual territories). Butterdiplomat ( talk) 03:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

How does an historical claim become non-current without being renounced? I know that if you fail to exercise control over land that a squatter may obtain legal possession and you forfeit your claim. That's determined by equity (laches) and statute (limitations). What is the law under which Taiwan forfeited their claim to mainland China? What is the process by which an historical claim becomes non-current and when did it happen in this case? TFD ( talk) 03:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The historical claim was the policy of the ROC government during the KMT one-party rule era, so as the current government has a different diplomatic policy, the historical claim became non-current. The historical claim does not have a strong legal basis. 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 claims. Some people may say that the ROC legally claims the mainland, but it is only the KMT's perspective of the constitution, and the current government does not have the same perspective. See [5] 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.-- 2601:44:8902:4800:DFF:C18E:19A:CC7A ( talk) 04:56, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It becomes non-current with the passage of time (by definition) and with the changing of administrations/policy. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 05:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
In order to renounce a claim, once would expect an executive order, legislation or constitutional amendment, none of which has happened. Political statements do not count.
I realize that things become non-current with the passage of time. Under the law of laches, property claims become non-current on the twentieth anniversary of the owner failing to exercise control. Under the current UK limitation act, (other jurisdictions may vary) they become non-current after 12 years. At what point in the passage of time did the ROC's claim to China become non-current? TFD ( talk) 05:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Before saying that the renouncement of sovereignty must take legal action, we should set forth that those territorial claims are actually grounded by any legality or validity of constitutional rights. As far as I concerned, those claims are more likely a political statement issued by certain political party in their totalitarian era, rather than defining it by an actual law basis. This is why many people here whom already brought up the issue that the claimed territory is vague and lack of reliable sources to verify the exact extent of those claims. If those claims do not even come with legitimacy basis, how can they pursue to “renounce” them by legal means? Gogoropath ( talk) 06:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
wp:v comes into play, we can verify the ROC made these claims, we can only verify they no longer publically make them, not that they have withdrawn them. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
And in what exact legal ground of these claims clarified its definition to be Mainland China, Mongolia, or other territories that they once asserted to be parts of the ROC territory? If you cannot verify that legal basis, how does that apply to be a factual thing to say the modern government making such claims and even putting it in the contents with no supporting materials? Gogoropath ( talk) 11:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Legality of the claim is irrelevant, RS say they claimed this, no RS has said they have stopped, thus we say they still claim it. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
This doesn’t explain my question about the territorial claims lacking of legality. As some supporting commentators said that these claims are based on de jure basis, means that they must appear somewhere in law and can safely identify the claims in exact terms. And you’re telling me territorial claims are not relevant for legality? that’s quite contradictory to what they said in previous posts about it. Gogoropath ( talk) 12:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There are two questions, though:
(1) Is the territorial claim current? No one is arguing that it did not exist historically, so the question really is whether it can be considered current. There is no reliable source that says it is a active and current claim, and the absence of sources that said Taiwan had renounced the historical claim shouldn’t be the basis of including the map, in my opinion. Like others have mentioned, the passage of time, publication of a clear ROC map excluding any “mainland” areas, and several political transitions in the past 2+ decades make the politically charged claim one that should be heavily caveated if not excluded here.
