Talk:Taiwan

Separately categorized

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In practice, Taiwan is often categorized separately from most countries in the world and classified as an unrecognized or partially recognized state. (List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_in_Asia#Sovereign_states and Asia#States_of_Asia) However, Wikipedia's first sentence about Taiwan describes it as if it were like most countries in the world, rather than as part of the same category of unrecognized or partially recognized states. 36.230.3.161 (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The partially recognized states are not a coherent category, they are all unique in their own ways. CMD (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

De Jure Capital City

I believe a reference to Nanjing's de jure capital status should be made in this article. Here is my argument for why:

The Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC), promulgated in 1947, does not explicitly name a capital city in its main text. However, legal documents and government declarations from the time indicate that Nanjing was designated as the capital of the ROC before the government retreated to Taiwan in 1949. Namely:

• The Organic Law of the National Capital (首都組織法, 1928) - This law, enacted by the Nationalist government (ROC) in 1928, explicitly designates Nanjing as the national capital of China. Although this law predates the 1947 Constitution, it was never officially repealed, making Nanjing the de jure capital.
• The ROC Constitution (1947) - The ROC Constitution itself does not specify a capital city. However, Article 9 states: “The Central Government may, in time of war, alter the location of the capital.” This implies that the capital is assumed to be fixed unless altered due to extraordinary circumstances (e.g., war). Since the ROC moved to Taipei in 1949 due to the Chinese Civil War, this is treated as an emergency relocation rather than a constitutional amendment.
• Government Orders and Historical Documents - In 1949, when the ROC retreated to Taiwan, the government declared Taipei the "temporary capital" (暫時首都), implying that Nanjing remained the legal capital. Official ROC maps and documents during the early Cold War period continued to label Nanjing as the capital. Until the 1990s, official ROC diplomatic documents sometimes referred to Taipei as the "wartime capital" or "provisional capital.

The ROC government no longer actively claims Nanjing as its capital, and references to Taipei as "temporary" have largely disappeared from official discourse. However, since no constitutional amendment has ever officially moved the capital from Nanjing to Taipei, Nanjing remains the de jure capital by legal precedent, while Taipei functions as the de facto capital. Stuffmaster1000 (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Alas: The ROC government no longer actively claims Nanjing as its capital, and references to Taipei as "temporary" have largely disappeared from official discourse. However,

—you've claimed to state reasons why this is important, but instead, you plainly articulated here why the point doesn't matter at all for a general readership, and is instead a minute detail purely in the domain of legal fiction, if it's even that. (Again, laws are not really immortal, per the endless back and forth tucked away in the archives—if a legal claim ceases to be made, there's no justification for it being considered current, even "de jure".) It's not important for an encyclopedia article, if we could even source anything that articulates it the way you have. Remsense ‥ 论 23:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Well constitutionally speaking, Nanjing is the capital city of the ROC. When a city is occupied like say East Jerusalem, we still say that it is Je Jure the capital of Palestine. Stuffmaster1000 (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Re-read what I wrote. The constitution of a country exists to the extent that it is actually visible upon examining to the policies pursued by said country. Think of all the inane "medieval conflict ends in official peace treaty signed between modern nation-state successors after hundreds of years" stories.Remsense ‥ 论 07:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

We do mention Nanjing in this article already as the historical capital of the ROC (along with the retreat of the ROC government to Chongqing and Taipei). Any de jure capital status of Nanjing is very much a tertiary topic to (1) the current and de facto (for over 7 decades) capital of Taipei and (2) the practical conflation of Taiwan, Taiwan Area, and the ROC in the modern era, both backed by reliable sources.

That theory, even if valid, would be more appropriate in the Constitution of the Republic of China (or else where) vs. this article. It requires quite a bit of original research to follow, but in any case it would be a legal or political viewpoint about a very specific declaration pre-constitution, and not really factual or relevant. Butterdiplomat (talk) 12:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That isn't how law works. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Status on the infobox + Lead text

Like Kosovo and Northern Cyprus, may I propose to include the status on the infobox? The proposed text: Recognized by 11 out of 193 member states of the United Nations Claimed by the People's Republic of China under United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758

In addition, could we also include and change the line from "is a country in East Asia" to "is a country in East Asia with partial diplomatic recognition."? The long dead ROC has been governing Kinmen/Matsu since its founding and Taiwan's status is still unresolved. 142.113.180.165 (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Please review archived discussions on this topic. There have been several yet no new rationale. Butterdiplomat (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I support it too, but as per WP:TWRFC, the voice of just 33 editors has overridden neutrality, and you will have to respect that. I know at least a couple of editors that would harshly criticize you and me for this proposal, so unfortunately you will have to accept the state of this article as it is. I do not think the lead section complies with WP:NPOV, but there's not much I can do, since the other editors are so fixated on calling Taiwan a "country". As Elon Musk once said, "History is written by the victors. Well, yes, but not if your enemies are still alive and have a lot of time on their hands to edit Wikipedia." Félix An (talk) 02:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Please put forth rationale and provide reliable sources for what you believe to be NPOV or an appropriate alternative. Butterdiplomat (talk) 02:39, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Based on previous discussions, I think any sort of alternative gets knocked down quickly by the denizens of this talk page, so I'm not even going to bother trying. I'll just accept the article as it is and read about Taiwan elsewhere (e.g. Encyclopaedia Britannica, which describes it as a "self-governing island"). It would be a waste of my time to try and convince people that are fixated on calling Taiwan a "country". Félix An (talk) 05:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. As a reminder, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX and talk pages are not really for broadcasting your personal political opinions. You don’t seem to understand the RfC conclusion and, for the record, based on previous comments, you seem fixated on mischaracterizing it as non-neutral, when in fact you just disagree with it, or WP:DONTLIKEIT. It should be noted that a consensus does not require 100% or even majority support from editors; Wikipedia is WP:NOTADEMOCRACY. Butterdiplomat (talk) 10:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I was not trying to broadcast a personal political opinion. I would like to improve the page, and my comment was made in good faith. I did not intend to cause disruption. Félix An (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

On proposing and supporting a reasonable alternative, you said, “I’m not even going to bother trying … It would be a waste of my time.” It is unclear what your good faith comment is. Please refrain from using the talk page as a way to air your grievances or political views. Butterdiplomat (talk) 13:19, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

What bothers you so much about the word "country"? In my understanding of English "self-governing island" and "island country" are the same thing. In what manner do you think Taiwan is not a "country"? Because it ticks all the requirements for one as far as my understanding goes. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

The only rightful voice who have the right to decide what Taiwan should be are the Taiwanese themselves, bearing that in mind. 2407:4D00:7E02:42C:99FD:F2C7:DC82:A954 (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Rather more complex as at one time it was a member of the UN. Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

So? I see no reason to fixate on UN membership or lack thereof. There have been undoubted countries that were not members for years (eg. Switzerland) and there have been entities that most definitely were not separate countries that were members for years (eg Ukraine was a founding member despite being part of the USSR - which also held membership). --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

You are both arguing for keeping the status quo (i.e., disregarding the edit request). I think it is clear there is no real reason to revise the infobox or lead thus would like to move to close this discussion. Butterdiplomat (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)