Talk:Political status of Taiwan

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

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. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

There's a number of them and they Never been individually fairly addressed but I am open to discussion. Firstly is this one; link - 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)

Second is this one. Link - 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)

Third is this one which is interrelated with first case. Link - 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)

Fourth case is . 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)

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)

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)

Last but not least, this edit - 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)

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)

@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 - 49.181.203.101 (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

Ok. This is going nowhere and I honestly find it difficult to follow your reasoning. SPECIFICALLY - What is your issue with this edit and and this one 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)

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

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 - 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)

@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. - DO u have issues? Yes or no and explain.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. Sheherherhers (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Again, I should remind you to stick to the issue at hand. We are only discussing this edit: and please do not stray from it. The old edit claims that Taiwan satisfies all criteria of the Montevideo Convention, but no sources actually say that. Montevideo has four criteria, and Taiwan only partially meets them, so the old statement is both unsourced and inaccurate. Is there a reliable source that actually says Taiwan satisfies all four criteria? As far as I know, there is none. I have two reliable sources showing that Taiwan is very limited in meeting fourth criterion. Please keep the discussion focused on this edit and avoid irrelevant arguments.49.181.203.101 (talk) 05:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

if your argument is that the capacity to enter into relations with other states is cystal factor that can even deny the ROC in Taiwan possess sovereingty, and I can tell you that the PRC itself is not satisfied for that criteria based on the same platform when it does not achieve universal recognition either.

The amount of formal recognition is not a judgement on how a state is more eligible to be defined as an independent state, which is a unilateral political act by a government based on their political interests in a matter of the admission to a country’s statehood. That's largely affected by the hard power of a nation to project its influence in the global arena against what they deemed an entity as “disputed entity”.

For example, such as Kosovo, receives more formal recognition, not because they are more important or legitimate than one another, which is only because Serbia as a small power does not have the same influence to prevent other states from establishing international relations with Kosovo as Chinese government could do. If Serbia is a nuclear country or a permanent member in the UN systems, or top five most ranked economic or military powers of the world, then we can compare them in an equal basis. Hence, the amount of formal diplomatic recognition is not an excuse for you to justify your assertion.

The creation and continuity of a state is only a factual issue, not a legal question. Declarations and recognition by other states cannot have any impact on their existence. According to the declaratory theory of recognition, the act of recognition signifies no more than the acceptance of an already-existing factual situation— i.e., conformity with the criteria of statehood, the recognition of third states is not a requirement for being a state. Most of the cited declarations by politicians from other states are not legal statements but solely political intents.

citing reference: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/constitutional-law/declaratory-and-constitutive-theories-of-state.php Sheherherhers (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. Whether or not the PRC satisfies the criteria of a state has no bearing on whether the ROC does. You cannot claim that the ROC satisfies all criteria of the Montevideo Convention, because it simply does not, and no sources support that claim. The issue here is that the Wikipedia article contains a false and unsourced statement, and the PRC’s statehood is not relevant to this case. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

None of that is true... One can easily find experts making the statement that "Taiwan easily meets the international law test for statehood.", this is an issue with a wide range of opinion but you've repeatedly denied the existance of opinions which you personally don't like. Note that the wide range of opinions is noted by most of the experts, for example these two who write "While Taiwan satisfies the four criteria set out in the Montevideo Convention, scholars remain divided on the issue of Taiwan’s statehood." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

And again, I do not consider this space is relevant to judge whether Taiwan should be defined as country or not. The talk page of Taiwan is more relevant for the issue as they have settled it long ago, if you wish to overturn that please bring the threads there. Sheherherhers (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Stop making irrelevant false arguments. The issue is Wikipedia article is making a false statement. And I explained to you why it's false and addressed your reply and told you that whether the PRC satisfies statehood criteria does not affect Taiwan/ROC's status. So your reasoning is invalid. As each entity's situation is assessed independently. And I have reliable sources proving TW doesn't satisfy the fourth. That's enough to delete the unsourced falsehood in article and replace with a correct statement supported by reliable sources that support the correction. 49.181.203.101 (talk) 05:22, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