(2) What exactly are the territories being claimed? The original version included territories administered by present-day PRC and Mongolia, as historically claimed by the ROC (and published in official maps). There have been no maps published that included only areas administered by the PRC, and no definition of borders or lands that would be considered part of the claim. So it seems odd for us to simply take territories currently administered by the PRC only and claim that this is what the ROC currently claims. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 12:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
They might not acknowledge that “the Mainland” map once published by the KMT-dominated ROC government in the past does not only asserted claims over present-day PRC, or Mongolia, but also parts of Russia, Tajikistan, Burma and India etc… including many territories that the ROC has never controlled in its history, but it is oddly acknowledged by many people such territorial claims are defined by law when there is actually none… Gogoropath ( talk) 12:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Also if RS say that is their claim, we assume the RS have reason to say it. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:01, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Also read our article, the clue to your answer is there. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
that’s why I suggested that we should remove the dispute claimed map temporarily before finding sufficient R/S to evidence those claims. Gogoropath ( talk) 12:07, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
We already have them, in the article. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:09, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The article calls this claim historical, if I’m reading the right part (section on political and legal status). Butterdiplomat ( talk) 12:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No the article says " It has not formally renounced its claim to the mainland, but ROC government publications have increasingly downplayed this historical claim", this is sourced. Slatersteven ( talk) 12:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Read the second to last word in that sentence. It has not formally renounced the historical claim. Why are we adding “current” to the label when it is clearly being disputed in this discussion? In my view, a “historical ROC claim” is accurate, a “ROC claim” footnoted with heavy caveats and contexts can be a viable alt; but adding “current” to it is a editorial claim until it can be backed up by RS. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 12:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
That is an own goal of epic proportions... Yes, these are historical claims not current ones... Formal renunciation is not required for the claims to become historical. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
"historical claims remain current until renounced." not while WP:OR is policy they don't... Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 15:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Unless the ROC has officially renounced these territorial claims I support including info on them. Ceasing to actively push for their inclusion politically is not the same as renouncing claims. Obviously the elephant, or the common belief/argument, is that Taiwan only keeps these claims due to the threat from PRC, but political climate changes depending on which political party is in power as well as other circumstances. The logic of removing the claims as info, whether pictoral or textual, due to them no longer being pressed or diminished is essentially the same as removing the name "Republic of China" from the lead or infobox. The name has been marginalized and no longer actively promoted under the Tsai and DPP administration. The name in English is no longer on current passports. It is clearly no longer the preferred name or supported among a significant portion of the population, but it does not follow that the name should therefore be removed until it actually is. Hence I don't support removing the info on claims of mainland China until they have been officially renounced if that ever occurs. Qiushufang ( talk) 12:23, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
you’re taking the issue too far… renouncing the name of the nation is not quite the same as territorial claims.And I don’t deny the modern ROC inherited from Republican regime established in China and the continuity of its sovereignty in historical essence.
Repeating my previous comment, I don’t deny that the historical claims may existed and published as official documents in historical matters, but what we are talking about is that neither of the two versions of maps are the “current defined-territorial claims”, and the whole issue was started from an editor who tried to change the map as he considered the one without Mongolia should be regarded as the official position of the “current territorial claim” by the ROC. If we’d like to define what the “current position” of the government is, it should give the evidence to clarify the validity of these maps, otherwise it would be a meaningless argument hanging with different interpretations, before the actual result is addressed by the reliable source, those territorial-claimed maps are not more than a POV depictions. Gogoropath ( talk) 12:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The territorial-claimed maps are still used by official ROC government structures in emblems such as [6] [7]. Qiushufang ( talk) 23:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Emblems are not claims, though historical claims may inform the design of emblems, sure. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 23:53, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I understand your viewpoint and agree that it is important to include the ROC reference, but we are not proposing the exclusion of the ROC from the article. We are trying to figure out how to best contextualize the historical ROC claim in map/pictorial form. Again, I think the addition of the word “current” is misleading and not backed by RS at this point, and the theory of “not officially renouncing = current” is arguably original research and speculation at this point.
Then there is the question of, even if we agree the claims are current (not yet agreed), what territories to include. As mentioned, official maps have not included any “mainland” areas in recent (read: current) years. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 12:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Disagree. Unless a reliable source describes the subject using historical or current or similar wording, then it is original research. Whether it's wording or removal, the application to territorial claims which are not explicitly stated or confirmed bear the same application to the ROC as a name. There's also no need to put "mainland" in quotes, this is the terminology the ROC uses as well, per link in below comment by the IP. Qiushufang ( talk) 23:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The ROC is not considered a reliable source, and your opinion of how I should be punctuating things in this discussion has no bearing on the article itself. A claim that was made in the 1940s can indeed be characterized as historical without being original research. You have not yet addressed the problem of actual territorial borders. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 23:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
A claim made in the 1940s which has not been repudiated, renounced, or been expounded on while its origin continues to use insignias and emblems which support the claim is at the very least, a real claim which exists and can be verified via sources. Whether or not it is historical or current needs to be backed up by WP:RS and I fundamentally disagree that any decision either or should be made regarding that adjective without that source. Basing an editing decision on no source at all is WP:OR without doubt, which makes this conversation moot, as it is based on nothing at all. Qiushufang ( talk) 00:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The “historical” wording was used in the stable version, just so you know, and it is factually accurate. So, arguably the onus is at least equally on you to provide actual sources that support otherwise, or provide the rationale that it is problematic. Emblems are artworks and do not take priority over official maps that have consistently shown the way-more-current territorial claims.
