Talk:Political status of Taiwan

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ROC Examination Yuan Seal.svg

Google Search-People also ask Is Taiwan its own independent country?
When you search "Taiwan" on google. A "People also ask" section comes up of which one of the question is: "Is Taiwan its own independent country?"

The quoted answer from Wikipedia is the following: '''Taiwan as a de facto separate self-governing entity. Become part of China as a province or special administrative region of the PRC under the one country, two systems framework (like Hong Kong and Macau).'''

This is totally misleading as the section highlighted above is #2 & #3 of the below excerpt.

The basic issue hinges on who the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu should be administered by. The main options include: 1.Maintain the current ROC/PRC (Taiwan/Mainland) status quo. 2.Taiwan as a de facto separate self-governing entity. 3.Become part of China as a province or special administrative region of the PRC under the one country, two systems framework (like Hong Kong and Macau). 4.Formally abolish the ROC and establish a de jure independent Taiwanese state. 5.Unify with mainland China under the Government of the ROC (zh). 6.Annexed under the Government of the PRC.

By deliberately using wiki as a source and then quoting it out of context to mislead the public is truly reprehensible. 216.180.76.92 (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

History section should discuss Chinese Civil War
The history section currently skips over 1949. Since that's the central historical background for this article, it should have a summary of how Chiang Kai-shek came to Taiwan. And a one-sentence version should probably also appear in the first paragraph, describing the current status quo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreadengineer (talk • contribs) 05:55, 6 July 2023 (edit) (UTC)


 * I agree that the history section needs a lot of work, and there’s no good reason why it should start in the middle of the 20th century. It should start at the beginning of recorded history, while focusing on the island’s political status rather than its history more generally.  Here is an interesting source I found: van der Wees, Gerrit.  “When Taiwan was China’s (for seven years)”, Taipei Times (27 Feb 2018). I’m curious if people think this is accurate.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Anythingyouwant This article illustrates how unhelpful it is to list a range of years during which taiwan is independent from external powers as such a statement would necessarily require numerous qualifiers based on multiple competing views defining independence in different ways. This article uses a definition of belonging to China that I have not seen in any other comment, user, or academic source. The China here mentioned is the Qing dynasty but Taiwan only belonged to it during the 7 years when it was officially made into a province despite Taiwan's status as a prefecture of Fujian for the previous nearly 200 years. It contradicts its title in the body saying eight years rather than seven. It uses neither the territorial limit argument or mentions the RoC in its analysis. The deciding factor separating belonging and not belonging to China being the Qing dynasty's declaration that it was a province. Many other users in the Taiwan talk section have already voiced their concerns and I reiterate the position that the inclusion of a year range on Taiwanese independence pre 20th century is both unwieldly and unnecessary. When there are multiple competing views, no clear definiton, and no clear benefit on its inclusion, then I question why you still persist especially with a sourcr such as this. No offense, but at some point this discussion looks something like trolling rather than trying to be helpful. Qiushufang (talk) 20:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I do take offense at that. Nothing in my comment above (the one you were responding to) remotely warrants an accusation of trolling.  If you would like to make further statements of this nature, please do so at my user talk page rather than here.  As for the approach taken by the linked article, I took no position about it at all in my comment above, and I thank you for your opinion about it. I do intend to expand the history section of the present article, the intention to do so does not imply any trolling, or even any intent to do anything more than expand it.  Once it is expanded, then it may be appropriate to summarize it in some way for the lead of this article, and I am not committed to any particular type of summary.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like trolling because both the initial approach you have taken changing Qing rule to mainland China as well as subsequent arguments and sources provided such as this indicate an underlying lack of knowledge on the subject. Despite multiple users voicing their concerns on your approach and proposals, you continue along the same line of thinking. It might not be trolling, but when multiple questionable behaviors that seem slightly off from the same user manages to elicit dissent from multiple users who frankly have very opposing views, it does seem suspicious. Apologies if that is not the case, but surely you can see why it may seem that way. Qiushufang (talk) 01:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I don’t accept your apology because nothing I have said at this talk page is the slightest bit trollish, and you refuse to take your grievances to user talk where they belong. Moreover, you cite one single edit that I made at another article, and this article talk page is not for discussing such a thing.  The only “line of thinking” that I have taken so far at this article talk page is that the history section should not omit and ignore all history prior to the mid-twentieth century.  If you want to take the opposite position, feel free, but I think it’s absurd.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:32, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You came here to this talk page after reaching a conclusion at Talk:Taiwan, both of which are directly connected topics, so it does not seem inappropriate to address related discussions. I responded to a comment on this talk to which I felt was appropriate regarding the behavior I saw both here and on a previous discussion. I do not wish to engage in this discussion any further so I'll just leave it at that. Qiushufang (talk) 03:03, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"Omission of Taiwan from maps of China" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omission_of_Taiwan_from_maps_of_China&redirect=no Omission of Taiwan from maps of China] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:46, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Minzu, not nation
I don't expect this page to be altered, as it far from neutral. The best I can hope for is placing on record that "the CCP maintained that Taiwan was a separate nation" is misleading. The actual quote from the source is:


