Talk:Taiwan/Archive 26

Lead change proposal
Because of various situations with the lead on this article, how about we jazz it up a bit like Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, etc...

If there are any corrections, please discuss. Wrestlingring (talk) 05:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first paragraph, in my opinion, "covers not only the island of Taiwan &hellip;&hellip; with the main island making up 99% of its de facto territory" is inappropriate because that asserts that Taiwan and Penghu are the ROC's territories. Whether or not the ROC has territorial sovereignty over the two islands is disputable. Therefore I suggest that the text only mentions that the ROC is currently administering the two islands without asserting or implying that the two islands belong to the ROC. And the Taiwan, Province of China at the end should link to Taiwan, China. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Taiwan and Penghu and Kinmen and Matsu are the Republic of China's territory (which is equal to the Separate Customs Territory that acceded the WTO), and have been since before the People's Republic of China gained international recognition. —Kusma (t·c) 09:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Taiwan and Penghu are disputed islands. There are reliable sources that consider Taiwan and Penghu to be not the ROC's territories. Therefore Wikipedia articles cannot assert that Taiwan and Penghu are the ROC's territories. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Both the current version: "...limited to Taiwan and its surrounding islands, with the main island making up 99% of its de facto territory
 * and the proposal: "...not only the island of Taiwan but the island groups of Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and its surrounding islands, with the main island making up 99% of its de facto territory"
 * link to Free area of the Republic of China, which is defined as ...a legal and political description referring to the territories under the actual control by the Government of the Republic of China (ROC),[1] consisting of the island groups of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and some minor islands. Are you taking issue with this legal and political description? Phlar (talk) 22:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The "a legal and political description" was just an overstatement. I had corrected it to "a term used by the government of the Republic of China (ROC) to refer to the territories under its actual control". --Matt Smith (talk) 02:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The proposed new intro lines read like Mainland Chinese propaganda. Most countries pretend Taiwan to be a part of China for diplomatic purposes only and have direct relations and de facto embassies, which are direct successors of the de jure embassies they had until the 1970s. Try again. Or don't. —Kusma (t·c) 09:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It does sound like Mainland China propaganda. Removing things like "Taiwan is a state in East Asia. Its neighbors include China (officially the People's Republic of China, PRC) to the west, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south" or "Taiwan is the most populous state and largest economy that is not a member of the United Nations" will pretty much be a non-starter. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:11, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in my opinion. The beginning of the proposal simply explained the fact that "Taiwan" is a disputed entity (although I personally still don't agree with the use of word "state"). The current phrases like "Taiwan is a state in East Asia &hellip;" has been breaching Wikipedia's core content policy WP:NPOV for a long time, and that should not be allowed. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The existing lead is already quite long, and the proposed one is even longer, bloated with repetitious discussion of the status in each of the first three paragraphs. Also, the bolded Taiwan, Province of China in the first paragraph is unjustified.  Kanguole 10:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Phlar (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely not. The article should start with what the topic is, and 99% of the time Taiwan is just a country in Asia. A country you might travel to, where your phone or computer is made, which is sometimes in the news due to politics or weather events. The proposed version also tries to distinguish between Taiwan and the ROC, but they are the same thing, as far as this article is concerned: the country is formally the Republic of China, less formally Taiwan which is its common name and so the title of this article by now long established consensus.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 10:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because a man is being nicknamed as "Superman" does not mean he really is Superman; just because the ROC is being nicknamed as "Taiwan" does not mean it really is Taiwan. "Taiwan" is the island's name, not the ROC's. The ROC is merely being nicknamed as Taiwan. And the reason that the ROC is being nicknamed as Taiwan is that there is One-China policy (so it cannot be referred to as "China") and that the ROC is currently locating on and administering Taiwan. The ROC and Taiwan are not the same thing, strictly speaking. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, this was discussed at great length and the outcome was that Taiwan is it’s common name, and so the right title for this article. You might think of it as a nickname. To the rest of the world it’s the name of the country, the only one most people know.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As you explained, what was discussed is merely the polity's common name (I was referring that as nickname for illustration purpose), not which two entities are the same thing. Anway, asserting that "the ROC and Taiwan are the same thing" is confusing and controversial because the word "Taiwan" is containing at least two different meanings at the moment. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think it works really well the way it is now. Nothing is 100% liked, but it's the best compromise we've had. At times it was "sovereign state", roc, etc... I see no need to go pearl diving again. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree, definitely not. All the points have been explained already, the reason why there are separate articles (Geography of Taiwan, Political status of Taiwan) is to precisely make this less confusing and WP:NPOV. The current lede reflects the longstanding consensus and should not be changed. Alex ShihTalk 23:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please understand that Taiwan's status is disputed and that asserting Taiwan's statehood violates WP:NPOV directly. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To answer two points you have made. Yes, "Taiwan" can mean two things, the Island of Taiwan and the country Taiwan and they are not the same. But this is very common. Many countries have discrepancies between their geographical and legal boundaries. E.g. what most people think of as France is actually Metropolitan France. The country is larger as it includes a number of overseas territories. As with Taiwan these are small and most people who think of France do not think of them. Just as "Taiwan" to most people coincides with the Island of Taiwan.
 * As for Taiwan’s statehood it is a state. That does not require it to be widely recognised; many states are disputed and not fully sovereign. But it is a state, being independent and self-run, able to establish its own relationships, able to obtain limited recognition in international bodies. It is certainly not a sovereign state.
 * Both of these points are covered in some detail in the article. But neither is at odds with the lead, which best summarises the fact that Taiwan is a state in East Asia.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 03:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The two different meanings of "Taiwan" I was referring to are: 1) an island (the island of Taiwan) and, 2) a terminology (the common name of the ROC).
 * The use of "state" in this context still significantly implies statehood because no one would interpret it as "one of the states of a sovereign entity". Therefore it is not neutral enough, in my opinion. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The current article is incorrect. Being the consensus does not make it correct, neither does being the best compromise. The proposed change is worse though, so it should not be used. The best solution is to keep trying to create an article that is correct and also maintains NPOV. That might take a log time and be difficult to achieve, but so be it. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 03:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but I can't take you seriously when you write Taiwan is known for bubble tea. It's like writing Japan is known for porn. Szqecs (talk) 03:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The new proposal definitely sounds like PRC propaganda. It is obvious especially in German Wikipedia that many articles related to Taiwan are being manipulated in favor of the PRC. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht/Anfragen/Auff%C3%A4lliges_L%C3%B6sch-_bzw._Kommentarverhalten_bei_kritischen_Artikeln_%C3%BCber_die_Volksrepublik_China Even small proposed changes should be checked carefully...--Peterpens (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Republic of China (1949–1971)
Since the period of 1949 to 1971 is not appropriate in this article, anyone incl. User:Matt Smith and User:Kanguole could discuss to expand the Republic of China (1949–1971) article. Wrestlingring (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I've tagged the page for deletion and left a note at your talk page. Alex ShihTalk 05:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I wasn't aware that this section of the period between 1949 to 1971 is not appropriate. The ROC became simply known as Taiwan after it lost UN recognition. Plus this article is not content forked but restarted it from scratch. Wrestlingring (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Stop considering additional articles! The Republic of China was founded in 1912. It did not become simply known as Taiwan after losing recognition. Look at the passport. --94.217.100.135 (talk) 14:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160416173855/http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2003-07/21/content_539034.htm to http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2003-07/21/content_539034.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090722095740/http://www.heritage.org/research/asiaandthepacific/bg1272.cfm to http://www.heritage.org/research/asiaandthepacific/bg1272.cfm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150210015656/http://taiwaninfo.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=19343&CtNode=103&htx_TRCategory=&mp=4 to http://taiwaninfo.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=19343&CtNode=103&htx_TRCategory=&mp=4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226030251/http://taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=1465&CtNode=1347 to http://taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=1465&CtNode=1347
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430041754/http://taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=1153&CtNode=128 to http://taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=1153&CtNode=128
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120215062917/http://taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=43967&CtNode=128 to http://taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=43967&CtNode=128

