Talk:Political status of Taiwan: Difference between revisions

Line 118: Line 118:

:@Sheherherhers and @Ultraodan I think we can All agree that it’s false to claim that Taiwan satisfy all 4 criteria of Montevideo. And yes, there’s 4. I think my edit to correct is not only neutral but absolutely necessary (as it corrects unsourced disinfo). What is your argument to say it’s wrong or do you think my edit was valid? I have other RS supporting it too that TW falls behind and limited on the fourth criterion.[https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/would-war-over-taiwan-be-legal] – DO u have issues? Yes or no and explain.[[Special:Contributions/49.181.203.101|49.181.203.101]] ([[User talk:49.181.203.101|talk]]) 04:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

::To define what use of words to refer Taiwan as country or island or province is not a issue to bring here. This page is the topic of how the controversial status of Taiwan is caused and how the historical context has involved to the issue. This page is not a judgement forum to rule the sovereignty. In regard to whether Taiwan should be referred as country with full satisfied criterians, firstly you should go to the main page of [[Taiwan]] as their talk page has settled the issue for a long time ago with general discussion in the past. please bring this thread to more relevant topic as Taiwan is defined as “country” was not a new creation that claimed by me individually, and I think you can gather more people with specialty of knowledge over the issues there. [[User:Sheherherhers|Sheherherhers]] ([[User talk:Sheherherhers|talk]]) 04:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

:::Again, I should remind you to stick to the issue. The old edit claims that Taiwan satisfy all criteria of Montevideo. Except no sources say that and additionally we know Montevideo has 4 criterions. And that Taiwan is very limited in that and overly generous and unsourced inaccuracy to imply they satisfy it. Do not ramble about irrelevant arguments. Is there 1. A source that actually says Taiwan satisfy all 4 criterion of Montevideo? As I know there’s none. Instead I have 2 reliable sources saying it’s very limited and behind in that criteria. [[Special:Contributions/49.181.203.101|49.181.203.101]] ([[User talk:49.181.203.101|talk]]) 05:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Please help keep this discussion civil. Assume good faith – for many things, there are perfectly innocent explanations, and there is no need to accuse anyone of lies or deception.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 5.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.^[1] 49.181.90.53 (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited,
The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies, or
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@49.181.203.101: You left out a key part of that quote, which in full was: “If Taiwan has been Chinese territory since 1945, 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.”

It is a conditional statement that is only made after discussing “five factors weigh in favour of Taiwan being part of China”. It was a hypothetical statement and is contingent on the premise that “Taiwan has been Chinese territory since 1945,” which is the key point of debate and is not a given.

Later in that same article, the author discusses “some factors that weigh against Taiwan being part of China” and what it would mean if Taiwan were not part of the PRC. You selectively removed the preceding condition to misrepresent the statement and used the resulting conclusion out of context to support your argument. Wikipedialuva (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody denies Taiwan is Chinese sovereignty. Last time I checked, Taiwan isn’t legally independent from China. If you read the full article, a leading Aussie lawyer likewise concluded that Taiwan is Chinese territory, with governance disputed. Both PRC and ROC agrees that Taiwan is part of One China. The article itself didn’t say it’s not Chinese sovereignty. It’s just emphasising a point. Tho officially all major parties agree Taiwan is part of China sovereignty but dispute on merely governance of that sovereignty. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

