User talk:Matt Smith

Welcome!
Hello, Matt Smith, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Deem (disambiguation), may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type help me on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Norvoid (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Speedy deletion nomination of Deem (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Deem (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Norvoid (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Deem (disambiguation) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deem (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Deem (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. smileguy91talk - contribs 15:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Taiwan
I reverted your edits to Political status of Taiwan because even though you are correct in differentiating the ROC from the island of Taiwan, the point in including recognition of the ROC government is to illustrate how some governments recognize the ROC as a legitimate government (and thus the ruler of Taiwan), whereas others do not. Dschslava Δx  parlez moi  04:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

囧rz
一直以為您是英文維基人，直到我突然發現了這個：zh:Special:diff/42185166 囧rz...--逆襲的天邪鬼 (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * 是的，我本來只編輯中文維基，今年才決定正式涉足英文維基. 您在我的中文的用戶討論頁留言後，我以為您知道我在兩邊都有涉足. --Matt Smith (talk) 07:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Flag change
Hi there, there's a discussion here regarding the name change of the article. 135.23.144.153 (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Responded. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Merger of the ROC in Mainland to ROC in Taiwan
Hi again, you might want to discuss this issue here because the ROC in Taiwan is the continuation of the 1912 ROC similar to how the Baltic states did. 174.88.142.106 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposing to merge the Template:Taiwan topics into Template:China topics
If you look closely, the PRC and ROC share the same history as China. I'm thinking the Template:Taiwan topics into Template:China topics since two different country names don't make sense. See Template talk:China topics for more. Wrestlingring (talk) 03:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I respectfully disagree with the proposed merge because of two reasons:
 * I think using "Taiwan" to nickname the ROC is confusing and misleading because "Taiwan" is the island's name, not the ROC's. So the proposed merge is confusing and misleading as well. I would agree with the merge if the template were called Template:Republic of China topics and has no content related to Taiwan (island).
 * I agree that the ROC and the PRC are one China, but I disagree that Taiwan (island) belongs to the ROC. So the proposed merge misleads readers into believing that Taiwan (island) belongs to the ROC and China.
 * --Matt Smith (talk) 03:58, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Biography
Hey Matt, is this right? I edited the Jen-Hsun Huang article and she was born in (Nationalist) China (which was during the period when the ROC was recognized by the UN). What do you think? If they revert this edit, talk to the users who reverted that edit. 135.23.144.167 (talk) 04:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think Taiwan (island) does not belong to China (ROC or PRC) so I wouldn't use the term "Taiwan Province, China". --Matt Smith (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit summaries are especially needed when negating previous content, especially technical info
Hi Matt. Thanks for finding a source and correcting the information at Microdata (HTML). A situation like that begs for a detailed edit summary because of the technical nature of the information and reference, and because you've reversed what the content previously said. Without an edit summary the edit could appear to be vandalism or a WP:POV-violation, and the highly technical reference makes it difficult to tell. --Ronz (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will be more careful next time. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

January 2017
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Republic of Formosa, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Republic of Formosa. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a blockage. Thank you. Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Republic of Formosa. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * No edit war has happened. Check the history carefully. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a revert where you are edit warring. This is disruptive, so please don't do this. You have been reverted previously in this article as well. If you want to implement changes, get consensus on the talk page. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Correcting text according to the source is consistent with the policy and is not an edit warring. Read the definition of edit warring. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Undoing the changes of any editor is edit warring. I am asking you do discuss first. Stop removing content just because you think it is correct. Discuss and get consensus for your changed on the talk page first. If you do it again, I will report you. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not if the change is based on a reliable source. Just because you disagree with the editing does not mean you have the right to accuse others of edit warring. But now that you have shown your disagreement (in an inappropriate way, imo), I will discuss with you in the Talk page. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, even if the change is based on a reliable source, it is still considered edit warring. You can ask any admin about this. The correct approach is to start a talk page discussion when you have been reverted the first time (See WP:BRD). You had earlier started a discussion at Talk:Japanese_invasion_of_Taiwan_(1895) - that was an appropriate thing to do (and as you saw editors ultimately disagreed with your rationale). You should start a discussion here as well. If you feel that I am wrong, I don't mind starting an RFC to get more opinions. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:15, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please quote the related text from WP:BRD that says the correct approach is to start a talk page discussion after being reverted the first time. The discussion at Talk:Japanese_invasion_of_Taiwan_(1895) is not done yet, and I was just planning to continue on it. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:BRD (read it in full), to understand what is BRD and why is it helpful. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please quote the related text to prove your own words. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? I am sorry to say but it is obvious if you read the page (and this should be easy enough for even a non-native English speaker). If you are unable to understand it, then perhaps you should consider editing the Wikipedia in your native language. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you cannot provide a quote, I would then reasonably assume that you misinterpreted the explanatory supplement. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

What you are doing is called Wikilawyering (and it is disruptive and has led to editors being blocked before). For your information, BRD stands for bold, revert and discuss. You make a bold edit, I revert and then we discuss and attain consensus. (It's there right at the top of WP:BRD btw, so I am amazed if you could not understand it). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As for "If you cannot provide a quote, I would then reasonably assume that you misinterpreted the explanatory supplement.", you can keep assuming anything, but if you are disruptive/edit war, then you will still be blocked. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 10:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Not if I was just reasonably "assuming" based on one's acts. Just because the explanatory supplement is called BRD does not mean D should be performed after the first R. Please do not use your own interpretation of the explanatory supplement before confirming it. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Since you apparently have a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude, I can't do anything more. Next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will simply be blocked without warning. If you think I am wrong, go ask any admin. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you do not make accusations so easily in the future. Read policy No personal attacks. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Where is the personal attack? You were edit warring and I warned you. Is that a personal attack? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not just "edit warring". There were also "Wikilawyering", "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude", and "disrupt Wikipedia". And from my point of view, it is actually you that look more like the disruptor. So do not make accusations so fast. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those were personal attacks. Believe me, I have dealt with multiple editors before and this kind of behaviour doesn't help in a collaborative setting. If you feel I am misinterpreting any policy, you are welcome to ask any uninvolved admin. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to degrade others' personalities is, imo, a form of personal attack. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect use of WP:IAR
How is this an application of WP:IAR? And again, you refused to discuss but reverted to your preferred version here. Did you check out the discussion on the talk --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Taiwan under Japanese rule. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi.  03:54, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring about the history of Taiwan
You've been warned for edit warring about the history of Taiwan per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You are risking a block if you make any more reverts about the political status of Taiwan (past or present) that are not supported by a prior consensus on the talk page. The statement on your user page may suggest that you are here on Wikipedia to impose your personal point of view and not to improve the encyclopedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Matt Smith; you were warned by, above, to specifically avoid '.' Your two most recent edits suggest you have not taken this advice to heart. You edit on Republic of Formosa, This, with the edit summary 'more info in the talk page' did not have a consensus on that page for change. In fact, your remark on that page (that you  suggests that you have fundamentally misunderstood the advice above, and WP:CONSENSUS generally. Secondly, this revert on Two Chinas was accompanied by the edit summary  (which refers to this demand that your changes are acepted within two hours on 's talkpage). This likewise had no consensus, and relied only on your imposition of an artificial deadline.
 * You appear to be continuing with the same uncollegial,dismissive, and partisan editing that resulted in the previous WP:ANEW Talk:Republic of Formosa report. Please note that this now a behavioural discussion and no longer one of content. I suggest you self-revert your edits and await input from a broader audience of editors. Cheers, O Fortuna!  ...Imperatrix mundi.  12:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please allow me to remind you that the first edit of mine you mentioned is not a revert at all. In my humble opinion, it is an amendment as well as improvement to an uncited content based on a reliable source. Further more, no one has ever said that we will have to get a consensus on that particular content so your reason WP:CONSENSUS is not valid. Secondly, as mentioned by me in User:Lemongirl942's talk page, she failed to keep her own words that she would explain her revert later yesterday. In order to show my patience on this matter, I then allowed her for two more hours. So that means you probably didn't see the whole context carefully before accusing me of imposing deadline.
 * It is good to have someone like you who is willing to help preventing potential vandalism on Wikipedia. But I would like to suggest that you evaluate the context of every discussion carefully in the future so that you won't make insulting accusations against others accidentally. --Matt Smith (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Matt Smith, please revert your own edits at at Two Chinas and at Republic of Formosa that you made subsequent to my warning at WP:AN3 on 16 January at 15:21. There is no evidence of a talk page consensus in favor of either change. If you don't do so, I'm planning to go ahead with a block of your account for edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In regards to Two Chinas, although the other editor, who agreed to be responsible for explaining her revert on my edits, hasn't been able to keep her own words, I can accept your advice and do the revert considering she might really have suffered from a certain difficulties. But please let me know how the situation could be solved if she continues to be responseless.
 * In regards to Republic of Formosa, I had made it clear above that no one has ever asked for a consensus on that particular content. Also, that particular content has never gone through any edit warring so far. What I did to it is just improving it with a reliable resource. So in my humble opinion, my edit was legitimate and didn't violate any policy. If you still think my edit was inappropriate, please explain your reasons in detail and cite related policies. Before that, I won't accept an unclear advice.
 * --Matt Smith (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * --Matt Smith (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Long term edit warring about the political status of Taiwan
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. You have continued to make edits that advance your own personal opinion about the political status of Taiwan, without waiting to get talk page consensus, after being warned at WP:AN3 not to continue. You have stated on your user page, "TAIWAN IS NOT REPUBLIC OF CHINA, NOR IS IT PART OF REPUBLIC OF CHINA." Your have edited Taiwan-related articles in the way that was explained in the AN3 report -- it appears you think that Taiwan was never independent. It's OK to have personal opinions but you are expected to be able to set aside those beliefs when you are editing Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Having a few conflicts (maybe just 11 or 12 in total) with 2 other editors during 3-4 days should in no way be described as "long term edit warring". "Long term edit warring" is of course your exaggerated, false accusation.
 * Undeniably, I could had been more reasonable in editing, and I'm sorry about that. But conservatively speaking, only around 20-30% of my edits were not consistent with policy WP:NPOV. "Long term ...... failure to edit neutrally" is just another exaggeration. And it's funny to me that you accused me of not wanting to recognize the Republic of Formosa as a "real state" but you had no problem with yourself recognizing the Republic of Formosa as a "real state". So it seems to me that you have double standard. I had done many researches on the said entity before amending its statehood in that article; how many researches had you actually done before deciding that it was a "real state"? Would you answer that question in all honesty?
 * --Matt Smith (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * --Matt Smith (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan demonym
Hello Matt, could the demonym for Taiwan to include Chinese too? We know both the PRC and ROC are ONE CHINA. 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:C158:98C2:1732:48EE (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Not sure how you knew that I regard the PRC and the ROC as one China, but that indeed is my position. But an important thing to note is that "Taiwan" in my definition is an island and I regard the territorial sovereignty of the island as undetermined. So in my opinion, it is misleading and confusing to refer to the ROC as "Taiwan". Until the English Wikipedia stops referring to the ROC as "Taiwan", I cannot support an idea which can possibly mislead people into believing that Taiwan (island) is part of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcome again
Please discuss this. I noticed the Greek and Russian Wikipedias have the full names of the ROC and PRC. 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:5C89:BBA5:CFF6:4F03 (talk) 00:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Although I, too, do not agree with nicknaming the ROC as "Taiwan" because that's very confusing and makes the content of the article even more confusing, it looks like the English Wikipedia won't change it currently due to WP:COMMONNAME. I will vote, but I don't expect the change. And please also note that it is POV to assert that Taiwan belongs to the ROC because there are different opinions on that topic. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Three periods of ROC History
There's a discussion on Talk:Taiwan and the second period means the ROC in exile held on to the UN seat. 2607:FEA8:61F:F0AB:19CC:10C8:E1F7:57E8 (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. The article in discussion contained some misleading information. For example, it asserted that the ROC formally received Taiwan in 1945, and that is not conforming to policy WP:NPOV. It needs to be a neutral article before editors can accept it, and the necessity of it being a standalone article also needs to be evaluated. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion page of TAIWAN
Please read my reply in disscussion page regarding to your editing advice.ILVTW (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussion invite
Hello. I invite you to join a centralized discussion about naming issues related to China and Taiwan. Szqecs (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Case
Hi there, I am inviting you to participate in this arbitration case I filed regarding the ROC/PRC issue. Supreme Dragon (talk) 00:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration Special:Permalink/787497450 Closed
This is to inform you that the request for arbitration in which you were recently named as a party has been declined by the committee and closed. GoldenRing (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