false on what? false on stating the fact that the PRC never achieved on governance over Taiwan? or false on the ROC itself did satisfy the criterians to be a sovereign state? And I have told you that the only lacking point of diplomatic recognition citing by each country's political interest. Also Taiwan does have capacity to make relations with other states via diplomatic missions, despite it being limited, have established both formal or inforaml relations with most of states. And you argue that I cannot bring the PRC into four criteria to form a state, why? you can use it to deny the statehood of Taiwan but not the other way around? Sheherherhers (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I meant that the specific statement claiming Taiwan satisfies all criteria of the Montevideo Convention is false. As I have explained multiple times, that statement is not only unsourced but also factually incorrect. I have already provided two reliable sources showing this and demonstrating that it needs to be corrected.

Taiwan does not fully satisfy the fourth criterion of Montevideo regarding formal international recognition and diplomatic capacity. It has a limited capacity, but not full capacity. The current version of the article is misleading at best and disinformation at worst and therefore needs to be corrected.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Also this is basic wiki 101. Wikipedia article should not state that Taiwan satisfies all criteria of the Montevideo Convention if: 1. No reliable source explicitly says so. And 2. Other reliable sources contradict it or show limitations. All you have offered so far are excuses that this is "not the place to discuss" or other irrelevant and inaccurate arguments. I think we have discussed enough and I will be filing to dispute resolution eventually. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:03, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I made a compromise with you.

The four criterians of statehood is able to use the revised version as I have seem that you have made a balanced viewpoint that diplomatic recognition is not necessary to effect the lagal right of the statehood of the ROC, in which I can advocate and somehow limited recognition is also fact.

Other changes should held in pending discussion and original contents stay the same. Sheherherhers (talk) 06:21, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Sheherherhers lol like I said, it's neutral and necessary. I am glad we are able to agree. If you concede I made "a balanced viewpoint" then I will restore that particular case in and call this as resolved. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Never mind, it seems you beat me to it and restored my edit. Thank you for that. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:29, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It's no winner or loser in this matters as we did not take time here for a competition. Despite of my own beliefs,I would not make my edits fully on bias basis when I viewed other contradictory opinion making instructive points. I only wish others including you can do the same. Sheherherhers (talk) 06:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

We can both agree on that and I hope for that too. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:44, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It's time for me to take a leave for personal matter and apology for absence to further discussion, hope you can gather more people into talk before reaching consensus. Sheherherhers (talk) 06:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I’ll give a reasonable amount of time for a reply - no rush. However, if there's no response after, say, a fortnight or two, I think it would be fair to proceed with restoring the material, since there are limits to how long discussions can remain open-ended. I believe that's a fairly reasonable and patient approach. :) JaredMcKenzie (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

You may not restore the material without an affirmative consensus to do so... You are required to respect our policies and guidelines, not what you personally think is fair and reasonable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I won't. So far I haven't. I didn't restore nor edit warred. But if nobody replies after a while, then I can certainly take it to DRN and tellem that nobody replied for a while and ask them to weigh in. Or if other's o reply and we can't agree on the facts, then same thing; consider discussion reaching its end limit of progress and seeking other avenues like DRN RFC. I don't think 3O is applicable anymore as Aaron has joined. Both of you claim to support my edit in spirit. If that's the case, do you even oppose the edit anymore. If so, please clearly explain in thread below so I can file at DRN. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Seeing you pinged me here, I haven't got time to look at all the discussion and sources for this so I'll be staying out of it. If discussion here fails to resolve anything you can go to WP:3O or WP:DRN. If you need consensus about the reliability of a source you can bring it up at WP:RSN. Any other questions about wiki policies and guidelines the Teahouse will be happy to help. Seems like you already understand but I'll say it anyway: remember, Wikipedia is built on consensus so the best outcome is if you can agree on a course of action/ Ultraodan (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ultraodan You're more than welcome to weigh in on the thread below if you wish. I understand that consensus is important, but there are limitations. Example is in below thread, if hypothetically many editors argue that the ROC officially regards itself not as the government of "all of China" but as a separate country from the Chinese mainland, that is factually incorrect. While it's reasonable to note that the ROC has de facto independence, it cannot be claimed to have de jure independence. If consensus is cited without real reasoning; for example, just "I just don't like it" or similar invalid arguments - I cannot rely on it, and I would raise the issue at the DRN. Legally (de jure), Taiwan/ROC is not independent as long as it does not formally declare independence and the constitutional framework continues to claim sovereignty over all of China. If there were a consensus in below thread however claiming that Taiwan is de jure independent, that would be factually incorrect, and Wikipedia should not include such information that is demonstrably false. I will, of course, aim to reach consensus first, but if necessary, I may escalate the matter to DRN to ensure the article remains reliable and neutral. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't have the time these days for such a detailed discussion on a topic I'm not particularly passionate about so I won't be responding unless there's something specific I can help with. Ultraodan (talk) 10:10, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