“Last time I checked, Taiwan isn’t legally independent from China.” you should check again, because Taiwan is legally independent of China. You in general seem mistaken about Taiwanese domestic politics. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless if you want to add in the full attribution, it doesn’t change the fact at all. That not having control, isn’t a legal argument that PRC has no sovereignty. What’s unsourced is the argument claiming that ROC has full sovereignty just because PRC doesn’t have control. No legal expert actually ever says that. If so, give sources but there’s none. Meanwhile I can at least back all what I say and more than happy to give the full attribution and quote and supporting info.The late James Crawford, former Judge of the International Court of Justice, had concluded that Taiwan is Chinese territory, with governance disputed. Even if Taiwan has been considered Chinese territory since 1945, it does not matter that the PRC has never exercised full control over it. State sovereignty over territory is legally distinct from the capacity of a particular government to govern that territory at a given time. Examples include that during civil wars, insurgent or rival forces may control portions of territory without affecting the underlying state sovereignty.’49.181.203.101 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikipedialuva And also do not make character accusations at me. If anything, I am the one trying to not misrepresent. Current version still claims that ROC has sovereignty because PRC doesn’t control. That’s not a legal argument and is unsourced and a legal misrepresentation. A top judge concluded it’s Chinese territory and a top lawyer explains that if it’s Chinese sovereignty then no control has no relevance on sovereignty 49.181.203.101 (talk) 23:18, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I don’t think people realise that not having control over a territory doesn’t mean there’s no sovereignty. If someone wants to argue that a country has no right to sovereignty, the reasoning needs to be solid and relevant. If control has no real impact on sovereignty, then adding phrases like “despite not having control” gives the wrong impression – as if the country has no valid claim. That’s misleading and not neutral. Initially I didn’t remove it but simply added necessary context that it doesn’t matter if PRC has no control over Taiwan. Legal experts explain it got no relevance to sovereignty as “sovereignty is distinct from control at any moment”. However someone removed it which I do not agree. Either the context should stay to keep things accurate, or the misleading part should be left out entirely, since it has no real effect on sovereignty – which is what the article is actually about. The sources to back it.[2]
49.181.203.101 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Theres only so much we can do with an opinion piece like that one, its relevent for Ben Saul’s opinion but thats just one expert and you’re presenting it as the work of multiple experts for some reason… If multiple experts have different opinions then we don’t pick a winner as you seem to want to do we include multiple points of view. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 00:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, it’s one thing to revert one edit. It’s another to reverse a massive number of different edits especially ones that are unable to be disputed. Which I am however aware can make people who dislike those facts, want to remove and make it burdensome. If that is you, then note I am a busy person and not going to waste my time. And also it’s not an opinion. They are legal experts citing facts on which they would know as they study the law. If we cannot agree they are experts then I suggest we are unable to agree and not waste either of our time and take to resolution notice. I am not interested in an edit war or political stonewalling on talk and my edits are in good faith, necessary and well sourced. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reason to remove this edit? I write: Arguments that Taiwan is currently not independent – Currently, Taiwan (ROC) is not officially independent, has not declared independence, and continues to claim to be the legitimate government of all of China, rather than an independent state separate from it. It’s not an opinion but simply facts. There’s so many arguments on Wikipedia article saying Taiwan is already legally independent. But there was zero arguments saying it’s not independent. That’s hardly balanced especially when Taiwan is officially not independent today. That info that Taiwan doesn’t declare independence and still regards itself as gov of all all china is a valid argument, and doesn’t need any discussion as it’s not going to be debated by anyone neutral. But am fine in taking it to dispute resolution if you still wish to claim it’s false or not noteworthy.49.181.203.101 (talk) 00:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should get consensus for your edits and use a larger array of sources, I think that an over reliance on this single opinion piece is something that we can and should avoid and attribution is due when used. Horse Eye’s Back (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not required in advance for non-controversial edits that improve accuracy or clarity. And, it’s super ironic that you mention sources. There’s an edit that claims that China’s sovereignty is nil because they have no control. There’s ZERO sources to back that. Meanwhile I have a reliable source that supports that it’s false. And why I removed that unsourced claim. And added in the correct one.49.181.203.101 (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also there’s no sources saying Taiwan satisfy all [4] criterion of Montevideo. There’s even an “unsourced” tag on it further down when it again repeats that wrong claim. Meanwhile my source[3] backs the info that “Taiwan doesn’t fully fulfil the fourth criterion”. So not only is my edit correct, it’s absolutely necessary when the article is currently publishing unsourced disinfo. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, if you are going to revert, please do it fairly and individually. Most of my edits correct disinformation or unsourced claims and are necessary; there is no valid argument for removing them and restoring debunked, unsourced content. I am not going to engage in an edit war. If you revert three times, I will escalate this to the noticeboard, as further mega or repeated reverts are unacceptable. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please list the different changes here. The addition of an arguments against section that draws a distinction between the ROC and Taiwan is a very particular bit of politics that ignores the usual consideration of Taiwan being shorthand for the ROC. CMD (talk) 01:48, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a number of them and they Never been individually fairly addressed but I am open to discussion. Firstly is this one; link – [4] Here I explained the old edit is false and has no source. I added in correction with a source too..49.181.203.101 (talk) 01:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second is this one. Link – [5][6] How balanced is this article where it is one sided and only list arguments for Taiwanese independence but zero for against. My edit was a valid argument that should be added from the beginning.49.181.203.101 (talk) 01:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Third is this one which is interrelated with first case. Link –[7] In pro-Roc sovereignty arguments, there’s already an explanation that ROC simply not satisfying all 4 criterion of Montevideo doesn’t necessarily not make it a state. I simply merged repeating info and nothing I write is false – and is undeniably overall a necessary improvement over the previous factually incorrect version.49.181.203.101 (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth case is [8]. A legal expert explains under international law, sovereignty and control are two different things. Lack of control ≠ loss of sovereignty under international law, and so it refutes a common misconception that no control means PRC has lost legal right to sovereignty. Btw – Per WP:THECONVERSATION, it’s indeed green listed as a reliable source, and in particular – Ben Saul is a subject matter expert. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know I said it’s reliable at the Teahouse but I didn’t have a chance to look at the article or Saul in too much detail so I’m happy to be proven wrong about that. Ultraodan (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine. He quotes an Australian judge who concluded that Taiwan was Chinese Territory, and he works on that conclusion by explaining that if Taiwan is Chinese territory, it won’t matter if PRC has no control over it and also noted there’s been many similar historical examples. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last but not least, this edit – [9] The reason why is already explained in full at my very first comment above when I started this thread.49.181.203.101 (talk) 02:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not deny that the ROC itself can be defined as an ethinic Chinese state and still claims to be rightful regime over mainland China, but this does not make Taiwan/ROC less to be its own sovereign country. The cross-strait relations are basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of “China” as you said, so it’s in fact more similar to the current situation of Two Koreas, in which both Koreas are regarded as “countries” as well, and simultaneously they have been claiming the legitimacy over entire Korean peninsula in their respective constitution that is similar to the cross-strait relations. This circumstance would not affect the way we have viewed them as two sovereign countries exercise sovereignty in their each actual-controlled territories, rather than seeing them as “One Korea” with two governments. Even in Chinese language Wikipedia, the main article of Taiwan also describes in the first sentence as 中華民國是位於東亞的民主共和國 (“The ROC is a republic and democratic country located in East Asia”). If you have taken one position that the PRC is the only sovereign Chinese state in the world and neglected the existing ROC authorities remaining in Taiwan, that is what you called a one-side story and cherry-picking on sources.