多谢啦
只是觉得Ip在乱写. 我不关心政治什么的. 祝好. 損齋 (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. 別客氣. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Help on Republic of China (1949–1971)
The article I have created is threaten deletion again. It needs to be discussed and objected at this page because the ROC had three periods. Wrestlingring (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I didn't participated in the previous discussion so I don't know how exactly the decision was made. And I'm also not sure if it's necessary to divide the ROC into three periods. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Flag of the Republic of China
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Flag of the Republic of China&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Wrestlingring (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. My position has changed since the previous discussion. Now I think that the Republic of China is no longer representative of China and therefore we should avoid making readers think that it is still representative in these matters. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan
I am confused as to why my source was not acceptable. It's from the BBC, which is about as RS as it gets. Kiteinthewind  Leave a message! 02:40, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. That BBC source does not describe Taiwan as a "state". --Matt Smith (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

The proposal that change the article's title "Taiwan" to "Republic of China"
I read the talk page named "Talk:Taiwan". You support the proposal that change the article's title "Taiwan" to "Republic of China". I also support the proposal. Taiwan is an area belong to China. Taiwan is also an ambiguou term. Taiwan can refer to (1)"Free area of the Republic of China", which de facto controlled by the regime "Republic of China" only since 1949; (2)"Island of Taiwan", an island named "Taiwan" located in East Asia; (3)"Taiwan Province, Republic of China", which is a province of the regime "Republic of China"; (4)"Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China", which is a province claimed by the regime "People's Republic of China". "Republic of China" is a regime which was established in 1912, controlled "Chinese mainland" between 1912 and 1949, de facto controls "Taiwan area" only since 1949, and whose de jure territory consists of the whole China. In conclusion, the regime "Republic of China" is too different from the area "Taiwan". Thus, I hope you can put forward the proposal that change the article's title "Taiwan" to "Republic of China" again in the talk page named "Talk:Taiwan". What is your mind? MouseCatDog (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. I had made the proposal in the past so my proposing it again won't help much. Since you support the idea, too, you can go ahead a make the proposal. I will support you.
 * Besides, it's controversial to say "Taiwan is an area belong to China" because opinions differ on that topic. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

ROC nationalist IPs
Re: your request for page protection, I believe we are dealing with the same person knowingly abusing an open proxy here. See the articles for the president of the PRC and ROC. Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. I had added the information you provided on Requests for page protection. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:53, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Disturbingly disrupting the modification of the page "Taiwan"
You've been really disruptive recently on the improvement of several Wikipedia pages, one being the "Taiwan" page. The modifications made today are to add information that are authentic and beneficial for the entity of the page. However, your disruptive actions has greatly disturbed the positive progression of Wikipedia.

You will be blocked without further warning if you continue your disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jusir the Great (talk • contribs) 14:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please be careful of your wordings. I reverted your edits because they are controversial and are against the consensuses editors came into through discussing. Other editors would have reverted your edits even if I didn't do it.
 * If you think those edits could be beneficial to the article, please create new sections on the talk page to discuss the issues. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Rump state edits
Let's use the discussion page and sort matters out. If I am to understand correctly, you are an Asian living in Taiwan, right? You have a unique perspective on the One-China question, but you can't bring that perspective to the article without sourcing and discussion. I look forward to working with you on this article. Cheers! - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please use the article's talk page. Thanks. My edits to that content are based on reliable sources, not on my own perspective. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You've been mentioned at User talk:EdJohnston. Lectures about consensus, when they are delivered in the edit summary of a revert, do not suggest a sincere desire to reach agreement. If you had chosen to talk first we might believe you. Admins are allowed to block when they perceive a long-term pattern of disruptive editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It might go a very long way in the AN3R discussion if you self-revert and commit to using the discussion page to build a consensus. I don't really want to see you blocked again. It is clear that you have strong feelings on this topic, but they are not going to serve you well if you don't work collaboratively with others to find/build a consensus. The single source you used in the article discussion is the very one I noted in discussion. If you want to bring more sources to the rump state discussion, that would be great. Please self-revert; I don't want you to face another block and probable topic-ban. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please understand that, you are trying to remove a long-time content without getting a consensus first. In other words, you are violating Wikipedia's policy WP:Consensus. And that's inappropriate. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Matt, I've been editing that page for over two years. To my discredit, I spent most of that time removing entrants to that page that had no sourcing. It was only after myself and others made sure that everything was sourced that I started looking at the sources provided for each entrant. You must know that a single source is not enough for inclusion when said inclusion is denigrating to the nation-state being added. I will not allow a PRC vs. ROC flame war to happen because I didn't prevent it. If you want to build a consensus, build it. Your edits are problematic here, and I think you know how close to the cliff's edge you are with your edits in this area. I have been trying to give you some opportunities to pull yourself back from the edge, but you keep insinuating that I am trying to cheat you or something. I assure you that I am not. That will quickly change if you don't start acting appropriately. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Desist from defaming me. You can have your reasons of editing articles, but when your edits of a long-time content are opposed by other editors, you should get a consensus with other editors first, not keeping doing what you think is right. In this case, you failed to do that. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Please learn to recognize the difference between someone pointing out a problem that you clearly have (and are apparently unable to see) and accusing you of, say, killing the Romanovs. Maybe we should stop talking for a while. You are just as clearly unable to see that I am trying to help you and your own actions are driving the things happening to you now. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you are trying to help me, I thank you for that. But the way you used should have been in harmony with policies. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan independence movement 8/9/2019
I rewrote the introduction because I noticed that someone had vandalised that section during the preceding weeks. Basically, the part where it says "the PRC claims sovereignty over both China and Taiwan" was changed to "the PRC claims sovereignty over both mainland China and Taiwan". This I consider vandalism since there is no consensus over whether Taiwan is actually part of China and the relationship between the two regions that between a "satellite island and the mainland". In fact, based on the Treaty of Shimonoseki and the Treaty of San Francisco, one can conclude that Taiwan is NOT part of China, at least not yet, but rather holds the status of "a foreign territory being occupied by China (ROC)".