I will continue to maintain that a 1940s claim (based on an official map) that has since been replaced by publications of contradictory official maps can be characterized as historical. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 01:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I disagree with the use of "current" as well. Qiushufang ( talk) 01:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There are plenty of reliable sources about the current policy of ROC, which says the status quo is that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are not subordinate to each other. [8] This position is contradictory to some people's perspective that the status quo is the ROC government continue claiming mainland China until an official renouncement.-- 2601:44:8902:4800:FD9D:3809:2FA2:7999 ( talk) 14:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Two sides not being subordinate to each other is not the same as a statement on territorial claims. Your link contains neither a statement of renouncement in claims or a statement on the nature of territory, whether historical, current, or other. Qiushufang ( talk) 23:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It is an obvious contradiction, if Taiwan truly still claims the mainland, it would say "the mainland should be part of us" instead of saying "the mainland should not be subordinate to us" [9], just like Ukraine would not say Crimea should not be subordinate to Ukraine. -- 2601:44:8902:4800:FD9D:3809:2FA2:7999 ( talk) 18:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.197.161.48 ( talk) reply
I just wanted to add one more point: Taiwan being the common name of the ROC is not just some unilateral prerogative of the DPP or Tsai administration, but the reflection of how the outside world actively understands and describes the current situation per WP:RS. So, the usage of Taiwan here on English Wikipedia isn’t tied to ROC administration or policy. I.e., editors did not decide to move the page because the government decided to change the passport cover, though the policy worked out to be consistent with how the outside world generally perceived Taiwan/ROC.
Similarly, the observable fact is that Taiwan isn’t actively maintaining the historical territorial claim, even if policy may evolve and change. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 15:25, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Essentially the ROC is saying that the mainland is under the effective control of the PRC. That is an "objective truth." That does not mean it no longer claims the mainland. Crimea is under the effective control of Russia. That is an objective truth. That does not mean that Ukraine has renounced its claim.
Military occupation is a status understood in international law. A power may accept that part of its territory is occupied without recognizing its legitimacy. TFD ( talk) 16:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
You still have not made an argument for why “current” (or ongoing) is a better description than “historical.” It takes a bit of logical extension and rationalization to get to your conclusion, while “historical” is well-sourced and less ambiguous. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 16:39, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
I have made an argument why describing the claim as "historical" is ambiguous. It could mean either (a) was made in the past and continues to this day or (b) was made in the past and has now ended. As a compromise, I suggest we not use either historically or currently and just say that the ROC lays claim to mainland China. TFD ( talk) 17:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It is ambiguous, and that is at the core of the claim itself, especially currently. Further, simply omitting the word “current” does not address the second point mentioned above, relating to the actual territorial boundaries. The historical claim was clearly defined in map form, but that map has not been published in decades. In fact, it has been replaced with official maps that do not include any part of “mainland” China. Claims that are represented in map or pictorial form have all been unambiguously historical and non-current. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 17:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Providing a map as evidence that a claim has been abandoned is original research. You need a reliable secondary source that has provided this interpretation.
Incidentally, I think that both historical and current should be avoided. The ROC claims jurisdiction over mainland China and Outer Mongolia. It's historic in the sense in was made in the past and also current in the sense that the claim has not been abandoned.
Let's state the facts and not pretend Taiwan has abandoned its claim. All we can honestly say is that they are not actively pursuing it. IOW, they are not currently at war with China. TFD ( talk) 20:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The claim over “China” as a concept is both historical and not yet renounced formally, and I can grant you this position is valid even if the currentness of this claim is very much in dispute. However, the actual boundaries of any claim was historically the PRC- and Mongolia-controlled areas (plus some other territories) relied on a map, and any recent maps published by the ROC have not included those territories.