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit Warring
Enough from both of you. Edit warring is against site rules, and you're both making dubious claims in your revert messages to justify your reverts. There appears to be a healthy discussion on this page about this topic already, I advise both of you to refrain from editing this page further until a consensus is reached there. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 02:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Please provide me with a policy-based explanation that I'm making dubious claims in my editing. It's unacceptable to be accused of edit warring simply for undoing others' vandalism of content which is supported by reliable sources. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You said "Removal of sourced contents is not allowed." That's quite obviously not true.  There are many reasons which may justify the removal of sourced content, such as WP:UNDUE. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 03:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. On this matter, you are right. But didn't provide any policy-based reason when he continuously removed the content, which is supported by reliable sources. So would you think it is fine to say that he was disrupting? --Matt Smith (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. He appears to have made the same controversial change 5 times over the past few days, without commenting on the talk page even once. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for help confirm that. I will remember to provide more appropriate edit summaries in the future. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the future, a better approach might be to follow wp:BRD by reverting Lysimachi’s bold edit and continuing the discussion on the talk page. Instead, you took the opportunity to circumvent the ongoing discussion and impose your own preferences. Thank you for returning to the discussion above, although you have not reverted your own bold edit while waiting for the discussion to play out. Phlar (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Remove ROC "continues to view itself as the sole representative of China."
I propose to remove the statement that the ROC "continues to view itself as the sole representative of China." in the political and legal status section, since the current DPP government does not view itself as the sole representative of China.Uaat (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a reliable source on this? Also, the ROC does not consider the PRC a foreign country in legislation. Szqecs (talk) 03:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This article about Tsai's inauguration says that: As the new leader is sworn in, she refuses to embrace the idea that Taiwan and mainland China are part of ‘one China’Uaat (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * How DPP views itself has nothing to do with how the ROC views itself. I oppose the proposal. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The President represent the Republic of China in foreign relations.Uaat (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Event the President is not above the Constitution. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See my reply to Alex Shih belowUaat (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Also in the leading section, is there source the 20 countries that recognize the ROC, all recognize it as the "sole legal representative of China"? Otherwise it should also be removed. Uaat (talk) 02:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The content is supported by a reliable source so it should not be removed. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While St. Lucia recognized ROC in 2007, it did not derecognize the PRC. It was PRC who unilaterally suspend diplomatic relationship with St. Lucia one week later.--Uaat (talk) 05:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not against the content. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is against the content. If St. Lucia didn't derecognise the PRC, it does not recognize ROC as the sole legal representative.Uaat (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Until a constitutional amendment is passed (which has been mentioned but never took place for as long as I can remember due to the potential political repercussions), Chapter 1, Article 4 of the Constitution of 1947 (The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly.) still applies. Alex ShihTalk 06:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In 1993, some legislators think that the "existing boundaries" in Chapter 1, Article 4 of Constitution only includes Taiwan, and doesn't include mainland China. They asked the constitutional court, which is leagally responsible for explaining the constitution, to clarify the meaning of terrirory defined in the constitution. The constitutional court decided that "this is a political problem that should't be explained by the court". Therefore whether ROC has claims on mainland China is under dispute, and should not be stated assertively in the article.Uaat (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really. The Additional Articles of the Constitution had made it clear that the territory of the ROC consists of the "mainland China area" and the "free area". --Matt Smith (talk) 08:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While the Additional Articles of the Constitution uses the terms "free area of the Republic of China" and "mainland area", it does not say that "mainland area" is part of ROC.Uaat (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Article 1 of the Additional Articles also made it clear from the very beginning that "To meet the requisites of national unification, the following additional articles are added to the ROC Constitution&hellip;". The ultimate goal of these Articles is to achieve national unification. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Setting national unification as a goal does not say that the PRC is illegal. For example, West Germany recognized the East germany(Basic_Treaty,_1972), but still sets unification as a goal. Also, please note that the ROC recognizes Mongolia.Uaat (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Under the ROC Constitution, mainland China is part of the territory of the ROC.


 * Since the constitutional court left deliberate ambiguity, the president in office could arbitrary interpret the constitution and not violate it, but doesn't have the legal power to define the meaning of the constitution.Uaat (talk) 01:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyway, the reliable source supports that "Under the ROC Constitution, mainland China is part of the territory of the ROC." If you want to contest it, please provide a reliable source that says something like "Under the ROC Constitution, mainland China is not part of the territory of the ROC." --Matt Smith (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My argument is "Whether mainland China is part of the territory of the ROC is disputed", and I have already provided source for it. I did not say that "Under the ROC Constitution, mainland China is not part of the territory of the ROC." Also, your source could only verify Ma's opinion of the consititution, not the constitution itself. Uaat (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is the article asserting that "mainland China is part of the territory of the ROC"? Also, the source I cited is not a editorial commentary, analysis nor opinion piece and the statement is not contested by other reliable sources, and therefore it is a reliable source for the said statement. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the territory claimed by the ROC constitution remains unchanged. Kanguole 12:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would agree with what is proposing, which addresses the intentional ambiguity from the Supreme Court response. Alex ShihTalk 17:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that this might be a good compromise, but if we simply state that the ROC's claimed territory remains unchanged, this will beg the question, "unchanged from what?" The only way I can think of putting this suggestion into practice is to explicitly state that the ROC claims all of China as its territory. I'll take a stab at it below (I'm including the full paragraph for illustration, although I've only changed the last few words):
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Current text ! Proposed text
 * valign="top" |Political and legal status The political and legal statuses of Taiwan are contentious issues. The People's Republic of China (PRC) claims that the Republic of China government is illegitimate, referring to it as the "Taiwan Authority" even though current ROC territories have never been controlled by the PRC. The ROC has its own constitution, independently elected president and armed forces, and its legislation continues to view the ROC as the sole representative of China.
 * valign="top" |Political and legal status The political and legal statuses of Taiwan are contentious issues. The People's Republic of China (PRC) claims that the Republic of China government is illegitimate, referring to it as the "Taiwan Authority" even though current ROC territories have never been controlled by the PRC.The ROC has its own constitution, independently elected president and armed forces, and continues to claim all of China as its territory.
 * }
 * I also think this issue of exactly what territory is claimed by the ROC should be addressed in greater detail in either the Free area of the Republic of China article, or the Political status of Taiwan article, or both. Phlar (talk) 21:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am okay with this too. Perhaps it would be better to clarify that it is the legislation, not the government that continues with the claim (which is one of the points that's being discussed). I suggest amending the last sentence to something like "The ROC has its own constitution, independently elected president and armed forces, and the legislation continues to claim former territories of the Republic of China." Alex ShihTalk 07:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the government, but "the legislation" sounds too vague to me. How about this: "The ROC has its own independently elected president, armed forces and constitution, which continues to claim territory that is no longer controlled by the Republic of China." Phlar (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The constitution doesn't actually contain a territorial claim, though, does it? How about: "The ROC constitution, created when the ROC was still established on the mainland, describes procedures for altering the national boundaries, but these have never been used."  Kanguole 20:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with Kanguole's version. I don't agree with "claim all of China" or "claim former territories of the Republic of China", since whether the constititution make those claims are disputed. Those legislators I mentioned above argued that the "existing boundaries" mentioned in the constituion is non-static, and alters according to actual sovereignty. How about "The ROC has its own independently elected president and armed forces. There is dispute over whether ROC's constitution still claims former territories of it."Uaat (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable source which supports that "whether the constititution make those claims are disputed". --Matt Smith (talk) 04:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The link that was provided was, which is misleading as it is irrelevant to the discussion. To put it into perspective: For the sake of comparison, if a group of state legislators from Texas petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States to request clarification on whether or not Texas is clearly defined as part of the United States in the Article Four of the United States Constitution, and they received a response saying that "this is the wrong venue", are we going to state that as a result, the claim of the United States on the state of Texas is disputed? As mentioned previously, even if the "dispute" has been thoroughly discussed (which is not the case), until a constitutional amendment is passed, this content belongs to political status of Taiwan, not here. Alex ShihTalk 04:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The link that was provided was, which is misleading as it is irrelevant to the discussion. To put it into perspective: For the sake of comparison, if a group of state legislators from Texas petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States to request clarification on whether or not Texas is clearly defined as part of the United States in the Article Four of the United States Constitution, and they received a response saying that "this is the wrong venue", are we going to state that as a result, the claim of the United States on the state of Texas is disputed? As mentioned previously, even if the "dispute" has been thoroughly discussed (which is not the case), until a constitutional amendment is passed, this content belongs to political status of Taiwan, not here. Alex ShihTalk 04:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