This new introduction explained the situation in much more accurate terms, whereas the previous introduction was a lot looser (albeit simpler) and therefore much more ambiguous. By the way, I also wrote the entirety of the previous introduction. It has lasted for several months in spite of that single case of vandalism, so I do think it was fairly decent.

By the way, there is a distinction between "the political situation in/concerning Taiwan" and "the political status of Taiwan". The latter phrase seems to refer to the precise status of the island of Taiwan itself; i.e. whether it is part of China or not. Whereas, the former phrase seems to refer to the broader political issues surrounding Taiwan, and is able to include both the political status of Taiwan itself and the inter-Chinese legitimacy dispute between the CPC and the KMT, as well as the deep and prominent political dispute between the Pan-Blue Coalition and the Pan-Green Coalition, whose worldviews are so fundamentally incompatible that they may as well be living on two different planets.

Note that an alternative to rewriting the introduction is simply to undo the vandalism. However, it seems to be a sort of vandalism which will be frequently repeated. I have seen similar vandalism on the "Music of Taiwan" Wikipedia article, in which all references to Taiwan as a "country" were changed to "province". So, in order to reduce the chances of future vandalism, I replaced all instances of "country" or "province" with "region" (alternatively, "territory"); which Taiwan is of course both a region and a territory, though this leaves ambiguous to whom this region/territory precisely belongs. Likewise, with this particular case, I was also trying to reduce future vandalism by removing anything which might possibly be regarded as "biased" from the article.

Also, note that the main Wikipedia article for Taiwan, i.e. "Taiwan", is heavily monitored and has established certain compromises (which should be made consistent throughout all Taiwan-related articles on Wikipedia). For example, on that particular Wikipedia page, most mentions of the political status of Taiwan, at least in the introduction, refer to the polity as a "state" rather than as a "country" or "province", in order to maintain neutrality. Furthermore, the main article "Taiwan" has established "Taiwan" as the name to be used to refer to the state on Wikipedia, rather than "Republic of China". This is in spite of the fact that the name "Taiwan" is not mentioned in the official name of the state, but is rather a colloquial name for the state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. "Taiwan independence movement" and "Two Chinas" are two different topics, although they have indirect association. I suggest obtaining a consensus at the article's talk page before making large-scaled changes. Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 08:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is that all mentions of "mainland China" be removed from Wikipedia or be placed in inverted commas, or else some other indication should be made that the term is politically "loaded" and is hence unsuitable for widespread usage in Wikipedia.


 * Do note that the term "mainland China" is perfectly logical in regards to everything relevant which does not concern Taiwan. For example, the phrase "Hainan Island and mainland China" makes perfect sense, since Hainan is an island which is governed by China. Furthermore, the phrase "Hong Kong Island and mainland China" is also acceptable, for the same reason. However, similarly to "Taiwan and mainland China", the phrase "Hong Kong and mainland China" is undesirable, since it implies that Hong Kong (the entire special administrative region) is not part of mainland China even though a decent chunk of Hong Kong is actually part of mainland China. Instead, the relationship between Hong Kong and mainland China is that between an "autonomous region (Chinese SAR) and the core of the country (China Proper)". Furthermore, it should be made clear that the relationships between Hong Kong and China versus Taiwan and China are completely different and should not be conflated or associated together.


 * Regarding "Taiwan and mainland China", the only politically correct phrase which is appropriate is "Taiwan and China". Alternatively, one can specify "Taiwan Region and Mainland China Region", two politically incorrect terms which are in widespread usage within both the People's Republic of China and Chinese nationalist circles in Taiwan. These terms carry heavy Chinese nationalistic weight, but the usage of the additional word "region" implies that these terms are China-specific jargon, rather than terms which are commonly accepted by the non-Chinese international community. Whereas, the phrase "Taiwan and mainland China" heavily implies that the international community, including Wikipedia (which is supposed to be politically correct and as neutral as possible), commonly accepts that Taiwan is part of China, a notion which is simply untrue unless you consider the opinion of the United Nations to be concrete fact (and we all know how politically correct THAT organization is with the PRC being a permanent Security Council member).


 * If there is nothing else to be said, I will proceed to delete all matter-of-fact mentions of "mainland China" from Wikipedia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I personally have no objection to this wording. But I'm not sure if other editors have. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * To clarify, the exact reasons why "mainland China" is such an undesirable term (despite its widespread usage) are that it messily conflates many unrelated concepts and, whether intentionally or unintentionally, pushes forth the notion that all of these various political disputes are interconnected disputes which revolve around China (in some respects they are, in other respects they are not), and further places an emphasis on the importance of the Chinese viewpoint whilst simultaneously disregarding the viewpoints of the oppressed minorities.


 * One who is knowledgeable enough should easily be able to understand the perhaps subtle differences between "Hainan and mainland China", "Hong Kong and mainland China" and "Taiwan and mainland China". Due to these concepts being different, they should not be conflated together, just as how we don't say "Xinjiang and mainland China" but rather "Xinjiang and China proper". (On that note, I wonder how we are supposed to describe the relationship between, say, Fujian and the core of the country? Maybe it should be "Fujian of China".)


 * It is commonly accepted, and it is truthful, that both Hainan and Hong Kong are under Chinese sovereignty. However, Hong Kong maintains a special form of autonomy known as "One Country Two Systems" (note that "One Country" clearly outlines the fact that Hong Kong and mainland China [alternately "China proper"] are contained within a single country). However, given the current unrest in Hong Kong and the likely possibility that the PRC is not honouring the "Two Systems" part of the deal, the phrase "Hong Kong and mainland China" might be undesirable.


 * Regarding Taiwan, one might consider it to be an autonomous region of China (a serious opinion which I have come across); that is, if you consider a 100% autonomous region to not simply constitute an entirely independent country. Even though the PRC claims Taiwan as its own, and even though many countries falsely recognise Taiwan as part of China, the PRC does not exercise real authority over Taiwan, and hence Taiwan cannot logically or honestly be considered part of China or the PRC. The phrase "Taiwan and mainland China" is either ignorant or malicious.


 * A slightly more politically correct phrase than "Taiwan and mainland China" is "Taiwan and/of Greater China". Taiwan might reasonably be considered part of "Greater China", though, at the same time, Taiwan might also reasonably be considered part of "Greater Japan" for similar reasons. Both terms are somewhat politically correct since Taiwan falls into both the Chinese cultural/historical/political sphere (Sinosphere) and the Japanese cultural/historical/political sphere (whatever you call it). However, both terms carry irredentist weight.


 * On the topic of "Is Taiwan a country?", I personally believe that it isn't, though the reasoning behind this notion is rather complex. In my opinion, Taiwan is a geopolitical "anomaly" and cannot be described as a "country", though it certainly isn't a province of the PRC or the ROC either. Taiwan can reasonably be described as a "state", though it is a rather unusual one. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You may go ahead and implement the "Taiwan and China" wording. If other editors disagree, then we could discuss.
 * As for "Greater China", it's informal and using it in this case can be controversial. --Matt Smith (talk) 10:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan independence movement 8/31/2019
Article 10: For the purposes of the present Treaty, nationals of the Republic of China, shall be deemed to include all the inhabitants and former inhabitants of Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) and their descendents who are of the Chinese nationality in accordance with the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores); and juridical persons of the Republic of China shall be deemed to include all those registered under the laws and regulations which have been or may hereafter be enforced by the Republic of China in Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores).

