Talk:Political status of Taiwan

Minzu, not nation

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

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

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

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

The section right now explaining different implications is more helfpul than straight quoting without context. CurryCity (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Article title

This article is titled “Political status of Taiwan”. However, it seems from the lead that the intended scope or focus is the political status since WWII. So maybe we should move the article to Political status of Taiwan after the Second World War. Or maybe Current political status of Taiwan. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I have reverted, the current debate is by far the primary topic for any discussion of Taiwan's political status. CMD (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Of course, User:Chipmunkdavis. Adding "Since World War II" to the title excluded pre-World-War-II stuff. Since you removed it, we are now back to including Taiwan's political status at any time whatsoever. At the start of this talk page section, I suggested two ways to narrow the scope so that the title no longer covers anytime whatsoever. You apparently prefer the latter way, so I will implement it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

No, the article should be at the current title per WP:AT. CMD (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:AT, “Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.” The topical scope of this article does not seem to include the political status of Taiwan during the various dynasties, but the present title (“Political status of Taiwan”) does include that stuff. This violates WP:AT. We should have a more precise title. The “Taiwan question” mentioned in the opening paragraph has been long-running, but it did not exist before the end of WWII. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

That is simply not how our article title policy works, titles are not meant to specifically scope pages within the entirety of human history. CMD (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

A discussion about a title change for an article requires more than one participant over a couple of days. Think of starting a full RM discussion here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the debate began after World War II and involves only a couple of events from the more distant past. CurryCity (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This issue could be resolved simply by naming "Republic of China" instead of Taiwan, but the community preferred to use the common name in more like a political bias rather than Wikipedia policies and gudelines, leading in this kind of discussions. I don't believe "After the WWII" could be necessary, as we assume the recognition of the RoC goes between the recognition of the RPC, which is general knowledge. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Changing “Taiwan” to “Republic of China” in the title probably wouldn’t help much, because the ROC existed for several decades before the Taiwan question arose in the wake of WW2, see Republic of China (1912–1949). I’ll think about starting a full RM discussion if & when I have time, to get a more precise article title that does not cover the whole history of Taiwan but instead only covers the dispute described in the opening paragraph. Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Most important context was not mentioned in lede as of 2025?

Legally and officially, according to ROC constitution, Taiwan is not a separate country from China. Rather it claims to be the government of all of China. The legal official situation is both sides claim there is only one China - they just disagree on who should govern it. This article should make that indisputable fact better known in lede yet I don't believe that a previous version even mentioned it once. So I have added it in as I believe it's significant and factual and provided a reliable source to support it. 49.181.90.53 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Article issues and classification

Reassess article to C-class. The article has suffered from stale (career) tags since 2007. It will likely not be argued that it does not pass the B-class criteria.

1. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited,
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies, or
3. The article is reasonably well-written

• Articles needing additional references from November 2007
• Articles with unsourced statements from March 2009
• Articles that may contain original research from May 2009
• Articles with unsourced statements from August 2010
• Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from October 2010
• Articles with unsourced statements from January 2020
• Vague or ambiguous time from January 2021
• Articles that may contain original research from July 2021
• Vague or ambiguous time from December 2021
• Articles with self-published sources from October 2023
• Articles needing additional references from October 2023
• Articles containing potentially dated statements from January 2024
• Articles with unsourced statements from August 2024
• Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from August 2024
• Articles with unsourced statements from October 2024
• Vague or ambiguous time from November 2024
• Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from April 2025 -- Otr500 (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

The PRC has never exercised control over Taiwan.

In the article, it has an unsourced argument that the reason why Taiwan ROC has sovereignty over Taiwan is because "The PRC has never exercised control over Taiwan.". While it's indeed a fact that PRC held no control, there's no legal argument that not having control also means PRC has no sovereignty. According to Ben Saul (Chatham house) and also Challis Chair of International Law, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney - "it doesn’t matter that the PRC has never governed it. State sovereignty over territory is distinct from the capacity of a particular government to control that territory at a given point in time. In civil wars, insurgent forces often hold territory without affecting the state’s sovereignty."[1] I understand this is a sensitive topic but what reliable sources explicitly state that PRC lack of control is a legal argument that it has no sovereignty? That goes counter to legal expertise and cannot find the source saying that. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 01:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)