The key nuance you seem to be missing is that only one thing can be de facto true at a time but multiple things can be de jure true at a given time... It is entirely possible for Taiwan to be de jure independent and de jure not independent at the same time. This nuance is causing you to take the points being made as absolute statements when the scholars making them do not mean them to be taken that way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

You got reliable sources for that, or just making original research? The current reality is a country needs to minimally declare themselves as independent state and their constitution needs to reflect that - in order to actually be independent. A single DPP president is unable to do that alone as it requires constitutional amendment that require 75% of lawmakers. And I have a source from The Diplomat stating "A single leader cannot make Taiwan independent" so I have a RS backing what I say to be true. It is widely known Taiwan has de facto independence (in practise) but due to their constitution and their own formal acknowledgement like one China, they are definitely not De Jure independent nor do they even claim to be. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:58, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

You are perfectly capable of using google and if you don't know what the term means why have you been using it? Again you appear to be arguing a specific position rather than following WP:NPOV, you also appear to be misrepresenting or misunderstanding that source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Here from 3O. Since there are four or five editors in the discussion now, it no longer qualifies and I am closing the ticket. Xan747 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm just looking at [24] and [25] from the opening comment to support the diff linked in the opening comment. It does say all that:

To be fair, I am less sure about [24] (the Reuters article), but it isn't even cited in the

Summarize Timeline Top Qs Fact Check

As the first case is now resolved, we can move to the second. This concerns the edit here which I want to add back: - it is a neutral, sourced counterpoint to the “Taiwanese independence” section. This is the specific wording for the counter argument: Taiwan’s (ROC) constitution continues to claim sovereignty over all of China, not just the island of Taiwan. The ROC officially refers to itself as the Republic of China, not a “Republic of Taiwan,” and it has not formally declared independence. Both the PRC and ROC historically agree on the principle of “One China,” though they dispute which government is the legitimate representative. Neither side currently officially regards Taiwan as an independent country separate from China. I am open to adjustments, but the above wording accurately reflects the constitutional and historical reality. It is supported by reliable sources: JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Also this should go without saying - Wikipedia must represent all significant viewpoints. Especially when backed by reliable sources. I should also point out that in current section (Taiwanese independence) - it reads more like a legal brief advocating for official independence, not really a neutral summary. It's full of one-sided legal reasoning but that's another topic. The real issue is there are NO counterarguments - despite the fact that there is a major, ongoing body of legal scholarship and state practice (both ROC and PRC) disputing those claims. So to comply with wiki policy, there should def be a counter-argument section. I added only one counter argument and yet that was removed, and is what's this dispute is now about. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

It would help if you had reliable sources beyond those opinion pieces... They can be used for the opinion of their author but they can not be used to make statements beyond that which is apparently what you want to use them to do. If there is legal scholarship which backs up your point why not use that instead of these opinion pieces? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