I have taken this article of the Treaty of Taipei to imply that Taiwanese people were considered to be Chinese nationals (i.e. citizens) at that time. This may have already happened earlier, but this was a definitive confirmation of the notion that the Taiwanese people would now be considered to be Chinese. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi. Please note the "deemed". Taiwanese people are deemed to be Chinese nationals. In other words, Taiwanese people are not really Chinese nationals, but are regarded as such. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)


 * So, when and how did Taiwanese people become Chinese citizens? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, ever since Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895, Taiwanese people have never become Chinese citizens. Of course, Chinese regimes (ROC and PRC) claim otherwise. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have seen several Kuomintang/ROC nationalists argue that the Taiwanese people acquired ROC citizenship at the exact same time that everyone living in mainland China (perhaps a politically incorrect term) acquired their own ROC citizenship. In my opinion, this is a stupid and nonsensical argument, though I guess it has come about since most Kuomintang/ROC nationalists like to downplay the whole 50 years of Japanese occupation thing and the (totally legally binding) Treaty of Shimonoseki, which ceded Taiwan to Japan in perpetuity (rather than for, say, 99 years). Basically, since they argue that the Treaty of Shimonoseki was an unequal treaty (which is stupid and/or redundant since all war-time treaties are unequal), and since they argue that the ROC government nullified that treaty through a couple of war-time declarations and some tough talk, they believe that the Treaty of Shimonoseki, effectively, was never legal in the first place; at least not since Taiwan was recaptured by the ROC and since the ROC had won the second war against Japan. If the Treaty of Shimonoseki was never legal, then the Taiwanese people never stopped being Chinese citizens, even going back to the late Qing dynasty era of China. Of course, this whole "Taiwanese people were Chinese even when Taiwan was part of Japan" thing gets a bit messy when you consider that there was a significant flow of people into and out of Taiwan during those 50 years of Japanese rule/occupation. When the ROC occupied Taiwan, it basically deported every single person with Japanese blood flowing through their veins; what was left was a majority "Han Chinese" population, as well as a few Taiwanese Aborigines, with other foreign groups being minimal in size. So, basically, instead of actually coming up with some legal way to grant the Taiwanese people with Chinese citizenship, I have a sneaking suspicion that the ROC just granted every ethnically Han Chinese person (truthfully or perceived) with ROC citizenship. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I pretty much agree with you. The ROC also "granted" Taiwanese Aborigines with ROC citizenships. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:48, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan under Qing rule --> Succeeded by...
I have noticed that you reverted a recent edit by another user that stated that Taiwan under Qing rule was succeeeded by the Republic of Formosa. Well, actually, this person is correct. However, Taiwan under Qing rule was also succeeded by Taiwan under Japanese rule around the same time. Hence, it should be more correct to say that it was succeeded by both regimes. Although the Republic of Formosa only lasted a few months, it did actually declare independence, and it was organised to some degree. The Republic of Formosa was promptly absorbed by the Empire of Japan, which was already occupying parts of Taiwan (starting with the Pescadores Islands) when it was formed. However, this doesn't automatically remove its legitimacy. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

EDIT: The Kingdom of Middag and Kingdom of Tungning, both of which were recognised by very few countries, are included in the "preceding and succeeding countries" section of the "Taiwan under Qing rule" article. As such, I believe that it is fair to also include the Republic of Formosa in this section. There is nothing that truly makes the Kingdom of Middag and Kingdom of Tungning somehow "more legitimate" than the Republic of Formosa. Being "temporary" doesn't remove a regime's legitimacy. When the Republic of Formosa was initially formed, it obviously did not intend to be dissolved a few months later. Had it not been dissolved, it might have actually been a long-reigning regime. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The Republic of Formosa was just a provisional organization formed by Qing supporters. It never ruled Taiwan; not even for one day. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The Republic of Formosa had a government, flag, capital city, etc. It certainly didn't rule all of Taiwan but it at least ruled a fragment of the region. The Republic of Formosa lasted for 5 months. It is considered to be the third-ever republic that was established in Asia. It is the only Taiwanese regime throughout history that has declared independence as a distinct Taiwanese state (although it did intend to eventually reunify with China). And, as I have stated earlier, is the Republic of Formosa really less legitimate than a state like the Kingdom of Middag? Also, your usage of the term "provisional organisation" is problematic. Bear in mind that the current regime controlling Taiwan, the Republic of China, only controls its "provisional capital city", Taipei (Taibei). Meanwhile, the real capital city, Nanjing (Nanking), is under the control of the People's Republic of China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen any source which says the Republic of Formosa "ruled a fragment of the region".
 * English is not my first language so sometimes my wording is not accurate. Sorry about that. I meant to convey that the Republic of Formosa was just a short-lived political organization and could not even be regarded as a government. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If the Republic of Formosa did not have any legitimacy whatsoever, then why is it featured everywhere across Wikipedia? Wikipedia states that the Republic of Formosa was the third ever republic to have been established in Asia. How can it have been both a republic and non-existent simultaneously? If the Republic of Formosa is recognised by Wikipedia to have been a real republic, albeit an unrecognised one throughout the months that it existed, then that means that it was a real regime that existed in Taiwan throughout the months that it existed. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Edit: As far as I am aware, the Republic of Formosa never controlled the Pescadores Islands (since Japan occupied them during the First Sino-Japanese War and used them to assist in its invasion of the rest of Taiwan). The Republic of Formosa had at least some control over other regions of Taiwan, though it was engaged in a war of resistance against the invading Empire of Japan throughout most of its existence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * It's important to note that information on Wikipedia aren't always reliable. Only information which are supported by reliable sources are reliable. So far, there is no reliable source says the republic ruled any part of Taiwan, as far as I know.
 * Any political organization can establish a republic polity and call themselves "Republic of xxxxx". But that action alone does not give them authority or credibility. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The Republic of Formosa engaged in an actual war with the Empire of Japan. Edit: Engaging in a war of resistance, in my opinion, gives a newly-declared republic slightly more legitimacy. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I respect your right to have your opinion. But reliable sources are still needed to better determine these things. --Matt Smith (talk) 06:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan independence movement -- Recognition of the Republic of China by its allies
I don't personally see how it is possible for the fifteen allies of the Republic of China to not recognise it as a sovereign state whilst conducting official diplomatic relations with the Republic of China. Your definition of "the ROC is recognized as the sole representative of China by its allies" is irrelevant since the fifteen allies of the Republic of China do not recognise the People's Republic of China as a sovereign state, and hence it needn't be mentioned. The fifteen allies of the Republic of China recognise the polity (Republic of China) as a sovereign state in and of itself, representing the territories of mainland China, Outer Mongolia, and Taiwan island. You are drawing your definition of "sole representative of China" from the concept of the "One China Policy/Principle". However, the fifteen allies of the Republic of China are either non-signatories to this concept or have previously accepted and then subsequently rejected this concept. The fifteen allies of the Republic of China do not agree to the One China Policy, at least regarding the version of the policy that has been formulated by the People's Republic of China, and hence do not adhere to the idea that the "Republic of China is the sole representative of China". If the Republic of China has its own "One China Policy" that is comparable to the version formulated by the People's Republic of China, then I suggest that you should provide it here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The ROC is recognized by its allies as the sole representative of China. That information can be found in a reliable source. It's not invented by me.
 * The ROC does have its own One China Policy, too. The two Chinese polities' One China Policies are referred to as "one China, respective interpretations".