Not sure if even relevant to this discussion, but since you brought it up: There is a clear distinction between any ROC nominal “claim” over PRC territories vs. the PRC active claim over ROC territories. To present them as equivalent or reciprocal is not stating the facts. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It claimed mainland in the past under the KMT, and that appears to be legitimate and recognized by most other nations. Part of the issue is what language to use, whether we say the claim has stopped, been renounced, or not mention the current situation at all. Renouncing it would probably mean a constitutional referendum. The other part is the politics, the KMT or some other pan-China party could gain support again, whether that's likely or not. CurryCity ( talk) 18:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree, and I think the best language to use is “historical ROC territorial claims” in line with what has been published in map form. What the KMT or another party may do in the future doesn’t affect what is factual today, so we can wait to characterize any such claim as current or ongoing. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 19:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
As I mentioned above, "historical" could mean they no longer claim mainland China. There is no reason why the text should be ambiguous. TFD ( talk) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Sure, it could mean that, which is consistent with the actual situation. Adding “current” is forcing a clarity that doesn’t exist. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 20:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply
No KMT government has claimed China since at least the 1980s... That doesn't appear to be a position that the modern KMT holds any more than the modern DPP does. I don't see how in a democratic system thats something the KMT ever picks up again. Military conquest of the PRC is no longer on the pan-blue ("pan-China") slate, either of the KMT or any other party. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The idea of Taiwan conquering China is just delusional.-- User:Khajidha ( talk) ( contributions) 20:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
It is clear that there is no political support for pursuing Taiwanese sovereignty over PRC-controlled territories, both in terms of party platforms and in recent policy. One can argue that the ROC still nominally claims to be the legitimate government of an ambiguous "China" (a position supported by some in the KMT), but any map that shows PRC- or PRC- plus Mongolia-controlled areas as claimed by the ROC is historical. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 23:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply
There should be some map indication of the de jure mainland territory of the ROC, beyond the free area of Taiwan and smaller islands. CurryCity ( talk) 20:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
Should this theoretical map indication include the historical map (including present-day PRC and Mongolia)? Or should it be present-day PRC-controlled and claimed areas? It is hard to determine when this historical claim is ambiguous. FWIW, the Chinese Wikipedia for 中華民國 (ROC) does not include this “claimed territories” map in the infobox. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 03:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
The claims to the mainland aren't de jure they're de facto, they are not enshrined in Taiwanese law and the Taiwanese supreme court ruled that the question is a political one not a legal one and therefore outside of the court's jurisdiction (legally there is no claim). Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
If the territory is or was not "legal", why did they fight a civil war against the CCP then? CurryCity ( talk) 23:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The civil war ended in 1949, the Supreme Court made that ruling in the 1990s building on a ruling made in the 1980s... It is currently 2024. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 02:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
So it was legal but now no longer is? CurryCity ( talk) 02:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This is where we get into legalese... It was believed to be legal, but it never actually was. You have to understand that the early ROC on Taiwan was a dictatorship which didn't follow its own laws so what was "legal" in that era is a bit of a mess. But yes, in layman's terms it was legal but is no longer. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
In here out of the blue.... Taiwan government maps are designed for a claim to an economic zone [10]. No change in political position. Moxy🍁 01:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
That is a map of their exclusive economic zone... I don't know how you make a claim about your exclusive economic zone without also making a claim about your sovereign territory. I don't actually think its possible. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 02:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
They simply claiming the islands for economic zones...... this is unrelated to claims on the mainland. They don't dispute their own sovereignty. Moxy🍁 02:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