That's an absurdity to say my sources are unreliable. I have sources in which are Reuters - that explains that Taiwan ROC lawmakers are unlikely to succeed in achieving formal independence as it requires 75% of lawmakers to pass that amendment and KMT opposes it. (Meaning they aren't there and a single DPP leader isn't able to change that). Other two are from The Conversation that are from subject experts that say ROC constitution doesn't recognise ROC as a country separate from mainland, and Taiwan has never declared independence, nor even claim to be independent. Even the current wikipedia article supports every core fact above already. If you claim my sources are unreliable - I am happy to assume good faith and take it you doubt those sources so I will take to WP:RSN and see if they are acceptable tho I am sure they are. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I never said that your sources are unreliable... I would also note that in terms of the political status of Taiwan there are multiple variations of independence that matter... Again you appear to be arguing for a specific position rather than following WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:05, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

So if sources' reliability is not the issue then specifically - what sentence do you not agree with? Be very specific and not vague. I said "Taiwan’s (ROC) constitution continues to claim sovereignty over all of China, not just the island of Taiwan." Or that ROC doesn't officially identify itself as independent and still as gov of all of China. That counters the claim that Taiwan is dejure independent. My sources all support that explicitly. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Those claims need to be attributed if you're using the opinion sources, not everyone agrees on either point so we should flesh it our for the readers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Agreed and WP:RSOPINION is clear on this point. - Amigao (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

@Amigao Can you guys please be specific and stop talking in circles? I have multiple sources saying Taiwan ROC never formally asserted a legal separate status from China. I have sources directly explaining that ROC constitution still claims mainland as ROC terrority, tho in practise accepts PRC (de facto) control over it. Regardless in the Wikipedia article, the key problem is there's only 100% arguments for why Taiwan is de Jure independent. And exactly zero arguments given on why it's not. Article falsely implies there's no real arguments to prove Taiwan isn't de Jure independent despite there's so many strong ones. And I wish to add that in. I should add Wikipedia already extensively describes Taiwan as not being de Jure independent for a long time. Example is this article - It implicitly demonstrates that Taiwan isn't de jure independent - but considering to maybe become that. So this fact is already well established long before this dispute.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 02:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

My point was simple: One can cite opinion pieces published in WP:RS, but WP:INTEXT attribution must also be provided per WP:RSOPINION. - Amigao (talk) 17:41, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually no. If I wanted to add that Taiwan never declared independence. Do I absolutely need to attribute sources when I am pretty sure every single reliable source says that? Hundreds of media and academic sources all say that. This should not be political but neutral - when you attribute to one source, you make it sound like it's according to very few people and that's not the case. tf it's commonly stated by so many media and academic sources ten all I need is to provide the sources, (in which I have an abundance of choices which btw are not limited to expert articles in the conversation, but academic journals and University Public international Law academic sources too also backing it up.) JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but currently I'm unable to see how the linked articles (except for "When people say the West...") are opinion pieces. Could you explain? (Also @Horse Eye's Back Aaron Liu (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost here... Both the sources and the content under consideration seem to change with every new comment from JaredMcKenzie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Specifically when I say Taiwanese constitution claims all of mainland China. And there has been no constitutional amendment to change that. And I use these sources. Is that okay? https://theconversation.com/explainer-the-complex-question-of-taiwanese-independence-188584 Ben Saul is reputable expert who is Challis Chair of International Law, Sydney Law School, University of Sydney and affiliated with Chatham house. He is not a nobody and he isn't stating it as an opinion but as a fact that he is qualified to know. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:33, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

The issue is that the source is presenting the issue as complex, and you're presenting the issue as simple... You're also going beyond what Saul has said, you should read WP:OR especially WP:SYNTH. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Have you seen the arguments for Taiwanese independence? They are WP:SYNTH where they are arguing that Taiwan is already legally independent, yet ignoring or omitting out arguments that disprove that conclusion. For example, ROC never denounced one China policy which essentially means they haven't formally recognised Taiwan itself as a country separate from the mainland. It's too easy for me to find sources to support all that. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