 * --Matt Smith (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The polity is recognised by its allies as a sovereign state by the official name "Republic of China", unofficially "Taiwan". The Republic of China is a direct successor state to the Qing dynasty of China and has maintained its sovereignty for over 107 years (since 1912). The Republic of China has never officially recognised the legitimacy of the rebel regime, known as the so-called "People's Republic of China", that illegally occupied mainland China in 1949. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The policy that you have provided here has been proposed solely by the Kuomintang political party. There is currently no consensus in the Republic of China (Taiwan) on whether to follow this policy. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:54, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please understand that, accurately speaking, "Republic of China" is a government. "China" is the state. And currently, the China state is represented by "People's Republic of China" government. Qing was a government that represented the China state, too.
 * I wouldn't say you are wrong about the policy. But one needs to know that Kuomintang's proposal isn't groundless. It's based exactly on the constitution of the Republic of China. That is, according to the constitution of the Republic of China, the Republic of China is the sole representative of China. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ. I came here to see whether I was stupid a year ago. Oh boy... So, basically, you think the ROC and the PRC somehow constitute a single state together? Despite the fact that they have obviously functioned as two independent countries (independent from one another, that is) for the past 71 years? In reality, the PRC and the ROC is each its own independent state. Both states claim to represent a single nation, to the exclusion of any other competing states which also claim to represent that nation. In other words, the PRC thinks the ROC doesn't (or shouldn't) exist, and the ROC thinks the PRC doesn't (or shouldn't) exist, but, in reality, both states exist simultaneously. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope. I think the PRC is the sole representative of the China state, and the ROC is a refugee regime taking shelter on the Taiwan island.
 * It should be pointed out that, the ROC's role is not just a refugee regime (in my opinion) because it was also assigned as the custodian of the Taiwan island in 1945. Therefore, its . --Matt Smith (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Correction -- China is a historical country that is divided into two states. One state, the People's Republic of China, controls most of the territory of China (i.e. "mainland China"), whereas the other state, the Republic of China, controls a minuscule fragment of China (i.e. Kinmen and Matsu) as well as an additional territory, "Taiwan and Penghu" (or "Formosa and the Pescadores"), whose political status is ambiguous and disputed due to its having been ceded to the Empire of Japan in 1895 and the complications that have arisen from this historical event. The Republic of China is for all intents and purposes a state, but the territories that are under its control aren't necessarily sovereign properties of the state.
 * EDIT: Also, bear in mind that there is a difference between "government" and "state". For example, I am a member of the Australian state (i.e. I am an Australian citizen). However, I am not a member of the Australian government. Clearly, the term "government" refers to the top-level authorities of a country, whereas the term "state" refers to all of the inner workings of a country (as dictated by the government), including things like the education system, healthcare system, legal system, etc. In effect, the government controls the state. The term "state" is often interchangeable with the term "country", but not always. In Taiwan's case, the current consensus on its main English Wikipedia article is to refer to it as a "state" rather than as a "country". I have also used the term "polity" within the "Taiwan independence movement" article; the term "polity" is essentially the most rudimentary and neutral way to refer to any form of territory with any form of government. For example, the Pitcairn Islands are a polity, though many people would contest the idea that the polity qualifies as a "state" or as a "country". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The thing is, the precise phraseology "the Republic of China is the sole representative of China" is unnecessary since it is derived directly from the "One China Principle" that was formulated by the People's Republic of China, a distinct state from the Republic of China. The Republic of China (the state or government, or whatever you want to call it) doesn't go around preaching a so-called "One-China Principle". The Kuomintang does, for sure, but as I've already stated, the Kuomintang is just a single political party of Taiwan, and it's not exactly the most reputable political party in Taiwan given that it illegally ruled Taiwan as a military dictatorship from 1949 until 1987. It's basically a given that the Republic of China considers itself to be the sole representative of China. Most governments consider themselves to be the sole representatives of their own territories... Do you need to add, for example, "Australia considers itself to be the sole representative of Australia"? I understand that the political situation of Taiwan and the Republic of China is heavily intertwined with the political situation of the People's Republic of China, but you need to be mindful about placing too much emphasis on the influence of the People's Republic of China on Taiwanese/ROC politics. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The "state" I'm talking about is sovereign state. That is, China is a sovereign state. And there needs to be a government to represent this sovereign state. Those are more accurate definitions of state and government. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The term "sovereign state" means "a state whose sovereignty is recognised". China is something like >95% recognised, whereas Taiwan is only around <5% recognised. Technically, both China and Taiwan qualify as "states with limited recognition", though China obviously has much more diplomatic support than Taiwan, at least officially (Taiwan has a lot of unofficial diplomatic allies). Still, as I have already explained, your understanding of these terminologies is incorrect. Taiwan qualifies as a state regardless of whether it is considered to be a sovereign state. Taiwan is simply a state that lacks significant recognition; one cannot deny that Taiwan is, in fact, a state. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that's not the correct definition. "Sovereign state" means that the state is not subject to external sovereignty and its supreme authority does not lie in another state. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:45, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * How do you define "sovereignty"? A lot of Chinese people seem to think that Japan is a puppet state of the United States of America due to the significant influence that the United States has on Japanese politics and military affairs. Does this mean that Japan is not a sovereign country? In reality, there is no such thing as "absolute sovereignty" unless we're talking about a country like North Korea, that closes itself off from the outside world (even then, North Korea relies heavily on Chinese and Russian support). In reality, the only foolproof way to determine whether a country is actually "sovereign" is by assessing its international recognition as being sovereign. Nobody can definitively say whether a country is sovereign or not — and most countries are at least partially subservient to other countries, so absolute sovereignty doesn't actually exist (at least on Earth) — but there are certain authorities in the world, known as "governments" (and also certain intergovernmental organisations, such as the United Nations), that are generally trusted to be able to deem whether a country is sovereign or not. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We don't need to nitpick. Japan and North Korean are not puppet states. That kind of sayings are just sarcasms. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The State of Japan is legally unable to assemble an offensive military (Japan can only assemble a so-called "Self-Defence Force") as a result of terms presented by General Douglas MacArthur (an American military leader) that Japan was forced to agree to upon surrendering to the WWII Allies in 1945. This, along with the fact that the Treaty of San Francisco (the 1951 agreement to liberate Japan from American occupation) was signed between the United States, Japan, and around 40 other countries, to the exclusion of the Soviet Union, and a representative of China (either the Republic of China or the People's Republic of China), has led to a somewhat credible theory that Japan is, at least to some extent, a puppet state of the United States. Regarding North Korea, I was not presenting it as an example of a puppet state; rather, I was presenting it as an example of one of the "most sovereign states in the world", due to the fact that it heavily rejects foreign influence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, we can focus on more meaningful things. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Taiwan independence movement -- Henry Liu
Can you please provide some sources for this segment in particular? I have nothing against what you have written here. However, I am unfamiliar with Henry Liu and I have not seen any other sources (not that I have been specifically looking for any) suggesting that he is largely responsible for the KMT relinquishing their hold on power. Thanks. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * You could check Henry Liu and zh:江南案 if you can read Han writing. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

January 2020
Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review the essay Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humour. Best wishes. BusterD (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't know there is such an advice (or rule?). Anyway, I don't meant to convey that kind of connotation when using these templates. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I guessed as much. Sorry if I over-presumed. I'll avoid stepping into this arena myself. In the case of an experienced editor like Dr. Jensen, IMHO it is better to start a talk page discussion, and invite him to make his case. Reverting the position more than once is IMHO a waste of time. He and I have had our disagreements over the years, but I do respect his knowledge of sources. BusterD (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. In my opinion, the person who is responsible for starting a talk page discussion is the one that wants to change the article. So I usually suggest them to do that when reverting their edits. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:RYT
Hi Matt - If you are not already a member of WikiProject Conservatism, you might consider joining. Btw, it took me a minute to figure out that in "WP:RYT", the "RYT" is for "right". LOL, sometimes I'm slow. At any rate, you have wonderful passion for ensuring that we write articles from a neutral point of view, but you're getting reverted repeatedly for a lack of reliable sources. The members of WikiProject Conservatism would be a great resource for mentoring, feedback, collaborative projects, etc. They even have A-Teams to bring Conservatism-related articles up to A-class. I've never seen A-Teams before, but I think it's a brilliant idea. I'm a moderate so I often find myself on both sides of the political divide and I have empathy for conservative-leaning editors. All the best - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:05, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll consider it. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
--RegentsPark (comment) 01:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. John Zillerson (talk) 16:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy notice
Hello Matt Smith. I'm just letting you know that an Arbitration Case has been filed and you have been listed as a party. — Ched (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

China-Taiwan articles case request declined
The arbitrators have voted to decline the case request you were a party to, China-Taiwan articles, for reasons including the dispute being a content dispute and because previous conduct dispute resolution had not been attempted. You can view the declined case request in this permalink. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 08:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Your revert of my revision 954976545 reason basis?
Hi Matt Smith, you reverted my edit under the reason "It is in dispute so should not be included. " What Wikipedia rule/guidelines did you find this requirement? Or was this your personal opinion? If it's personal opinion, then it requires discussion with the other editor before you attempt revert. Also, the FACT is that Taiwan is now currently under the administration of Republic of China, so this is not in dispute, and the "retrocession" was a fact and done deed. Thank you. Mistakefinder (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Mistakefinder. Taiwan's being under the administration of the ROC does not automatically equal to Taiwan's retrocession to the ROC in 1945. Whether Taiwan has retroceded to the ROC is a disputed topic. People who deny the retrocession hold that the administration is merely a military occupation on behalf of the Allies of WWII and does not constitute any transfer of territorial sovereignty. Therefore, the "retrocession" is an opinion, not a fact. For more info, please see Retrocession_Day. --Matt Smith (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Please participate
To talk page please LVTW2 (talk) 03:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Edits
It seems the users: User:Peter20490930, User:Joot1337 and User:Medanphed created accounts that erased ROC references. Ping the admins for help that it could be a sock puppet. -184.148.109.46 (talk) 03:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'm not sure how to properly report it, but I can try it. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I just found the page for reporting. But since you know their activities and related evidence better than I do, could you go ahead and report it? Please use this link. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Foreign relations of Taiwan
It seems User:Shunwound had engaged an edit war on the article I am linking. Keep an eye out and block if it happens again. -184.146.39.97 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. It could help other editors in understanding your reasons for changing "Taiwan" in a side infobox to "Republic of China" if you explain it in the edit summary. When edit summary is not provided, an edit is likely to be reverted. You may also start a discussion in the talk page and invite the reverters to participate in the discussion. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

You still alive? Edit wars
User:Dosafrog and User:FiveSevenXE had engaged edit wars. See their contributions. -184.146.39.97 (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * They did that to articles which I'm not watching. You can intervene if you would like to mediate. --Matt Smith (talk) 11:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 08:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I hope that's not a response to my commenting on the wording of the Truth Social article. --Matt Smith (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that you have shown no interest in American Politics? Because otherwise I can’t understand your comment. I missed this when you posted it. Doug Weller  talk 09:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. To be honest, I was suggesting that you threatened me with the notice. If that's not the case, I'm sorry about my misunderstanding. Matt Smith (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Hi,

I was having a stroll through WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, generally shaking my head while reading it. I'm messaging you because I was reading through the archives regarding Project Veritas and saw your name pop up and wanted to vent a little. I feel like Wikipedia in general is caught in the following negative loop:

- X is considered a reliable source.