Whether or not a formal Republic of Taiwan is declared has no bearing on the fact that the ROC sovereignty is still in existence in Taiwan, and that Taiwan/ROC is factually not part of the PRC. The Taiwan/ROC and China/PRC classification has been clear to most editors here. Sheherherhers (talk) 03:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SheherherhersOk, I am finding it very difficult to know what you are getting at. Specifically which edit do you not agree and are referring to? Seeing you wrote “Whether or not a formal Republic of Taiwan is declared..” – so I think you are referring to Taiwanese independence argument. You can have your opinions but it’s a fact that Taiwan isn’t independent, hasn’t declared independence and neither ROC and PRC recognise Taiwan as independent or separate from China. Whoever has been editing the article for the past decades, didn’t even bother to add in one argument why Taiwan isn’t independent. That’s not neutral and is one sided when only include all arguments for Taiwanese independence but leave out the obvious fact that nobody including even ROC recognise Taiwan as independent from China or separate from mainland. Hence this edit is warranted – [10] 49.181.203.101 (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on what “China” is defined, if you referred the PRC as China and the only legal existence of China. And I would say the statement of “Taiwan is not part of China (PRC)” is not entirely wrong, and the article sepcifically state Taiwan was never ruled by the PRC, does not say that Taiwan was never part of China. Sheherherhers (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheherherhers Please read above. I am saying that both the PRC and ROC do not recognize Taiwan as an independent entity from China, since both claim to represent China. Taiwanese independence would imply full separation from China, which neither side officially supports. The source supports this – it’s not difficult to understand. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man, first of all, your edits say that the ROC is fitted for the case of “insurgent forces” occupied a part of a country. So I have told you that the ROC was the original goverment and the communist forces is more likely an insurgent force. The ROC and the PRC are basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of “China” as you said, so it’s in fact more similar to the current situation of Two Koreas, in which both Koreas are regarded as “countries” as well, and simultaneously they have been claiming the legitimacy over entire Korean peninsula in their respective constitution that is similar to the cross-strait relations. This is not difficult to understand either. Sheherherhers (talk) 04:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheherherhers Look, stick to one issue as there are multiple issues. You addressed independence and now skipping over to a different topic about control. In regards to control, the point is the author was making an example of why control doesn’t take away sovereignty. He merely gave an example of many. Regardless we don’t have to mention insurgent forces. We can simply just state that lack of control doesn’t mean that China has lost right to sovereignty as control and sovereignty are legally two distinct things. But the current lede is misleading people that China is ridiculous to assume sovereignty when it has no control despite sovereignty isn’t impacted by control. But most people don’t know this and why corrective context is needed. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 04:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I could not comprehend which part of my revision is not taking neutral position over the issue. The PRC claims Taiwan and regards the ROC no longer existence legally is one side, and it NEVER assume control over Taiwan is one side. I have tried to balance two standpoints over the lede, but you seem only one story to be told and deleted referenced content, one article has not overturned all the controversy over decades long issue, but you seem wanting to use it to apply all. Sheherherhers (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I have to repeated again it here as you still struggle with formal independence matters. Whether or not a formal Republic of Taiwan is declared has no bearing on the fact that the ROC sovereignty is still in existence in Taiwan, run indepently for its internal and external affairs, and that Taiwan/ROC is factually never part of the PRC. The Taiwan/ROC and China/PRC classification has been clear to most editors here. Sheherherhers (talk) 04:16, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. This is going nowhere and I honestly find it difficult to follow your reasoning. SPECIFICALLY – What is your issue with this edit [11] and [12] and this one [13] If you are going to continue to ramble on about Taiwan having sovereignty and yet none of that reasoning is relevant or proves my edit is wrong. It’s going to be a very ineffective discussion as I don’t know what edit you are even referring to now. Also instead of continuing here, I recommend taking it to dedicated threads. I will create them on my talk page or below and ask you to engage there. Do not add further until I create those threads for mutual easier discussion. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 5 main disputes. When there are multiple but different issues, I think it’s best to handle them one by one. The first issue is this edit – [14] Here I explained the old edit is false and also has no source. I added in correction with a source too. Let’s first deal with this one before talking about other issues and work our way through.49.181.203.101 (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sheherherhers and @Ultraodan I think we can All agree that it’s false to claim that Taiwan satisfy all 4 criteria of Montevideo. And yes, there’s 4. I think my edit to correct is not only neutral but absolutely necessary (as it corrects unsourced disinfo). What is your argument to say it’s wrong or do you think my edit was valid? I have other RS supporting it too that TW falls behind and limited on the fourth criterion.[15] – DO u have issues? Yes or no and explain.49.181.203.101 (talk) 04:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To define what use of words to refer Taiwan as country or island or province is not a issue to bring here. This page is the topic of how the controversial status of Taiwan is caused and how the historical context has involved to the issue. This page is not a judgement forum to rule the sovereignty. In regard to whether Taiwan should be referred as country with full satisfied criterians, firstly you should go to the main page of Taiwan as their talk page has settled the issue for a long time ago with general discussion in the past. please bring this thread to more relevant topic as Taiwan is defined as “country” was not a new creation that claimed by me individually, and I think you can gather more people with specialty of knowledge over the issues there. Sheherherhers (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I should remind you to stick to the issue. The old edit claims that Taiwan satisfy all criteria of Montevideo. Except no sources say that and additionally we know Montevideo has 4 criterions. And that Taiwan is very limited in that and overly generous and unsourced inaccuracy to imply they satisfy it. Do not ramble about irrelevant arguments. Is there 1. A source that actually says Taiwan satisfy all 4 criterion of Montevideo? As I know there’s none. Instead I have 2 reliable sources saying it’s very limited and behind in that criteria. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Leave a Comment