If we're talking about legislation, I don't think "claim" is the right word to use. The UK has this outdated law where it is illegal to carry a plank down a street while singing (or something like that). We don't say British laws "claim" it's wrong. People make claims, not laws. Szqecs (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That was not "the wrong venue". Article 78 of the ROC constitution explicitly states that the judical yuan is responsible for explaining the constitution, which is exactly the legal procedure those legislator followed. The response from the judical yuan has legal power. The problem is that the judical yuan chose to leave deliberate ambiguity, so the dispute has not been resolved. The dispute is about the meaning of the current constitution, not how it should be altered, so no constitution amendments are required.Uaat (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit war
An edit war has recently restarted over this phrase. Of the two sources recently added, the second is a website of unclear authorship that cites Wikipedia articles as its sources – such "sources" should never be cited. The first is a textbook on international law, with a single page devoted to the standing of the ROC, with only a passing reference to the point at issue here. One would prefer a source providing a more specialized and direct treatment. But it does say, regarding UN Resolution 2758 in 1971, "Despite this, the ROC did not amend its claim to be the only legitimate representative of all Chinese people." That is a bit more subtle and precise than the bald claim added to the text: "The ROC ... continues to claim to be the sole representative of China." The latter is misleading, given that the current government and much of the population would not make such a claim. We should aim for a more precise and accurate wording. Kanguole 09:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. I had just removed the second source.
 * Regarding the first source, it is your opinion that "given that the current government and much of the population would not make such a claim", and that opinion is not a reliable source. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that the article should say "the current government and much of the population would not make such a claim", which would indeed require reliable sources. I am saying that the article should not make the bald claim that "The ROC ... continues to claim to be the sole representative of China", because that goes beyond what the sources say, and is misleading, suggesting things that cannot be substantiated.  Kanguole 10:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What phrasing would you suggest? --Matt Smith (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Above, I suggested "The ROC constitution, created when the ROC was still established on the mainland, describes procedures for altering the national boundaries, but these have never been used." Kanguole 11:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But is that based on the current sources? --Matt Smith (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is what "the ROC did not amend its claim" means. For a more comprehensive treatment, see Bi-yu Chang, Place, Identity, and National Imagination in Post-war Taiwan, ISBN 978-1-317-65812-2, especially chapter 3, which discusses in detail the constitutional position and how government statements on the issue have been progressively watered down.  Kanguole 12:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How about if we refrain from mentioning the territory in this “Political and legal status” section and just leave it at “The ROC has its own constitution, independently elected president and armed forces” period? The territorial claim (or lack thereof) seems tangential to the point of this section. Phlar (talk) 13:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The ROC's claim is directly associated with its political and legal status so I don't think it is tangential to this section. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe tangential isn’t the right word, but I think it would be better left out of this summary and covered in detail in Political status of Taiwan. Phlar (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the summary should contain key contents. The ROC's claim is a key content because it is associated with the ROC's status. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would phrase it straightforwardly as "the ROC has not amended its claim" or something similarly simple so that readers don't have to decipher abstruse sentences. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be incomplete and misleading. The ROC has not gone through the formal procedure to alter the boundaries, but, as the Chang book documents in detail, governments have continuously weakened or removed mentions of the claim from their announcements and publications.  Kanguole 13:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which Chang book? --Matt Smith (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The one I cited above. Kanguole 14:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you quote the related sentences or let me know the page number? I tried to read through chapter 3, but there are just too many unrelated contents. Overall, it talks about the modern history of cartography in Taiwan. Although I did find that some paragraphs say the ROC used the map of China to maintain its legitimacy, I didn't find paragraphs which talks about what you mentioned. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The constitution is discussed on pages 35–36. Government omissions are discussed on pages 46, 48, 57–58.  But the whole thing is about the government maintaining the formal claim but retreating from it in practice.  Kanguole 15:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

What I saw from page 46, 48, 57-58 is that the ROC is using a "vague" strategy to deal with its embarrassing issue of territory because the amount it is controlling is a lot smaller than the amount it claims. Those pages do not say its claim has changed. Furthermore, page 36 says: &hellip;&hellip; At the same time, the old ROC territorial calim to China had disappeared from the yearbooks, even after the KMT regained power in 2008. However, this change did not result from any retraction of territorial claims: indeed, in an interview given in 2007, Lin Ching-fu (2007), an MOI official in charge of territorial management, confirmed that ROC territory had never been officially changed. In other words, the ROC national territory is officially maintained as it was in 1949. Judging from the recent 'ROC Map' produced by the Ministry of National Defence (MND) (Figure 2.1), this statement is evidently accurate. (An image showing the map of whole China) Figure 2.1 The 2006 version of the 'ROC Map' --Matt Smith (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest "has not formally renounced its claim to the mainland." Szqecs (talk) 17:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest "has not formally renounced its claims to the mainland and to be the sole representative of China." The second half is supported by reliable sources. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The recurrent theme of that chapter is the contrast between the formal maintainance of the claim and its increasing avoidance by the government in practice. The statement "the ROC has not amended its claim" misleads by omitting that this is purely the formal position, and that in practice the government avoids making such a claim.  So I'd suggest: "Officially, the territory claimed by the ROC remains unchanged since 1947, but government publications have increasingly downplayed this claim." citing Chang (2015), pp. 35–40, 46–60.  Kanguole 17:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Its claims isn't just territory. Its claims also includes the representation of China. It's fine to me to say the claims have been downplayed. Just don't forget the claim of Chinese representation. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be difficult to substantiate that, and the sources supplied so far don't. The international law text gives only a passing mention relating to 1971, and the Wei article doesn't say that.  Kanguole 17:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A passing mention in a law-related, reliable source still conforms to policy. And the Wei article does say "Taipei argued that the ROC represented one China." Besides, there is one more source that says "Under the Constitution of the ROC, the authorities in Taipei still claim to be the legitimate government of the whole of China." --Matt Smith (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Define "Chinese representation". I have no idea what that means. Also, an article by the government of Australia is clearly not a reliable source because it has a conflict of interest. Australia does not even recognize the ROC, so what it says about it is irrelevant. Szqecs (talk) 02:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no formal procedure to renounce the claim of being the sole representation of China. The "has not renounced..." sentence will mislead readers that the ROC is still claiming to be the sole China, but the current Taiwanese government does not accept the one China policy. About the scope of the territorial claims in the constitution, it was just discussed in the Taiwanese legislature again on 10/13, and the minister of MAC said that it should be explained by the Justice of the Constitutional Court. Uaat (talk) 02:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The ROC does still claim to be the sole China. That is supported by reliable sources. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In the same Australian government website you provided, it also mentions since the election in 2016, Taiwan has stop stating that both sides of the Strait belong to ‘one China’.Uaat (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that the webpage says exactly what you are saying? If so, please quote it at here. Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Even though I didn't quote word by word,the meaning doesn't change much.Uaat (talk) 06:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Chinese representation" means the intention to be the sole representative of China. The article by the government of Australia conforms to policy WP:SOURCE so it is a reliable source. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

And what is "representative of China"? Specifically what is "China" but a piece of land? Is "representing China" not the same as "claiming China's territory"? Szqecs (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTRELIABLE: Questionable sources are those that ..., or have an apparent conflict of interest. Sources that may have interests other than professional considerations in the matter being reported are considered to be conflicted sources. The government of Australia has political considerations on how they describe other governments, so it is questionable. Questionable sources should only be used as sources for material on themselves Szqecs (talk) 04:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would not discuss the definition of terms "Representative of China" and "Chinese representation" at here. If you aren't familiar with them, please google them.