- Y is another source that contradicts X.

- This is used as proof that Y is an unreliable source.

It's a bit more flagrant in the case of Project Veritas:

- Veritas has video proof that, say, CBS is unreliable.

- Unsurprisingly, CBS counters that Veritas is unreliable, even though it doesn't have proof for it.

- Because WP has already established CBS as the reliable source, by its own by-laws, CBS trumps Veritas, and Veritas is hereby labeled an unreliable source.

In general, I think this "circling of the wagons" when it comes to "chosen sources" is really creating a huge problem that's only entrenching itself deeper and deeper. In the end, there's a reinforcing locus of sources that never get challenged. It also seems to me that this is the heart of the problems here on WP. If you want to control the content on WP, you simply control the "select list" on WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources.

How do you keep from getting completely demoralized here?

Fephisto (talk) 04:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. The way to keep from getting demoralized here is having faith that those leftist media will one day be exposed and debunked. The U.S. Midterm Election of this year is expected to be advantageous to conservatives, and its outcome can greatly facilitate helping the American people learn the truth. Matt Smith (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Republic of China governing more than just Taiwan isn’t debatable however, it is a fact in some regards.
Roc de facto governs Kinmen for example. So it’s not up to debate, or did I misinterpret what you meant? 84.26.190.194 (talk) 17:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry for not being clear enough. I was referring to the Taiwan island. Some governances do not result in ownership, and there are examples such as Portugal governed Macau and the U.S. governed the Ryukyu Islands. Therefore, the ROC is governing the Taiwan island does not necessarily mean the ROC has territorial sovereignty over the Taiwan island. Matt Smith (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Right. How does this relate to me stating that ROC is the more accurate term, and not Taiwan, as they govern not just the island? If the current government of Taiwan was only governing the island, you would be arguably somewhat right, but they don't consist of just the island.
 * The point you were trying to make is not clear to me, do you agree with me on this take? 84.26.190.194 (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "Republic of China consists of more territory than just the island ‘taiwan’" asserts that the Taiwan island is part of the ROC, and that's a controversial assertion. Matt Smith (talk) 04:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Your response at the reliable sources noticeboard
Matt, when I asked you to stop bludgeoning the process at RSN I was disappointed to see you only address my minor, literally parenthetical, point about edit conflicts. And this you call respecting my feeling about your comments..? Perhaps I'd better clarify here, to avoid distractions and any embarrassment at the noticeboard: I'm warning you as an admin. I have no opinion on the topic of the discussion you're bludgeoning. To be more blunt: stop overwhelming that thread with the sheer number of your posts, or you may be sanctioned.

As for the edit conflict thing: no, you didn't overwrite my comment, so don't worry about that. But posting incrementally, the way you do, very much raises the likelihood that somebody attempting to respond will find themselves up against an edit conflict, as I was. It's ironic, though not in an amusing way, that immediately after my complaint about it, you took five edits to post your not very long reply. Special:Diff/1120141065, Special:Diff/1120141136, Special:Diff/1120141844, Special:Diff/1120142864, Special:Diff/1120143073. That's a bad habit which bloats up histories and inconveniences other editors. Please try to finish your thought, then proofread it, and then post it. But, again, the serious matter here is the bludgeoning. If you have a comment about that, please respond on point here, and never mind my "feeling". Did you read WP:BLUDGEON as I asked? Bishonen &#124; tålk 12:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC).


 * Hi Bishonen. I did not address the notion of "bludgeoning" because I did not want you to say that I was challenging an opposing post (in that case, yours) again. I glanced the upper part of the lede of WP:BLUDGEON when you posted it to me. Sorry to say this, but I do not agree with your notion that I was bludgeoning the thread, for the following two reasons:
 * I never had the intention to beat powerfully with an object of great mass.
 * I did not challenge every opposing post. I just checked the discussion and I can see that I did not challenge at least four opposing posts before you commented.
 * In fact, I found such an accusation of "bludgeoning" not in good faith and unrespecful to me. I felt that I was misunderstood and wronged. Now I just finished reading the lede and found that the third paragraph says: "To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered incivil, and should be avoided." I hope you could judge an editor's intention more carefully in the future before bringing up this explanatory essay to him/her so that his/her feeling will not be hurt.
 * As for edit conflicts, I can understand that you do not like to encounter edit conflicts. Me, neither. But even after a comment has been previewed and submitted, sometimes the need for modifications really is inevitable, especially when comment authors are non-native English speakers like me (I'm a Taiwanese) and have to correct their English grammars or to make their thoughts better expressed in English. So as much as I understand your thought, I would also like to ask for your understanding on this matter. Cheers. Matt Smith (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Tricameral section removed by User:RovingPersonalityConstruct
Hello Matt, I am inviting you to the Talk:List of legislatures by number of members section to discuss the removal of the ROC section. The ROC's parliament is tricameral in the constitution but nominally although it became unicameral under the Additional Articles. -76.68.77.224 (talk) 11:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. To be honest, I'm not familiar with the cameral things of the ROC. Therefore, I might not have enough knowledge to provide opinions. Matt Smith (talk) 11:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on ANI-notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic January 6 United States Capitol attack. Thank you. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: January 6 United States Capitol attack

 * The article sentence talks about attacking. And the report you cited does not say Trump directed the attack