But I don't think we can agree so I don't think this convo is going anywhere. I show you sources like and you sorta reject it. I think this discussion has reached its point of no progress and time to escalate to DRN or RFC if you cannot agree with my proposed text and sources. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Its not a rejection, that is the standing consensus on The Conversation... You've literally linked to it, we treat expert opinion as expert opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:51, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I am somewhat perplexed by this discussion. The edit in question seems to be saying the same things but in more words. If it is a "neutral, sourced counterpoint", so is the already existing text. What exactly is the intention of the change? CMD (talk) 08:54, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis I can see why you are confused. This was my original edit beforehand I argued that there's so many arguments that Taiwan is dejure independent - but there's zero arguments pointing out that it's not formally independent currently. Later on, I merely added to that edit where I add extra words to it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I know I said I will move this to DRN but intially the dispute was I had no "reliable sources beyond opinion pieces". Now a new issue is that it's "undue Weight". If that's the case, be specific. Below is the overall entirety of info I wish to add. Point out which part is undue. The info is now larger than initial as I like to add more context (This is for an argument about why Taiwan isn't de Jure independent - not to be confused with de facto independent).

After retreating to Taiwan in 1949, the Republic of China (ROC) continued to claim to be the sole legitimate government of all China. However, following the 1991 constitutional amendments and the enactment of the Cross-Strait Relations Act, the ROC government effectively acknowledged the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) control over the mainland, while maintaining its constitutional claim that the mainland remains part of the ROC’s territory. In practice, the ROC’s jurisdiction is limited to Taiwan and a few outlying islands, but its official name and constitutional framework still refer to the entire “Republic of China.” Despite functioning as a self-governing state with its own government, military, and foreign relations, the ROC is generally regarded as de facto independent rather than de jure independent. The ROC’s constitution continues to assert sovereignty over all of China, and the government has not formally declared a new state separate from “China.” Moreover, the vast majority of countries and the United Nations recognize the PRC as the sole legal government of China. Consequently, under international law, Taiwan meets the criteria for de facto statehood but lacks de jure recognition as a sovereign state. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm the mentor assigned to Jared (side note for Jared: this doesn't mean I have more authority on anything, I'm just a regular editor) and I am also perplexed at what exactly is going on here with all the discussion everywhere. But I'll try my best.

I prefer keeping the version 49.181.203.101 changed to. I don't see what about it is being opposed; feel free to re-state why. The "This demonstrates" sentence is completely unnecessary and should be removed, but otherwise this version explains how exactly Taiwan is not officially independent (the constitution) and their official regard that there is "One China", which aren't trivial details IMO. It implies or leaves room to add "Though it acts like an independent state", which is already pre-synthesized in the Conversation source. The sources cited in this amount of text is the same amount as that for other parts of this article, so this shouldn't be Undue (though I can't find the exact argument above about this, so the weight argument might be a different one).The source isn't an opinion article either.

That said, the Island Studies Journal article cited doesn't seem to be a meta-analysis and is thus a primary source (Wikipedia jargon that really should be changed to "firsthand source") per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am 49.181.203.101 and that was my edit. And I can work with that. I can remove the "This demonstrates". I never saw The conversation as an opinion source but I have plenty of academic sources regardless. But lately I believe it's helpful to add in Taiwan functions as a self governing state, and it's other relevant factors like constitution, one China policy etc that's a barrier to de Jure independence under international law. So I am considering something like; Although Taiwan operates as a self-governing state, it is not de jure independent under the Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC). The ROC Constitution continues to claim sovereignty over all of China, reflecting the government's constitutional position that there is “one China,” with Taiwan as part of it. While the ROC maintains effective control only over Taiwan and its outlying islands, it has never formally declared a separate legal identity from “China” under international law. Will you think that is acceptable enough to post as is? JaredMcKenzie (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait a bit for the others above to mention how the articles opinion first. In the meantime: The first and last links are either firsthand or opinion pieces themselves too. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu There's nuance. The last link has indeed opinions in it and I don't particularly like it. However there's certain info that's not being stated as an opinion. Specifically at The 1991 constitutional amendment and the Cross-Strait Relations Act both label the “mainland area” as the territory of the ROC. But despite this label, the mainland area is regarded as a foreign land in practice. Same with First link. It explains why it's difficult for Taiwan to move to De Jure statehood but it acknowledge facts that Taiwan isn't de Jure state under international law, same as Oxford University International Law explicitly states and per other sources. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:00, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