An EEZ is not an economic zone... It is a political zone in which a sovereign coastal state enjoys exclusive economic privileges. The question isn't whether they dispute their own sovereignty its whether they dispute the PRC's and the EEZ map proves they don't. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 02:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This government map [11] is not about an economic zone, it includes multiple islands currently under control of the PRC, Japan... etc, but doesn't include mainland china. The text below says "the Diaoyutai Islands, which lie northeast of Taiwan, and a number of islands in the South China Sea, including those in the Dongsha, Nansha (Spratly), Xisha (Paracel) and Zhongsha (Macclesfield Bank) islands, are also part of the territory of the ROC." while it doesn't mention mainland china. Diaoyutai is controlled by japan. Xisha and Zhongsha is controlled by the PRC. Nansha is partially controlled by Brunei, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, and the PRC. -- 108.53.191.58 ( talk) 03:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I don’t think there is a political desire to claim or reclaim the “mainland” in the year 2024, and any statement or map here that represents this claim should be backed up by a clear and reliable source. Any historical claim that includes a historical (and territorially ambiguous) China is by definition historical, and is arguably not meaningful or useful in the infobox. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 13:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I think the option of having a map depicting "lost" mainland territories is helpful information on English Wikipedia, whether the claims are active or historical. CurryCity ( talk) 05:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply
This seems like a moving target. You don’t see Germany depicting a map of Nazi Germany, and you don’t see Japan depicting a map of the Empire of Japan at its territorial peak. Similarly, the territories effectively administered by the ROC prior to its retreat to Taiwan in 1949 are already appropriately housed in the historical Republic of China (1912–1949) article. That map, incidentally, includes territories then claimed but not controlled. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 00:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Nazi Germany and Empire of Japan are easier cases because they have surrendered their war-time territory but ROC has not surrendered to the communists and still exists in a way. If you look at the Free area of the Republic of China, it excludes mainland China, so it seems to be a compromise here that we show both maps in this article but with the territory under ROC control as first choice. CurryCity ( talk) 20:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC) reply
The "free area" is indeed the map that should be included, because that represents the territories currently administered by the ROC and commonly known as Taiwan. I think we are all in agreement of this.
The "claimed territories" map is the one in question. That the ROC still exists does not mean that it continues to claim the large area few of its leaders much less its citizens have visited. The military strategy as well as political support for any form of "retaking the mainland" is minimal today, hence there would be very little meaning in including a historical map. You may be conflating the name ROC and its constitutional concept of an abstract China with the historical (Qing or just early ROC?) China. All sources depicting any current territorial claims line up more with the actual free area (with minimal areas disputed or not actually controlled), and I would be open to including this as a secondary map. But no current maps show the Taiwanese ROC government claiming the PRC or Mongolian/Russian territories.
I would also note the government of the Republic of China (1912–1949) took on different forms in China as the modern ROC government did in Taiwan, during martial law and after, then after numerous administration transitions. That there is a continual Japan whose history included an outsized territorial conquest and claim does not mean that historical map belongs in the main article. Similarly, I would contend that a historical claim by the dictatorial CKS regime does not belong in the main article and is more appropriate in the historical Republic of China (1912–1949) article. Butterdiplomat ( talk) 14:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Country or Chinese Province?

RESET "X DAYS SINCE" SIGN 📆
Read the box at the top of the page, which has a link to the attached discussion where editors decided this. Remsense 诉 20:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

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.


Why does it say that Taiwan is a country? Surely it would say it is neither? Or both? Because it is hotly debated. I will give you a YouTube link to show you what I mean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxKgNv6o9oI 80.4.77.150 ( talk) 16:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Youtube is not an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
I don't know what "RS" means. Point is, is that Taiwan isn't a member of the UN and only 11 countries (plus Holy See) officially recognise it as a country. It would be like saying Abkhazia and South Ossetia are countries. This should go for Palestine, Taiwan, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus, Transnistria, Kosovo, Somaliland and Western Sahara/Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. 80.4.77.150 ( talk) 17:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Reliable source is what RS means, not "some bloke on the internet". And see the talk page archive for every answer to your points. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
If we were being fully neutral we would describe the controversy. However that would be hard to effectively do in a lede. And, regardless of recognition, Taiwan is a de-facto country via its evident autonomy. Barring a compelling reason supported by reliable sources I see no reason to change it. Simonm223 ( talk) 17:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC) reply
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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 April 2024

Change 'Taiwan is a country' to 'Taiwan is province of China'

The above is factually and legally correct according the constitution of Republic of China (Taiwan) and the UN, as per international law People's Republic of China is currently the government of China. It is also state in the People's Republic of China too.

Suggesting Taiwan as a country is dishonesty and false, even as an opinion it's not fact nor changes it's current status under Chinese Sovereignity. 2001:569:7C1E:7900:913F:FDE7:DC6A:CFC6 ( talk) 10:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

 Not done: See the top of this talk page for more info; consensus has decided that Taiwan is a country. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk| contribs) 10:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Taiwan&oldid=1219203977"