Are you joking? The entire lead is about Trump directing the attacks, and the report says that as well. We have a preponderance of sources that supports it as well. But you've got me curious. If Trump didn't direct the attacks, who did? Are you saying this wasn't organized? We have evidence that it was. Are you saying Trump wasn't responsible? We know that he was. What exactly are you saying? Because I can't figure it out. Again, if Trump didn't direct the attacks, who did? Please answer the question. You can't have it both ways. Are you going to be one of those last hold outs, like the guy who went to his deathbed denying plate tectonics fifty years after it had been discovered? Are you that guy? We know Trump directed the J6 attacks on the Capitol. There's no question of it, there's no reason to doubt it, and there's no other person to in the blame on. If you disagree, give me an alternate hypothesis to consider, otherwise I will assume that you can't defend your reverts. Viriditas (talk) 09:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi. What you said is one of the possibilities, and there are also other possibilities when it comes to who directed the attack. For example, it could be that some protesters launched the attack voluntarily, or that some powerful people wanted to get Trump in trouble and set it up secretly.
 * But all of those are speculations. There are currently no overwhelming amount of reliable sources that support any of the speculations. At Wikipedia, we edit article based on reliable sources. Because there is no reliable source saying Trump directed the attack, we cannot write the article like that. Even the Trump-unfriendly media only go so far as to blame Trump for the attack rather than jump into the conclusion that Trump directed the attack.
 * Incidentally, this discussion should be moved to the talk page of the article so that more editors can participate. Matt Smith (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I posted here to direct my questions to you specifically, not to the community on the talk page. You said up above There are currently no overwhelming amount of reliable sources that support any of the speculations.  This is 100% false.  We have plenty of evidence and a preponderance of reliable sources pointing to Trump.  As I said before, why do you think otherwise?  In other words. where is the doubt?  Are we existing in the same, shared reality?  Trump encouraged his supporters to attack the Capitol.  This point was covered extensively. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * While I have seen Trump-unfriendly media claiming Trump used inflammatory words during his speech to instigate protestors, I haven't seen "plenty of evidence and a preponderance of reliable sources" showing/asserting Trump directed the attack. Could you please share some? Matt Smith (talk) 10:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I mean, right there is a problem with your framing. The media is not supposed to be friendly to anyone.  They are supposed to be a watchdog, the Fourth Estate. This is part of the checks and balances of civil society.  Any media that is "friendly" to Trump is not media, it's stenography. Conservatives don't like this idea, which is why they invented an alternative media that is friendly with just the GOP and acts to promote their interests.  Of course, the GOP says the same about the corporate media, but every known analysis shows that mainstream, non-affiliated media is neoliberal, capitalist, and as far from liberal as you can get.  So your opening statement right there is a problem, and I haven't even touched upon the Powell memo and all the rest. Second, to address your request, you know full well that the media has covered this, so you are just playing games. Here's what Trump told his supporters before the attack. You know this.  Viriditas (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that you aren't aware that many Trump-unfriendly media are Democrat-friendly, and I'm surprised. NYT is one such media.
 * Yes, I knew how the main stream media interpreted Trump's speech. But saying Trump "directed" the attack is a different thing, and none of the media made such a bold accusation. Matt Smith (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And again, I ask you, if Trump didn't direct the attack, who did? Up above you offered two answers: protesters launched the attack voluntarily (they didn't, it was organized); powerful people wanted to get Trump in trouble (Trump has done a fine job getting himself into trouble, he doesn't need anyone to help him). I'm sorry, but I'm just not following you.  It sounds like you are desperately trying to find a way to absolve Trump of personal responsibility for his behavior (a very anti-conservative idea). The January 6 final report executive summary indicates that Trump directed and incited the crowd to attack the Capitol and it was carefully planed and organized to provoke violence in an attempt to stop the electoral count.  If you are going to argue over facts like this while telling me to weigh the arguments of voluntary, unprovoked protests (no evidence) and hidden powerful people in the shadows (no evidence), then I think you probably shouldn't be editing the J6 page. On the one hand, we have compelling evidence showing Trump directed the attacks; on the other hand we have an argument from ignorance.  This is not how things work. Viriditas (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The full story might be more complicated than how the main stream cover it. For example, there is an anti-Trump organization called Boogaloo movement, which instigated the protesters and stormed into the Capitol, too, but its role was nearly ignored by the main stream media. I know some some right-wing organizations such as Proud Boys was involved in the attack, too, but I think they were not the main cause of the incident. If you ask me who directed the attack, I would say some powerful, anti-Trump people set it up secretly. This opinion of mine was based on some usual video clips of that day. I believe that, one day, the truth will be uncovered.
 * Regarding the J6 report, because the members of the committee were either anti-Trump or pro-Democrat, their advice can hardly be fair and cannot convince me. Matt Smith (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm not interested in convincing you, persuading you, or changing your mind. I'm interested in showing you that you are in possession of ideas that are either false, erroneous, or just unsupported.  For example, up above you wrote  that the Boogaloo movement was ignored by the mainstream media.  That is not true, and it's a very curious idea that you hold. Second, you refer to this group as "anti-Trump", another strange idea, when Trump has not only encouraged them (his "liberate Michigan" rhetoric gave Boogaloo the tacit agreement to engage in hostilities in that state), but tried to cover for them at the federal level by attributing their acts in Oakland, California, to racial justice protests on the left, a clearly false claim.  There are dozens of examples of this, with their anger about the raid on Mar-a-Lago last year clearly evident in their resurgence on social media.  So to recap: the idea that the mainstream media hasn't covered the Boogaloo movement in depth is not true, and the idea that the Boogaloo movement is anti-Trump is not true.  Moving on, we have two final claims to cover.  You have said that powerful, anti-Trump people set up J6 to take Trump down.  Can you provide any substantiating evidence for this claim?  I will tell you right now that it doesn't exist.  Trump and his enablers setup J6, and spent months preparing for it.  Bannon and others were describing the violence that would take place days before it happened.  And Trump and others were making plans to deny the election results before the election and the vote counting ever took place.  This is all documented.  Lastly, we have your assertion of the bias of the J6 report, who you say was written by anti-Trump people.  This tells me you didn't read the report.  All of the evidence from the report comes from Republicans in Trump's inner circle.  In fact, I don't think you can find a single claim or piece of evidence in the report that comes from Democrats.  So given that I have shown that your claims lack and any and all evidence, I'm curious how you will respond.  Perhaps you will point me to evidence that you say I haven't seen? Viriditas (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe I wasn't being clear enough, but when I mentioned Boogaloo, I meant its role in the J6 attack was nearly ignored by the mainstream media. Regarding Boogaloo being anti-Trump, this is mentioned in the Reuters report I cited above: "most “boogaloos” are libertarians who largely oppose Trump".
 * I tried to find those evidence I have seen in the past two years, but I can't recall all of them. Some of them have even been deleted by YouTube. Here are some of them:
 * An infiltrator said he saw a "large sum of anti Trumpers" infiltrated the rally.
 * I could look into the evidence which those Republicans provided to the J6 committee, if you don't mind sharing. But considering the J6 committee cherry-picked video footage, only showed violent scenes, and hid peaceful scenes from the public, they have no credibility in my eyes. They even used an edited video footage to defame Senator Josh Hawley, but I can't recall where exactly I saw the truth video, which shows the context. Matt Smith (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * An infiltrator said he saw a "large sum of anti Trumpers" infiltrated the rally.
 * I could look into the evidence which those Republicans provided to the J6 committee, if you don't mind sharing. But considering the J6 committee cherry-picked video footage, only showed violent scenes, and hid peaceful scenes from the public, they have no credibility in my eyes. They even used an edited video footage to defame Senator Josh Hawley, but I can't recall where exactly I saw the truth video, which shows the context. Matt Smith (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I could look into the evidence which those Republicans provided to the J6 committee, if you don't mind sharing. But considering the J6 committee cherry-picked video footage, only showed violent scenes, and hid peaceful scenes from the public, they have no credibility in my eyes. They even used an edited video footage to defame Senator Josh Hawley, but I can't recall where exactly I saw the truth video, which shows the context. Matt Smith (talk) 04:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing the Reuters article ("U.S. Capitol siege emboldens motley crew of extremists", Jan. 8, 2021). It is odd to me that you hold this up as a paragon of reporting, when it is just several days removed from the fog of the initial event. We know that such articles have primary source value based on the heat of the moment, but as time progresses and new facts and conclusions are drawn, such articles have more historical value than they do accuracy. While I still disagree with your contention that the mainstream media ignored the role of the boogaloo movement, you have raised an interesting point about their political affiliation and attitude towards Trump, and I want to address this. Reuters writes, "most 'boogaloos' are libertarians who largely oppose Trump" who took advantage of J6 to strike against the US government. This, I think, is your point here, and why you have come to the conclusion that Trump had nothing to do with it. Your position makes little sense. Here's why:

Our article on the boogaloo movement describes them as alt-right, anarchist, libertarian, or right-libertarian. None of these things makes them anti-Trump, and in fact, Trump's base is solidly in those camps. This is particularly true of those who subscribe to so-called anarcho-capitalism, which as odd as it sounds, forms the backbone and foundation of post-1964 New Right politics in the US, which transformed itself into post-1980 modern conservatism, i.e. Koch-style libertarianism. All of these political movements brought Trump into office, no matter how much or how little they agreed with each other. Here's the irony of it: just as the boogaloo movement took advantage of the moment during J6, so too did the New Right take advantage of replacing Ted Cruz with Trump as a GOP candidate in 2015. And here's where the parallel becomes clear: just as the boogaloo movement is made-up of a coalition of different political groups, some of whom dislike Trump as you correctly observed, and many of whom have different goals, so too is the coalition of conservative groups that brought Trump to power also composed of disparate, internecine sects at odds with each other, who came together to support Trump as a candidate. The Office meme: "They're the same picture."

To conclude, none of what you said about the boogaloos and their role in J6 changes the political calculus; if anything, your observation about the contrary nature of the boogaloos is consistent with the same conservative coalition that brought him to power. This is why the Game of Thrones metaphor was so popular as a meme during the Trump admin; many different factions were warring with each other to capture the presidency. They came together to support Trump, even though the only strategy they know is that of a circular firing squad. You either know this, or you don't, I can't tell, but I think this puts your entire argument about the open question regarding boogaloos to bed, and I'm afraid it isn't a good one. Unless you have additional evidence to share, I will consider it closed.

Moving on: you have offered me three video links and one additional website link. I will now evaluate them:
 * The first link is a video from Benny Johnson, a conservative political activist and commentator and YouTuber, and chief creative officer at Turning Point USA, and host of the The Benny Show. The video promotes the now-discredited conspiracy theory that the J6 insurrection was caused by the Democrats/Antifa/Feds.  Firstly, this is not a reliable source.  If you're not familiar with how to evaluate sources for reliability, take a look at our article on the CRAAP test.  Benny Johnson doesn't just fail the test, he receives 0% across the board.  Fact checking orgs like the Poynter Institute have given him 100% false ratings for making claims like "Nancy Pelosi planned the attack on the U.S. Capitol".  Not only is this false, but it's an odd claim to make for someone who works for Turning Point, a group which bussed protesters into the J6 event and was part of the event planning that day.  We can't use Benny Johnson as a source because he doesn't have a reputation for fact-checking; in fact, he has a singular reputation for making things up to "own the libs".
 * The second link is a video from "Jej Krave" a YouTuber conspiracy theorist who appears to be very interested in Russia and spreading propaganda and disinformation to confuse people. I don't think much more needs to be said about this video, other than it is not true, and no, the aliens haven't landed and the Pope isn't a lizard.  This is not a reliable source and does not pass the CRAAP test.
 * The third link is a video from The Epoch Times, a pro-Trump conspiracy theory site. It does not pass the CRAAP test and is not reliable.
 * The fourth link goes to a website for The National Pulse, an extreme-right news site run by the American Principles Project, which is known for spreading propaganda and conspiracy theories. It does not pass the CRAAP test, and is considered unreliable.