 * Regarding the webpage the government of Australia, I don't think your reason is valid. Although the government of Australia does not recognize the ROC, it still truthfully explains the ROC's claim of being the sole representative of China. So I don't see a conflict of interest in this case. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No you need define it if you were to write about it. Wikipedia is for the average reader. You can't just write something confusing and expect people to google it. Szqecs (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's the "truth" then you can find other impartial sources saying the same thing. The "truth" is not what you say. We must follow Wikipedia policy. Szqecs (talk) 05:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please point out which policy requires editors to define a term which is cited from reliable sources.
 * In case you haven't realized that, I have cited two other sources saying the same thing. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Where? I don't see them. Place all you citations in one place.Szqecs (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The two other sources are: . Furthermore, here is one more source: . Besides, I regard the source of the government of Australia as impartial. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The references do not support "sole" or "only". The Kaczorowska book deals with 1971.  The Wei article actually says the opposite: "Without challenging Beijing’s definition of one China as the PRC, Taipei argued that the ROC represented one China."  The Diplomat article only talks about interpretations.  Government sources are reliable for the position of their own government, but often maintain polite fictions about other governments.  Kanguole 08:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can see the point of your argument on the second source (Wei). But the other two sources do mention "sole". I don't see a problem of using government sources as long as they just relate/narrate others' positions/claims. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) The Kaczorowska source I give it a pass. However since this is just one source on a controversial matter, I would phrase it as "In 2010, it was reported that ROC had not amended its claim to be the only legitimate representative of all "Chinese people"." Since "Chinese people" is not defined, it should be in quotation.
 * 2) The Wei source deals with 1992, not today. Also the exact nature of the "resolution" is unclear.
 * 3) The sentence you cited in The Diplomat is the view of Hung Hsiu-chu if you go through the whole paragraph. You are clearly cherrypicking here. And it also deals with 1992, not today. Szqecs (talk) 09:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You don't see the problem with using government sources because you agree with the one in question. It is nevertheless against policy. Szqecs (talk) 10:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you go through the whole context, you would know the ROC's claim is being the sole representative of China, just like how the first half of the quote says. So I would not use "Chinese people".
 * There is no policy restricting a claim to be only applicable in the year which it is published.
 * The Diplomat qualifies for a reliable source. In my opinion, you are misunderstanding the source. The author only relates/narrates what was confirmed and is not expressing his own view.
 * You need to realize that all governments and politicians in the world have their own political considerations. If their publications cannot be used for pure relation/narration, tons of contents on Wikipedia would have to be removed. I would not continue to argue with you in this matter, but I also don't agree with you. If you insist, please start a discussion for further assistance in this matter, and I'm willing to participate the discussion. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No but there is a policy of due weight. If I claimed to be single in 1992 and you were to write about me in 2017, would you write "he claims to be single"? No. You write it in past tense and specify the year to let the reader decide on the significance of it. Szqecs (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. The 1992 thing I give it a pass. Incidentally, that is not where due weight is applicable at. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think it's necessary to call out the "sole representative of China" issue here. I support the wording "The ROC has its own constitution, independently elected president and armed forces, and has not formally renounced its claim to the mainland." "Claim to the mainland" is a blanket phrase that stands for both the territorial and representative claims. Phlar (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That could be a compromise. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it would be more neutral to present different viewpoints, according to WP:BALANCE. How about "The ROC has its own constitution, independently elected president and armed forces. While KMT was in power, the government claimed that according to the constitution, mainland China is ROC territory(1). However, Taiwan's ruling DPP rejects the one-China policy and says the island is already independent.(2)"--Uaat (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, the information belongs to political status of Taiwan. DPP has always been vocal about 1992 consensus as the Official Opposition, but they have never officially renounced the 1992 consensus as the ruling party (2000–2008, 2016–present), which would represent official rejection of the one-China policy (hasn't happened yet). Even in the Economist source (which really is an opinion piece), note the paragraph that says "Or so Ms Tsai hopes. She and her advisers are considering new ways of describing Taiwan’s relations with the mainland which might replace or add to the 1992 formula.". 1992 formula has yet to be replaced, why? Because she openly ran on the platform of "maintaining the status quo" (see page 143) during the 2016 election. Alex ShihTalk 02:47, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If the new government no longer enforces the old policy, then the policy has changed. There is no need and no procedure to "officially renounce" the old policy. There are plenty of sources supporting that taiwan refuses to accept the 1992 consensus. Perhaps we could change "reject" to "refuse to accept".Uaat (talk) 03:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We are talking about the position of the ROC, not the position of DPP. Please keep in mind that DPP does not equal to the ROC. Under the definition of the ROC Constitution, mainland China is a territory of the ROC. DPP's position has always not conformed to the ROC Constitution. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The DPP is the ruling party of the ROC, and since 2016 the ROC government refuse to accept the one-China policy. I already mentioned above that whether ROC constituion claims mainland China is disputed.Uaat (talk) 03:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ruling party is not a state, ultimately. Whether or not the position of the ruling party can represent the position of the state is disputable.
 * Could you please explain again your reason about "whether ROC constituion claims mainland China is disputed", with a reliable source? --Matt Smith (talk) 03:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The ruling party doesn't represents the state, but the government does. The current ROC government refuse to accept the one-China policy. Uaat (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Judical Yuan interpretion No.328,Article 78 of the ROC constitution.Some legislators asked the judical yuan to clarify whether ROC constituion claims mainland China, but the judical yuan, which is legally responsible for explaining the meaning of the constitution, did not explain. Thus the dispute is unsolved. Uaat (talk) 04:02, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please understand that even the government is not above the constitution. According to policy WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I would say your reason cannot be accepted unfortunately because it breached the said policy. Please find a reliable source which explicitly states your reason. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This source says that ROC constitution does not include mainland China. Page 69 says that the constitutional claim is a disputed problem.Uaat (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But an English source I cited before says the opposite. This is English Wikipedia, and policy WP:NOENG says: "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." So please provide an English source instead. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the WP:NOENG policy means that if there are both English and Non-English source saying the same thing, we should cite the English one, not when they are contradictory.Uaat (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy does not say that. It simply says English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when of equal relevance. If you have any question about the policy, please open a discussion at a relevant discussion page. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It says that English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available, a contradictory English source does not make an English source available for what the Chinese source says.Uaat (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In our case, we currently have two sources available, one in English and another in Chinese. According to the policy, when an English source is available, it is preferred over the non-English ones. If you have any other question about the policy, please seek for assistance at a relevant discussion board. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In our case, an English source is not available for what the Chinese source says, so this policy doesn't apply.Uaat (talk) 05:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Aren't both sources talk about the territory of the ROC? They surely are. So both sources are of equal relevance. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @Matt Smith, you cannot discount a reliable source simply because it's not written in English. wp:NOENG means that, if two sources support the same statement that an editor is making in wikipedia, and one of these sources is in English and the other is not, use the English source. But it does not mean an editor can't add information to wikipedia if there's no English source to back it up. Phlar (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOENG does not say what you are saying. It simply says English sources are preferred when of equal quality and relevance. I never say an editor can't add information to wikipedia if there's no English source to back it up. --Matt Smith (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is what "equal relevance" means. It is an abuse of NOENG to invoke it to disallow a Chinese source that contradicts an English source – the two sources are relevant in different ways.  Kanguole 00:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that the two sources we are talking about are of equal relevance. But still, WP:NOENG says English sources are preferred when there are equal-relevanced, non-English sources. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They are not of equal relevance – they are relevant to different (indeed contradictory) statements. You really should drop this line of argument.  Kanguole 00:59, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, they are of equal relevance because they talks about the territory of the ROC. I of course hope we can stop this argument. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your understanding is wrong. NOENG says an English-language source of equal quality that supports the same point is to be preferred.  It does not say that where English and non-English sources disagree the English one takes precedence.  What you need to drop is this tendentious attempt to disqualify Uuat's source based on its language.  Find another reason.  Kanguole 11:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * NOENG does not say "supports the same point". It only says "of equal quality and relevance". In your opinion, my understanding is wrong; in my opinion, your understanding is wrong. I would not keep arguing on this matter. If you would like to confirm your understanding, please open a discussion at a relevant discussion board and feel free to ping me. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are the only one pushing this interpretation. Three editors have told you that you are wrong.  If you want to hear from more, ask at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability.  But please stop pushing it here.  Kanguole 11:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope. I'm following the policy exactly as it is written ("of equal quality and relevance"). And you are making up a definition ("supports the same point") that isn't mentioned by the policy at all. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Matt, both sources might be relevant to the question of "whether or not the ROC constitution includes mainland China," but they are not equally relevant because they don't say the same thing. You've claimed that your English source says the constitution "does include mainland China," and User:Uaat cites a Chinese source that he claims says "it doesn't." Assuming that both sources are reliable, then together they show that "there is disagreement over whether or not the ROC constitution includes mainland China." If you can find an English source that also says "it doesn't," then by all means cite that instead of the Chinese source. But you cannot ignore the statements in the Chinese source simply because they're not written in English. Phlar (talk) 15:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe we need to confirm that interpretation first. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Maybe we need to confirm that interpretation first. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The documents of No 328 says that "各界對此「固有疆域」之認定至今未有定論"(Different parties' interpretion of the "existing boundaries" is inconclusive), so this is not WP:SYN. Uaat (talk) 05:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * We need an English source. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The supreme court also published English translation of J.Y. Interpretation No. 328 . Fizikanauk (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The English translation does not say mainland China isn't part of the territory of the ROC. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's an English source that supports Uaat's claim that the territory is disputed. This is what you asked for, isn't it? Phlar (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please point out the sentences which support User:Uaat's claim. --Matt Smith (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the English “translation” is only a summary of the Chinese source. It lacks much of the detail of the Chinese, omitting the sentences that are relevant to Uaat’s claim. Therefore, the Chinese source is the relevant source. Phlar (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I really think these questions of "sole representative of China" and "the current government rejecting the one-China policy," etc. deserve thorough coverage in the Political status of Taiwan article. Couldn't you guys work on these topics there first, get that article in better shape, and then, if necessary, update the brief summary in this section here (in Taiwan) based on whatever consensus is formed over there? The process I'm describing accords with WP:SUMMARY: It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic article before summarizing it in the parent article. Phlar (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Article Political status of Taiwan talks about Taiwan (island) and Penghu islands, not the ROC. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Political status of Taiwan is listed as the “main article” for the section we are discussing. Phlar (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Consensus?
Do we have consensus for "The ROC has its own constitution, independently elected president and armed forces, and has not formally renounced its claim to the mainland"? As I already noted above, "claim to the mainland" can be seen as a blanket phrase that stands for both the territorial and representative claims. Phlar (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I can agree with that. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It is an awkward sentence, bundling together the separate topics of the attributes of statehood and the claim. Also, the last clause deals with the claim purely from the formal perspective, omitting the balancing account of government treatment of it.  I suggest a separate sentence: The ROC has not formally renounced its claim to the mainland, but government publications have increasingly downplayed it.  This sentence can be sourced to Chang (2015), Place, Identity, and National Imagination in Post-war Taiwan, ISBN 978-1-317-65812-2, pp. 35–40, 46–60.  Kanguole 17:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Phlar (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have it. Phlar (talk) 15:23, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation involving Wrestlingring and Supreme Dragon
A case involving User:Wrestlingring and User:Supreme Dragon has been filed at Sockpuppet investigations/Wrestlingring. They were heavily involved in China/Taiwan articles, especially regarding the naming dispute. Your input may assist with the case. Cheers! --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