 * "between 1928 and 1943 Communist Party leaders consistently recognized the Taiwanese as a distinct “nation” or “nationality” (minzu). The CCP also acknowledged the “national liberation movement” on Japan-occupied Taiwan as the struggle of a “weak and small nationality” that was separate from the Chinese revolution and potentially sovereign."

Minzu are Ethnic minorities in China, like Manchu and Zhang. This CCP claim refers to Taiwanese indigenous peoples. The separate refers to the historical reality of Taiwan under Japanese rule at the time. There is no inconsistency. Travelmite (talk) 03:03, 16 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Looking at the two sources in the article, The Diplomat source is based directly on the Pacific Affairs source, so I'm not sure it has much weight on its own. Reading the Pacific Affairs source, it presents a strong case that the interpretation above that the Taiwanese were referred to like groups in China such as the Manchu and Zhang does not seem right. However, the current simplified presentation in this article could probably used some modification, and I don't see why it is in the lead. CMD (talk) 05:30, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Article title
This article is titled “Political status of Taiwan”. However, it seems from the lead that the intended scope or focus is the political status since WWII. So maybe we should move the article to Political status of Taiwan after the Second World War. Or maybe Current political status of Taiwan. &#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Done.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I have reverted, the current debate is by far the primary topic for any discussion of Taiwan's political status. CMD (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course, User:Chipmunkdavis. Adding "Since World War II" to the title excluded pre-World-War-II stuff. Since you removed it, we are now back to including Taiwan's political status at any time whatsoever.  At the start of this talk page section, I suggested two ways to narrow the scope so that the title no longer covers anytime whatsoever.  You apparently prefer the latter way, so I will implement it.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the article should be at the current title per WP:AT. CMD (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:AT, “Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.” The topical scope of this article does not seem to include the political status of Taiwan during the various dynasties, but the present title (“Political status of Taiwan”) does include that stuff.  This violates WP:AT.  We should have a more precise title.  The “Taiwan question” mentioned in the opening paragraph has been long-running, but it did not exist before the end of WWII.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is simply not how our article title policy works, titles are not meant to specifically scope pages within the entirety of human history. CMD (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A discussion about a title change for an article requires more than one participant over a couple of days. Think of starting a full RM discussion here. Liz Read! Talk! 07:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * This issue could be resolved simply by naming "Republic of China" instead of Taiwan, but the community preferred to use the common name in more like a political bias rather than Wikipedia policies and gudelines, leading in this kind of discussions. I don't believe "After the WWII" could be necessary, as we assume the recognition of the RoC goes between the recognition of the RPC, which is general knowledge. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Changing “Taiwan” to “Republic of China” in the title probably wouldn’t help much, because the ROC existed for several decades before the Taiwan question arose in the wake of WW2, see Republic of China (1912–1949). I’ll think about starting a full RM discussion if & when I have time, to get a more precise article title that does not cover the whole history of Taiwan but instead only covers the dispute described in the opening paragraph.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)