These four links all have something in common; they engage in the firehose of falsehood, a Russian propaganda technique in which a large number of messages (in this case, fear, uncertainty, and doubt about who was behind J6) are distributed repetitively on the internet without any concern for their truth value, the lack of supporting evidence, and their contradictory nature. We see this tactic used again and again within the social and political phenomenon known as Trumpism. And it's not a coincidence. The members of this movement have openly embraced Russian propaganda and disinformation tactics to intentionally confuse US society, weaken democracy, and strengthen autocracy and authoritarian values. I think that about covers it. Thanks for your time. Viriditas (talk) 09:40, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * My point of saying the mainstream media ignored Boogaloos' role in the J6 attack is that, the mainstream media inappropriately put all the blames on Trump and his supporters despite the anit-Trump organization engaged in the attack as well.
 * Boogaloo movement's natures, as the article describes, do not automatically make them not anti-Trump. We have a source (Reuters) mentioning its anti-Trump characteristic, so my view stays unless there are other sources saying otherwise.
 * Although it's not optimal by me to see you reject those videos and screenshots based on how you view their publishers, I can understand you because I myself do that as well. In fact, Trumpers (I was one until last month) and many conservatives regard left-wing media like NYT, CNN, WaPo, etc as radical-left and spurious, so we do not believe them and reject their publications. So be it. It won't help for us to try to convince each other. Thank you, too. Matt Smith (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2023‎ (UTC)
 * I don't know where you get the idea that the Boogaloo movement is anti-Trump. They are libertarians and some are anti-Trump, but have no problem supporting anyone attacking the government. Those who participated on January 6 were happy to help Trump do that. They are an extreme right-wing anti-government movement, and they participated with other right-wingers in attacking the capitol on January 6. If you have proof they are all anti-Trump, please find the RS that say so and add that information to the Boogaloo movement article. They are not left-wingers or only for/against Trump. It's not a simple matter. They don't support GOP or Democratic government leaders. They do their own thing. On January 6, Trump's goals and their goals aligned. Those Boogaloo members who participated were helping Trump on that day. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:15, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This thread is mind-blowing. Viriditas, kudos to you, but I fear you're wasting your time. Matt Smith, why aren't you perma banned yet? You have no competency to edit political topics as you don't seem to possess the most basic ability to vet sources for reliability. Your view of January 6 as some sort of false flag operation is a gross conspiracy theory pushed to distract from the fact that Trump and his cohorts secretly planned the events for months, and Steve Bannon revealed what to expect. He knew it would be violent because he knew who was involved in the planning and support. On the day, Trump was warned by the Secret Service that some of his supporters in the crowd were armed, but that didn't bother him. Instead of reacting properly, he demanded the metal detectors be deactivated so those armed supporters could get through ("he told officials to "let my people in" and march to the Capitol." "I don't f-in' care that they have weapons".), and then he sent the crowd, including his armed supporters, to the Capitol. They followed his instructions to fight like hell.

Trump called them "my people". Trump knew they were his supporters. Trump does not support your false flag conspiracy theory.

The four YouTube videos you post above are truly atrocious, yet you trust them and post them as "evidence". Wow! FYI, The Epoch Times isn't just a truly bad source, it is a deprecated source. You need to familiarize yourself with WP:RSP, completely avoid (that means stop reading or viewing) deprecated and poor sources, and stick to mainstream sources, IOW Trump-unfriendly media. Any media outlets that support Trump are also supporting his lies and conspiracy theories. Such sources cannot be trusted and they are not RS here. If you continue to criticize mainstream sources, which are RS here, then you are fighting against our RS policy, and we can't allow that. Advocacy of your fringe POV is forbidden here. You need a topic ban from political topics, at the very least. You would benefit from looking at the lists of good and bad sources here: User:Valjean/Essay/Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 18:02, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Trump the "instigator" of the Jan. 6 attack.

On January 2, 2021, Sen. Mitt Romney contacted Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, predicting that reinforcements would be denied:


 * "... a senior official at the Pentagon... reports that they are seeing very disturbing social media traffic regarding the protests planned on the 6th. There are calls to burn down your home, Mitch; to smuggle guns into DC, and to storm the Capitol. I hope that sufficient security plans are in place, but I am concerned that the instigator—the President—is the one who commands the reinforcements the DC and Capitol police might require."

Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 01:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Boogaloo movement is anti-Trump because the Reuters source says most of them largely oppose Trump. If you have any objection to that, take it to the Reuters.
 * I have competency to edit political topics because I follow Wikipedia's policies when doing that, and that's why I'm not perma banned. This page is not an article talk page discussing article editing and I can cite any source when having a chat with the other editor, and I'm surprised that you did not understand this.
 * You can choose to consider the four YouTube videos atrocious, but that's your opinion. For the same reason, I can have my opinion, that those videos do not lie, and choose to believe them.
 * Finally, Trump in his speech also encouraged his supporters to "peacefully and patriotically" make their voices heard. And there is no irrefutable evidence that Trump and his allies secretly planned the events for months, so stop the conspiracy theory already, please? Matt Smith (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, this business about the Boogaloo movement isn't simple. You should read what the SPLC, a very RS, says about them and Trump. The Boogaloo movement's main focus is anti-government. On January 6, they sided with the Trump supporters, and what they did on that day is the only thing relevant in this conversation. Their actions supported Trump's aims. Here's another great article about them.
 * As far as "peaceful" goes, yes, there is some footage of peaceful moments, but most of the footage from that day (and it was not featured by Fox News and other Trump-supporting media), was of very violent protests that dominated the day. That's why people like you mention the "peaceful" thing and others ignore it as a deceptive tactic he always uses. What Trump says is always infused with a plausible deniability aspect. He said peaceful, but remember that he also said "fight like hell", knowing that there were armed supporters in the crowd. After it became obvious there was violence at the Capitol, and he was watching it on TV, he refused to tell them to stop for many hours. His own people and family at the White House kept urging him to stop the violence and he refused. He stood right in front of a TV on the wall and reveled in the violence and fist-pumped as he watched it. I recall seeing him do that. It was very revealing.
 * I have a feeling that you likely believe that Trump is the rightful president and that he did not really lose the election. If Trump ever gets in power again, he will never relinquish power. I challenge anyone to describe a scenario in which he will do that voluntarily. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 15:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Either Reuters or SPLC is inaccurate in describing Boogaloo members' position on Trump. But that was not my main point, which was that anti-Trump Boogaloo members infiltrated the rally, agitated the crowed, fought the police, and participated in the storming. They did not side with the Trump supporters; instead, they used the Trump supporters to try to achieve their own goal.
 * The amount of peaceful moments from that day is not just "some". I would say it's about the same amount as violent moments, and most of them happened inside the Capitol building. But those footage were unfortunately hid by the J6 committee from the public, and Trump-unfriendly media also do not feature them even after they were released by Kevin McCarthy after two years. As for Trump's use of "peacefully" is genuine or deceptive, it all depends on interpreters' opinions about Trump. While I do not deny that "fight like hell" can mean something violent, it can also be an inspiration and Trump already did that in the past . Therefore, it appears to be Trump's way of inspiring people. Matt Smith (talk) 04:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This could be interesting. Trump took 3 hours to put out the video telling his supporters to go home on January 6th. It should have been put out in the first five minutes at most if he wanted some deniability to incitement. He also is now on record (interview with audio) saying that he knew it was happening and could have stopped it but chose not to.
 * I'm nonpartisan, but how would that be any positive indication that he wouldn't be an authoritarian? Not to mention his "authoritarian for a day" comment or other things. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 19:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He also posted 2 tweets asking his supporters to be peaceful. Those tweets were posted relatively earlier. Matt Smith (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And yet, he said after those events that he could have stopped it and chose not to.
 * "“I was going to,” Trump said in the recording, first published by CNN. “And then Secret Service said ‘you can’t’, and then by the time … I was thinking about going back during the problem to stop the problem, doing it myself. Secret Service didn’t like that idea too much.”
 * His own admission. And clearly the secret service didn't stop him from putting out a video. It should have been put out in the first 5 minutes. He knew, and he let it happen. He said he could have stopped it.

They had no right to be there. 5 minutes would have been straining credulity and that's being generous. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 16:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't see he admitting something like that. But since it was published by CNN, which has an alarmingly bad reputation among Trump supporters, I don't bother about it. Matt Smith (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=4i1X8BEwomrvpV_X&t=30&v=gOKoWQTJJ50&feature=youtu.be
 * Hear it for yourself. For note, I don't like being this upset. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's still a CNN publication. I think we don't need CNN for this. I already knew that Trump did worry about something might happen to the rally beforehand and he requested for a certain number of national guards to protect the rally. But Nancy Pelosi rejected his request. Matt Smith (talk) 02:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That somehow prevented Trump from putting out the video in the first 5 minutes? I'm not agreeing by the way, I could go down that road, but I'm more interested in this one. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know what happened to him in the first 5 minutes and why he didn't make a video during that time. Maybe there was something I or we don't know about. Anyway, I have no objection to your questioning his speed of response. Matt Smith (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Something that goes against everything he's said where the linked audio fall right in line with it? I doubt it.
 * He knew about it. He called it a problem. He chose not to put out the video for 3 hours. That's culpability. Nothing short of telling his supporters to go home would have been enough. Simply because they had no right to be there (being shot at should have made that clear). If Trump couldn't be bothered to admit he was wrong about letting it go for that long after almost 3 years, it's all the more proof that he should never be allowed in the presidency again. He can say whatever he wants, but the time that passes between one thing and another is something that can be objectively observed. And that's one of the ways to root an evaluation in facts. 75.142.254.3 (talk) 03:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)