20 countries recognize the ROC as the sole legal representative of China
In the 4th paragraph of the lead, there's a phrase, "Today 20 countries recognize the ROC as the sole legal representative of China," that has been tagged as "disputed." I would like to remove "as the sole legal representative of China" and leave it at "20 countries recognize the ROC" because I see no evidence that all 20 countries have recognized the ROC as the sole representative. Recognition is one-sided: the recognizing country decides what it "recognizes," regardless of what the other country prefers, so there's no reason a country couldn't recognize both the PRC and the ROC, if it wanted to. Therefore, just because a country recognizes the ROC does not mean it sees the ROC as the "sole" representative. Phlar (talk) 03:46, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "Today 20 countries recognize the ROC as the sole legal representative of China" is supported by a reliable source so it should not be removed. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposed removal. The first source given is not independent.  The Australian government briefing says only "Currently twenty states recognise Taiwan as the ROC (and thus do not have official relations with Beijing)", which is not the same thing.  On the other hand, Hu, Chan & Zha (2000) China's International Relations in the 21st Century: Dynamics of Paradigm Shifts ISBN 978-1-4616-7858-8, p. 178, say: "When a country establishes diplomatic relations with it, the Taiwan government does not require that country to terminate its relations with the PRC."  This is contrasted with the PRC: "if a country that has diplomatic relations with the PRC turns to recognise Taiwan, then the PRC will suspend diplomatic relations with that country."  They cite the example of Macedonia, which recognized the ROC in 1999.  A more recent example, cited by Uaat above, is St. Lucia, which resumed diplomatic relations with the ROC in 2007.  In both cases, pre-existing relations were suspended by the PRC after the recognition; no break of relations was required before ROC recognition.  Kanguole 11:22, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see the two examples you gave contradict with the first source (林俐 2015). Whether or not the RPC and the ROC require their allied countries to terminate their existing relationships with the other entity is a slightly different thing. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The authors are illustrating the point that, in contrast to the PRC, "the recent practice from the Taiwan side indicates that the Taiwan government has changed its 'one China' position and no longer regarded itself as the sole representative of the whole China." Because the PRC insists on being the sole representative, it requires countries to cut diplomatic ties with the ROC before it will open relations with them.  In contrast, the ROC is prepared to open diplomatic relations with countries that recognize the PRC.  Thus in recognizing the ROC, these countries are not recognizing it as the sole representative of China.  Kanguole 14:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The last sentence "Thus in recognizing the ROC, these countries are not recognizing it as the sole representative of China." is your original research. The sources you cited do not say that at all.
 * Besides, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China had clearly stated that, the ROC's diplomatic allies regard that China is the Republic of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is a reasonable deduction that a country recognizing the ROC without renouncing its recognition of the PRC is not recognizing the ROC as the one true China. But then I'm not arguing that that should be in the article; I'm agreeing that the phrase "as the sole legal representative of China" should not.
 * Your quotation attests to the view of the ministry, which lacks the independence expected of reliable sources. It will be more difficult to find those nations, or scholarly third parties, saying that.  Kanguole 17:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As mentioned before, the phrase is supported by a reliable source so it's fine as it is.
 * The sources I cited meet the requirements of policy WP:Reliable Source so there is no problem with them. --Matt Smith (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources you have provided are not independent, but have a vested interest in the issue. They attest to the ROC's view, but they do not support this claim about the positions of those 20 countries.  Kanguole 17:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as a source is not a self-published media, I don't see the necessity of using an independent source instead. But if you really want to see one, here you go:
 * When you say "they do not support this claim about the positions of those 20 countries", do you have a reliable source which explicitly supports that? --Matt Smith (talk) 01:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:RS makes clear that the reliability of a source is not a binary property of the source, but must be assessed in relation to the claim it is being used to support. The Krasner source is better, but is contradicted by the source I gave, which points out that recognition has not been exclusive.  Since "sole representative of China" does not represent the consensus of reliable sources, it should not be in the lead.
 * And I don't need to supply a source that says you don't have a source for something – that's not how this works. Kanguole 09:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And I don't need to supply a source that says you don't have a source for something – that's not how this works. Kanguole 09:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I also agree that it be removed. Szqecs (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't realized the point. Whether or not the recognition is exclusive is not directly related to the purpose of the recognition. In other words, the sources you are citing do not mention the purpose of the recognition so they cannot be applied in this matter. If you want to challenge "Today 20 countries recognize the ROC as the sole legal representative of China", find a reliable source that says the opposite. So far, three reliable sources do not agree with you. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Recognizing both PRC and ROC obviously directly contradicts "sole legal representative of China". That is the point being made by the source I cited above.  Kanguole 11:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do the sources mention the purpose of those recognitions? No. They don't. The purpose of those recognitions that the sources try to convey might be simply "recognition of state" rather than recognition of Chinese representative. Anyway, they don't mention the purpose so we cannot assert the purpose arbitrarily. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should not assert a purpose of recognition, merely the fact of recognition. Kanguole 12:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Matt, if you want to keep "as the sole legal representative of China," you will need to find a source or sources that support the claim that each of these 20 countries has declared that the ROC is the sole representative. The sources you've cited so far only support the fact that these countries have recognized the ROC, not "as the sole legal representative." Hence my proposal to remove "as the sole legal representative of China." Phlar (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All of the sources I'm citing support that. I'm not sure why you're not noticing that. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which source uses the phrase "sole legal representative"? Phlar (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as we substantially retain the meaning of the sources, we can write "sole legal representative" in the article even if the sources do not use the exact phrase. But the first source in the article (林俐 2015) does use "sole" and "legal" (it says "唯一的中國合法政府"). --Matt Smith (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, I would be OK with a vague number instead of 20, such as, "Today only a few smaller nations recognize the ROC as the sole legal representative of China," which is how the sentence read until three months ago. By the way, I'm glad to see that you've "seen the light" and are now accepting that a non-English source can still be used, even if there are other relevant English-language sources. Phlar (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with a vague number, though an encyclopedia is supposed to provide accurate data in some cases. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't mind either way about the number, but do object to the phrase "as the sole legal representative of China". The source for "唯一的中國合法政府" gives the view of the ROC, an interested party.  I have cited above an independent academic source that contradicts this, saying "the recent practice from the Taiwan side indicates that the Taiwan government has changed its 'one China' position and no longer regarded itself as the sole representative of the whole China", and showing that the ROC does not require recognition in this exclusive sense.  Kanguole 15:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The source for "唯一的中國合法政府" does not say it is the view of the ROC. The source you cited above does not even mention the purpose of the ROC's diplomatic allies' recognitions to the ROC at all so it is unable to contradict this. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I would also prefer to remove "sole legal representative of China." Unfortunately, I'm not able to view the source for "唯一的中國合法政府"---google books omits p.184. Does anyone know of another online version of this book? I would like to understand this "purpose" that Matt is referring to. Phlar (talk) 15:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can understand that you want to remove the phrase probably due to your own preferences. But as long as it is supported by reliable sources, it should not be removed simply because you don't like it. And the phrase is directly related to the ROC's political and legal status so it is a crucial phrase.
 * When you have already previewed too many pages of a book on Google Books, the rest of the pages is likely to not be shown. One of the solution is searching for the term "唯一的中國合法政府" by using the search box, and then you will be able to see the related paragraphs. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The full sentence is:
 * 至今,世界上約170個國家或地區承認中華人民共和國政府為中國的唯一合法政府,有22個國家或地區承認中華民國為唯一的中國合法政府.
 * But it's a textbook teaching the ROC's views. The independent academic source I cited shows that those countries that have recognized the ROC in the last five decades were not recognizing it as the sole representative of China, because they continued to recognize the PRC while doing so, and moreover the ROC accepted this practice, showing that it "no longer regarded itself as the sole representative of the whole China".  Kanguole 15:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Matt, it has nothing to do with personal preference. I want to remove it because I don't believe it's true that all 20 countries have declared that the ROC is the "sole legal representative." And it's not a crucial phrase for the lead of the Taiwan/ROC article. The point of the whole sentence is that, although not many countries recognize the ROC, many countries do maintain diplomatic relationships with the ROC. The nuances should be covered in Foreign relations of Taiwan, which is already linked from this sentence.
 * Thanks for pasting the full sentence, Kanguole. I agree, the purpose of this book is to teach the ROC's views, so it cannot be seen to represent the views/positions of the 20 countries. Phlar (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I respect your right to not believing a thing, but still, not believing it is not an appropriate reason to remove contents which are supported by reliable sources.
 * I understand your point about the point of the whole sentence. But if we don't explain the purpose of the recognitions clearly, we are very likely to mislead readers into believing that the recognitions are for recognizing Taiwan as a independent state. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining why you are so concerned about "purposes." Then how about this wording: Today 20 countries recognize the ROC as a government of China. This makes is clear we are talking about the ROC and China, not an independent Taiwan, which should satisfy your concern. And using "a government of China" allows for the possibility that one or more of these 20 countries recognize both the ROC and the PRC, satisfying my concern (and hopefully those of Kanguole and Uaat). Phlar (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. However, that's not what the sources convey. The sources say that the recognitions are for recognizing the sole representative of China. Therefore we should stick to the sources, as suggested by polity WP:NOR. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Which word(s) in my proposal do you dislike? The Chinese textbook says "唯一的中國合法政府" which can be translated as "sole legal Chinese government" or "only legitimate Chinese government." The Australian government source uses "sole legal government of China." Neither uses the term "representative / 代表." Phlar (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the word "a" is inappropriate because it changed the meaning of the sources. I propose "Today 20 countries recognize the ROC as the sole representative of China". As long as we substantially retain the meaning of the sources, we can use "representative" even if the sources do not use the exact word. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * C’mon, Matt, work with me here. We’ve got four editors who support removing “as the sole legal representative of China” altogether, and you’re the only one who wants to keep it. I’m honestly trying to come up with a compromise that addresses some of your concerns, and the best you can propose is “keep it as-is except remove the word ‘legal”? Please make an effort to compromise. Phlar (talk) 09:53, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Matt, can you tell us what concerns you’re trying to address by keeping the text as-as? You’ve already stated that you think “we are very likely to mislead readers into believing that the recognitions are for recognizing Taiwan as a independent state.” I’m sure we can come up with a way of addressing this concern. Are there any others? If I can fully understand what you are trying to accomplish, I may be able to figure out a way of doing it that also addresses my concern about some countries recognizing both the PRC and the ROC. Phlar (talk) 10:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In my humble opinion, the four editors' reasons are either WP:NOR-breaching or untenable, as I explained above. Anyway, I'm fine with “keep it as-is except remove the word ‘legal’”. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not asking about your opinion on other editors' proposed edits, and I already understand your proposal. Instead, I am asking what interests lie behind your position. By understanding your interests, I hope to be able to come up with a compromise that satisfies them. For example, you've said you want to avoid "mislead[ing] readers into believing that the recognitions are for recognizing Taiwan as a independent state.” This is an interest. What other interests are you trying to satisfy with the "sole representative of China" wording? Or another way of asking the same question: when you imagine "as the sole legal representative of China" being removed from this sentence, besides your concern that it might mislead readers about the nature of the recognition, and that it might not fully reflect the statements in some sources, are there any other concerns? Phlar (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. There is one additional "interest" (not sure if this is an appropriate word in this case), and it is to prevent readers from confusing Taiwan (island) with the ROC. But I guess the "sole representative of China" already handles that. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. OK, it seems like the sticking point is the nature of the recognition. Keeping in mind that this is just one sentence in the lead, and the lead is only supposed to summarize the body (WP:LEAD: apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article), and the body of this article doesn't actually discuss the nature of these countries' recognition of the ROC, how about this (changed text in green): "Today 20 countries maintain official ties with the ROC, but many other states maintain unofficial ties through representative offices and institutions that function as de facto embassies and consulates"? This also has the advantage of balancing "official ties" with "unofficial ties" later in the sentence, which might make the whole sentence easier for some readers to understand. Phlar (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well... The nature of the recognition is now missing in your new proposal ("maintain official ties with the ROC"). The nature of the recognition is a basic fact, isn't it? So isn't it supposed to appear in the lead even if the body of this article isn't discussing it? --Matt Smith (talk) 01:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it is. The distinction between “recognizing the ROC” in general and “recognizing it as the sole government of China” is rather subtle. It might deserve explanation in the body of this article, or maybe just in Foreign relations of Taiwan, but I don’t think it needs to be covered in the lead of this article. Phlar (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the distinction between them is huge, not subtle. Without covering it in the lead, we would be most likely to mislead readers into believing that Taiwan are being recognized as an independent state. A crucial thing like that should not be watered down. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, don’t you see? By replacing “recognize” with “maintain ties with,” I’ve removed the possibility that anyone could misinterpret “recognize.” Phlar (talk) 04:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. I'm okay with it for now. I will add the "sole representative of China" thing in the "Political and legal status" section. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn’t it make sense to cover it in Foreign relations of Taiwan first, before summarizing the issue in the “Political and legal status” section? Per WP:SS: It is advisable to develop new material in the subtopic article before summarizing it in the parent article. Phlar (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It is already covered in Foreign relations of Taiwan. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, but nowhere in Foreign relations of Taiwan does it say those 20 countries recognize the ROC as the "sole" representative. Perhaps you could base your addition to the "Political and legal status" section directly on the wording in "Foreign relations of Taiwan." Phlar (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:58, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your addition of "recognizing it as the sole legal representative of China" from the "Foreign relations" section, because of the problems noted here, namely that it is contradicted by reliable independent sources. Kanguole 12:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have reminded you multiple times that, the contradiction you're asserting is but your own original research. You are breaching policy WP:NOR by making up a reason which is not explicitly stated by your sources. You need to undo your revert. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Stating that the Taiwan government does not require nations that recognize the ROC terminate their recognition of the PRC is not original research. Kanguole's source for this is reliable. Stating that St. Lucia did not seek to terminate its relationship with the PRC when it established diplomatic relations with China is also not original research, because it's backed by a reliable source. Your claim that all 20 states recognize the ROC as the sole representative of China contradicts these two facts: Taiwan doesn't require that the recognition be exclusive, and at least one of the nations (St. Lucia) clearly stated that they did not intend the recognition to be exclusive. Please come up with wording that accounts for all of the facts regarding "sole representation." It's probably going to take more than one sentence, which is the reason I've suggested developing it in [Foreign relations of Taiwan] first. Phlar (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You guys completely confused the logic. You cannot say that "recognize both" contradicts with "recognize the ROC as the sole China", and that's because "recognize both" does not tell you what the purpose of the recognition is.
 * The purpose of "recognize both" can be 1) recognize one as China and another as a non-China state, 2) recognize both as two Chinas, or 3) recognize both as two non-China states. You guys now are asserting that the purpose is 2), while your sources do not say that explicitly at all. In other words, your assertion is an original research and your sources cannot be used in this case (because they fail to explain the purpose of the recognitions). --Matt Smith (talk) 17:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are grasping at straws. Which of these hypotheses is simultaneously consistent with St Lucia recognizing the PRC as the sole representative of China in 1997 (as required by the PRC), St Lucia recognizing the ROC in 2007 but hoping to maintain relations with the PRC, and St Lucia recognizing the ROC as the sole representative of China (which the ROC no longer demands, but you wish to claim)?  Kanguole 21:25, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not doing that; you are. I hope this is the last time I remind you that do not try to impose your own original research at here. Unless you can provide reliable sources that support your assertions explicitly, do not make assertions. If you are unable to provide a reliable source to support the purpose of the recognitions that your are asserting, we can stop wasting time on discussing this and you need to undo your revert. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You are not understanding WP:BURDEN. Indeed someone arguing that something should be in the article needs to support it with reliable sources.  But to challenge the inclusion of a claim, one need not produce a source saying explicitly that that claim is false; it is sufficient to show that the claim is inconsistent with other evidence.  See also These are not original research.
 * I have shown such a contradiction. The answer to my question above is that none of the possibilities you suggest can avoid this contradiction.  The claim that all 20 countries recognize the ROC as the sole representative of China is unsafe, and should not be in the article.  Kanguole 18:07, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you are using your original research as your reason again. Are you trolling? I have explained to you many times that the sources you are citing cannot support your assertion (recognizing two Chinas) because they don't mention your assertion explicitly. Just read policy WP:NOR: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". If you use the same excuse again, I will ignore you and undo your revert. And if you revert once again, I will report you for breaching policy WP:NOR and disrupting the editing of Wikipedia. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Matt: WP:NOR doesn’t apply because Kanguole isn’t proposing to add anything to the article. This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Phlar (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Now you are using your original research as your reason again. Are you trolling? I have explained to you many times that the sources you are citing cannot support your assertion (recognizing two Chinas) because they don't mention your assertion explicitly. Just read policy WP:NOR: "Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not supported by the source, you are engaging in original research". If you use the same excuse again, I will ignore you and undo your revert. And if you revert once again, I will report you for breaching policy WP:NOR and disrupting the editing of Wikipedia. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Matt: WP:NOR doesn’t apply because Kanguole isn’t proposing to add anything to the article. This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Phlar (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Matt: WP:NOR doesn’t apply because Kanguole isn’t proposing to add anything to the article. This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Phlar (talk) 11:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, who says it teaches "the ROC's views"?
 * Again, "The independent academic source I cited shows that those countries that have recognized the ROC in the last five decades were not recognizing it as the sole representative of China" is your original research. The source does not explicitly say that. Please read policy WP:NOR. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a textbook for an ROC exam.
 * I am not proposing to put those words into the article. I am saying that the source plainly contradicts the phrase "sole legal representative of China", which should therefore be removed from the article.
 * As for purpose, the leaders of Kiribati and St Lucia said at the time of their respective opening of diplomatic relations with the ROC that they hoped to maintain them with the PRC. That is clearly incompatible with recognizing the ROC as the "sole legal representative of China".  Kanguole 18:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It being a textbook for an ROC exam does not necessarily mean it does not narrate any fact throughout the entire book. And if a source like that is considered "xxxxx's view", all other sources should be considered "xxxxx's view" as well, right?
 * As far as I can see, what you're saying is not viable.
 * As I reminded you before, that's your original research because the sources you are citing do not say that explicitly. Please refrain from imposing your original research on this discussion. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The reliability of a source is not a blanket judgment. Just because a source is cannot be considered the most reliable authority on one issue does not not mean it cannot be considered the most reliable on another topic. Nobody is claiming that "it being a textbook for an ROC exam... [means] it does not narrate any fact throughout the entire book," as you implied. But I do claim that a textbook (林俐 2015) that is intended to teach people about ROC citizenship is not a reliable source on the issue of whether or not another country has recognized the ROC "as the sole legitimate government of China" ("承認中華民國為唯一的中國合法政府"). The stated purpose of this book is to teach people how to do well on an ROC government-sponsored exam, thus it is teaching people the information, views and facts necessary to answer the exam questions correctly, with the arbiter of "correctness" being the ROC government. It does not claim to be an authoritative source on the opinions and positions of other countries' governments. Therefore, it cannot be considered the most reliable source on this specific issue.
 * You claim that, because the sources cited by Kanguole do not mention the nature of the recognition (you call it "the purpose"), they are not relevant to this issue. But the facts are: (1) they are reliable sources on the topic of recognition of the ROC and (2) they do not mention the nature of the recognition. Facts (1) and (2) can be seen to indicate that the nature of the recognition is not known, that it is unverifiable. I am proposing to omit the statement of the nature of the recognition because I believe it has not been reliably verified for all 20 countries. Phlar (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine. I don't see any policy prohibiting the use of a textbook-like reliable source, but I would not continue to argue with you on this issue. Here is a reliable source which surely is not a textbook:
 * By the way, thanks for letting me know the correct word regarding the recognition should be "nature" instead of "purpose". --Matt Smith (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem.
 * Your new source says nothing about “sole representative.” It says that the countries “recognize the ROC as a government that legally represents (all of) China” (承認中華民國是合法代表中國…的政府). I can accept that wording. Phlar (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I see no problem in interchanging verb (represent) with noun (representative). And representing all of China means being the sole representative of China, doesn't it? --Matt Smith (talk) 03:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, Matt, the other Chinese source also called it a “government,” not a representative. And do not insert “sole” where the source says no such thing. Why are you so desperate to preserve that “sole representative” wording? You really do seem to be grasping at straws. Let it go, and focus your energy elsewhere. Phlar (talk) 04:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason that I propose "sole (legal) representative" is because it's the most common phrasing when it comes to the topics of the representation of a state. Anyway, if you can only accept the longer version, I can compromise with you. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The reason that I propose "sole (legal) representative" is because it's the most common phrasing when it comes to the topics of the representation of a state. Anyway, if you can only accept the longer version, I can compromise with you. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Subsection 1
As you already realized when you, I am glad to accept the “shorter and more concise” version that leaves the text as-is, without your addition. To repeat, we should omit the statement of the nature of the recognition because it has not been reliably verified for all 20 countries.. Phlar (talk) 11:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. It also contradicts statements such as the following:
 * "Indeed, states that recognize Taiwan hardly perceive it as the government-in-waiting of all China. They recognize a small island-state that tries to avoid the lethal embrace of a neighbour which they conceive of as a completely different state construct."  —
 * Kanguole 12:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And your source contradicts with the following source of the Holy See, which is explicitly recognizing the ROC as China.
 * --Matt Smith (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a misunderstanding. I removed the sentence because I found that "the sole legal representative of China" is not much shorter than "a government that legally represents all of China", not because I accepted the current text. I meant to say that I accept your longer version (a government that legally represents all of China). --Matt Smith (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I did not misunderstand. I was pointing out that your original instinct for shortness and conciseness was good, and the best way to achieve this would be to omit the phrase you are trying to add.
 * The very fact that your new source on the Holy See contradicts Tudoroiu (2017), along with all the other contradictions we've discussed above, is proof that reliable sources disagree on the nature of the recognition. Therefore, you cannot add a phrase that only reflects one side of the contradictions. See WP:These are not original research: If equally reliable sources disagree, present all of the information. Phlar (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say your "best way" of omitting the phrase is the misleading way.
 * Those "other contradictions we've discussed above" you're referring to are not viable because they are based on your original researches, as I have explained to you multiple times above. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, as I already pointed out 13 hrs ago, WP:NOR doesn’t apply to here: This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages.... And I think you’re confusing me with Kanguole. Phlar (talk) 02:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you're misunderstanding WP:NOR. When we discuss the editing of articles in talk pages, we of course need to evaluate sources which are brought up by discussers and their interpretations of those sources. Otherwise every discusser can simply make up original researches and then the discussion would be in a mess.
 * The "your original researches" I mentioned above means "you guys' original researches". You are supporting Kanguole's sources and his interpretations of those sources so you are being with him. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Phlar has simply quoted the last sentence of the first paragraph of WP:NOR, which you should read. I have pointed to WP:These are not original research, which explands on the point.  Kanguole 08:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I knew he quoted that sentence from WP:NOR. And I think he is misunderstanding it. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The sentence "This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources" is very clear, and taking it at its plain meaning is not misunderstanding it. Kanguole 11:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you telling me that we all can make up original researches freely and use them in discussions? --Matt Smith (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The NOR policy is telling you that it does not apply to talk pages. The other link I provided gives further details.  Kanguole 13:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean it's fine to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by a source in this discussion. Otherwise every discusser could cite 100 sources and assert 100 conclusions not directly and explicitly supported by the sources and ruin a discussion. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't mean it's fine to reach or imply a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by a source in this discussion. Otherwise every discusser could cite 100 sources and assert 100 conclusions not directly and explicitly supported by the sources and ruin a discussion. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

It does mean that, when an editor reaches or implies a conclusion not directly and explicitly supported by a source in this discussion, you cannot say “you’re not allowed to say that because it violates NOR.” NOR doesn’t apply to talk pages. Phlar (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I never say "you’re not allowed to&hellip;" in talk pages. What I do in talk pages is pointing out spurious "conclusions" so that the discussions of the editing of articles won't be misled. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's fine to debate the conclusions and argue that they are spurious, if you like. But your to report the commenter for disruptive editing under WP:NOR are empty, since WP:NOR does not apply to talk pages. Phlar (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Read my comment again. The "undo" and "report" in my comment talk about events in the article page, not in this talk page. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course your threats refer to the article. But Kanguole's article edit that you are threatening to "undo" and "report" added no content to the article, it merely removed the text you added (reverted your edit). How could Kanguole's edit possible contain any original research??? Phlar (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And what would his removal be based on? An original research, right? If you think an OR-based removal to the article does not breach WP:NOR, you probably are trying to find a loophole in the policy. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ”Does not apply to talk pages” is about as clear and unambiguous as it could get. I’m done trying to explain the obvious to you. Phlar (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And I'm done with people who refuse to admit engaging in OR. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418153210/http://http-server.carleton.ca/~bgordon/Rice/papers/App.18ChangKC89.pdf to http://http-server.carleton.ca/~bgordon/Rice/papers/App.18ChangKC89.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512091917/http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/yearbook/ to http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/yearbook/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323105730/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/dec/16/today-t1.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2009/new/dec/16/today-t1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160807030114/http://www.cdc.gov.tw/ to https://www.cdc.gov.tw/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120828223012/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/taiwan.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/taiwan.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In addition to the template, I want to add that it has recently been discovered that this user has returned despite his ban and persisted in copying content against policy, against our Terms of Use, and against copyright laws from other sources. In some cases, this can be repaired through attribution; in others, the material was taken from external sources and cannot. Please see Sockpuppet investigations/FreshCorp619 for more information about why any content added to Wikipedia by User:Wrestlingring needs to be checked for copyright compliance before it is retained. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Liberal democracy?

 * I am sure that plenty of sources accept this position, such as here, but as this is a biased source I can't use it, but I can't seem to find any data that contradicts this claim. --Regards, Donald Trung (Talk) 16:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you proposing to add/change in the article? It currently does not contain the phrase "liberal democracy." It had been tagged with but this tag was deleted per this discussion. If you are proposing to describe Taiwan as a "liberal democracy" somewhere in the article, you might check whether "Liberal democracies around the world" lists a relevant source for Taiwan. Phlar (talk) 20:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2018
Diplomatic missions

The Netherlands: Amsterdam (embassy)

Germany: Berlin (embassy) Munich (consulate)

etc. 87.170.209.120 (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ivec os (t) 10:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018
17 Further reading

Shelley Rigger Why Taiwan Matters: Small Island, Global Powerhouse Updated Edition ISBN-13: 978-1442204805, ISBN-10: 144220480X 87.170.209.120 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It is not clear why you think this book is especially important or notable enough for needing to be included as a external reference. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Pre-Etymology
The etymology section isn't clear on the Austronesian terms used to refer to the island prior to European or Sinitic contact/occupation. If such terms exist, I think they should be added, but I myself could not find any. → Σ σ  ς. (Sigma) 04:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The Austroneisna terms didn't refer to the island but are the endonyms to the local indigenous people's own communities or nations; the concept of the terms were however expanded to the whole perfecture and even the whole island later by the Chinese immigrants. There is no such Austronesian term referring to the island prior to European or Sinitic occupation, so far as I know.Benson Fang (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2018
For the infobox, can you amend the status of Taiwan to "Disputed"? It should include the two points:


 * Recognized by 19 member states of the United Nations and Holy See
 * Claimed by the People's Republic of China as "Taiwan, Province of China" (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758)

-- 135.23.145.14 (talk) 16:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Partially recognized is accurate. The infobox is supposed to present summary data.  Further detail belongs in article text.  Kanguole 16:50, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Rfc
Recently I made two identical edits in which I restored the content that was previously removed by and, both of whom claimed it was "controversial".(see revision history) Nevertheless, in my revision, what was added was only the fact that Taiwan is a partially recognized state and one major establishing event that this state was expelled from the UN in 1971. I cannot understand why this is even "controversial" given that other articles of states with limited recognition like Republic of Artsakh, Kosovo, and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic all follow the same pattern. Please post your comment on whether those content should be removed. --Aisakano (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This topic has been discussed thoroughly—please search the talk archives, in particular Archive 23: “Partially-recognised in first sentence?” and “State.” Consensus can change, but I think “state” without a qualifier has been the fairly stable consensus for several years. Phlar (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you take a more thorough look at the previous discussions, it's not hard to conclude that actually no consensus has been made on this issue (at least back in 2014). The reason why such changes haven't been implemented is that no censensus has been made (see WP:NOCONSENSUS)rather than what you referred to as the fairly stable consensus. --Aisakano (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I won’t bother to debate whether or not this stability should be called “consensus.” Now, having read at least some of the previous discussion, surely you must agree that the issue is, indeed, controversial. You haven’t brought forth any new arguments to justify the change. It is incumbent upon you to do so, if you still want to change it. Phlar (talk) 10:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * According to List of states with limited recognition, China, South Korea and Israel are all states with limited recognition, and I don't see you making edits on their pages. I also don't get how you think being expelled is an establishment event. Szqecs (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Clearly your argument has fallen into the category of weak analogy. As you can see from the cited article, China, Israel, and ROK are all UN memebers that are recognized by an overwhelming majority of countries in the world. Taiwan, however, is apparently not in that category. For the second argument, I'm afraid it's something that can be deemed as fringe view given that it was who made that change by this edit. --Aisakano (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * P.S. It's also worth noting that both the articles of China and State of Palestine include the UN admission dates in their country infoboxes. Similarly, in this case, being expelled from UN which is the most prominent intergovernmental organization in the world should be included at least in the infobox. --Aisakano (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since when does not being a UN member equals having limited recognition and being one equals having full recognition? If that's the case maybe we ought to delete List_of_states_with_limited_recognition. If you want to be objective, why don't you try to be accurate and write 'non-UN' state instead? Szqecs (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You may choose articulate your point for your argument doesn't address mine. --Aisakano (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * @Aisakano: The same editor who added the UN expulsion date in the edit you cited above also added the UN “admission” date to China around the same time. I have since removed it. Phlar (talk) 14:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder, to @ someone, you have to use the template replyto rather than typing @. --Aisakano (talk) 14:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I won’t bother to debate whether or not this stability should be called “consensus.” Well, instead of actively getting engaged in discussions, you chose to not "bother". What can I say? In terms of my argument, I'm pretty sure you haven't read my post thoroughly as well. Take a look again if you don't "bother": other articles of states with limited recognition like Republic of Artsakh, Kosovo, and Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic all follow the same pattern.--Aisakano (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The qualifier “partially recognized” is inappropriate in the first, defining sentence of the article. This complex situation requires clear explanation, which is done throughout the lede, including the 3rd sentence, the 2nd paragraph and the 4th paragraph. Phlar (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * How is this "inappropriate"? I admit that the Taiwan issue is fairly complicated and requires in-depth explanation. But it is simply an objective fact that Taiwan is partially recognized and similar facts have been rendered in similar articles. In order to make sure those articles are consistent, I believe this change is indispensable.--Aisakano (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Both “partially recognized state” and “de facto state” are objective facts. To list one in the first sentence while omitting the other is to give undue weight to one, which is inappropriate. If you try to leave “partially recognized” here, I guarantee someone else will come along and change it to “de facto,” starting an edit war. Phlar (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you have misunderstood WP:UNDUE which states "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". As we both agree, they are facts rather than viewpoints. --Aisakano (talk) 13:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Btw, according to the article de facto state which redirects to List of states with limited recognition, I can suppose that the two expressions are actually synonyms. --Aisakano (talk) 13:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you feel they are synonymous, then are you proposing to list “de facto” instead of “partially recognized”? I suspect you are not (and I am NOT proposing that we do so, either). Including one “fact” while omitting another represents a “viewpoint” for the purposes of WP:UNDUE. Phlar (talk) 14:09, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * First, I initially didn't expect the two expressions to be synonymous before visiting that redirecting page so it's really not something I feel. Also, since they are synonymous, then WP:UNDUE won't applies to this case where the two expressions actually share the same POV. --Aisakano (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what dictionary you two use but neither “partially recognized” nor “de facto” are objective. Here are the objective facts: Taiwan is not in the UN, Taiwan is recognized by 19 UN states. “partially recognized” and “de facto” are anything but objective. Szqecs (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This again? I agree with and  this does not need placing so prominently in the lead. It is already explained more fully in the lead, and later on in the article in its own section. Adding it to the first section without explanation just confuses things. As for 1971 is is not a major landmark or milestone. See e.g. History of Taiwan which is not divided explicitly or in any meaningful way into pre-1971 and post-1971. We have a long history of editors disruptively trying to make this date more important than it is – see e.g. Articles for deletion/Republic of China (1949–71) for one instance. It was not so important then, it is not so important now.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 16:52, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * FYI, the name of this article is potentially misleading. The example you wanted to give is History of the Republic of China, not History of Taiwan. The latter talks about Taiwan (island). --Matt Smith (talk) 23:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank’s, that’s a better article for what I was thinking of, and it too does not make a big deal about the 1971 date, which only gets one mention in the body of the article. It’s not that things massively changed in 1971, it’s only one date of many in the history of Taiwan.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 00:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: I have blocked the starter of this RfC as an block evading account. Alex Shih (talk) 01:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)