"it has never formally declared a separate legal identity from “China” under international law." this doesn't seem to be what your sources are saying... There are two distinct legal Chinas after all, Taiwan declaring itself to be the ROC is declaring a separate legal identify from the PRC (at least thats what those given sources say). I think you also are misrepresenting what the authors say about sovereignty vis-a-vis the ROC constitution... The ROC is de jure independent under the Constitution of the Republic of China... The question scholars disagree on is whether or not that means that for Taiwan to be a country it has to declare independence from the ROC. Some say yes, some say no but I don't think anyone actually makes the exact argument you do there. You're in a tricky situation because you're bundling four sources together as if they say the exact same thing but they don't, I would take it sentence by sentence and make sure that the given source works for what its being used for. Also undergrad law reviews are not generally considered RS. One last thing I would note is that all four sources comment on what a complicated issue this is... But your take-away from these sources is that this is a simple issue with a single valid interpretation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm just looking at [24] and [25] from the opening comment to support the diff linked in the opening comment. It does say all that:

Emphasis mine. To be fair, I am not sure about [24] (the Reuters article), but it isn't even cited in the proposed addition. Both sources also do say these formal things matter for "international status" or political status/recognition. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Its hard to keep track of which edit is under discussion... Are we talking about "it has never formally declared a separate legal identity from “China” under international law."? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1315128638. I think at least the spirit of this edit is correct even if it might need some rewording (and definitely remove the second sentence). Aaron Liu (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it works in spirit, good luck working on wording with them. If you can have some success where no-one else has all the more power to you. One idea for section layout might be to separate it into more discrete arguments so that all the sources used (and they seem to want to use a wide variety of sources) don't have to agree on everything in the statement. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

That's not the issue they claim to have before you came along. They insisted the whole thing is unable to be added. Like undue or sources are not enough or don't support etc. Tho could you reword it that you think is more acceptable? Would like to know what that looks like. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu I did previously propose new wording before. If it's just wording and not the info, then how about - Taiwan’s (ROC) constitution continues to claim sovereignty over all of China, not just the island of Taiwan. Additionally, it has not declared independence or asserted a legal separate status, and both the PRC and ROC historically agree on the principle of "One China", though they dispute which government is legitimate. Neither side currently officially regards Taiwan as an independent country separate from China. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:57, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

It occurs to me that in general you might be confusing the political status of Taiwan with the legal status of Taiwan, theres overlap but they aren't the same thing... That would account for many of the miscommunications you seem to be having with other editors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Nobody informed can seriously claim that "it has never formally declared a separate legal identity from “China” under international laws". All sources say that and it is very difficult to take you seriously if you need to argue over that and waste my time. If that's your number one issue on whether it's sourced then I don't want to continue and ask DRN to see if my edits are in good faith and correct. FYI, Oxford University International Law specifically writes - Based on effectiveness, Taiwan appears to comply with the criteria of statehood, but it has not unequivocally asserted a separate legal status as a State, and therefore it cannot be regarded as a State under international law. And The Conversation writes Since the 1990s, Taiwanese leaders have pragmatically accepted that mainland China is governed by the PRC, but Taiwan’s Constitution still formally claims all of China. Taiwan has also increasingly seen itself as a de facto independent country, separate from the mainland. Partly for fear of triggering a military response, Taiwan hasn’t formally declared itself to be a new, legally independent state. And also anyone neutral and informed knows that Taiwan never formally declared independence in China. If they had, we wouldn't have US newspapers saying the US gov doesn't endorse Taiwan's declaring independence from China. If you can't even agree on this basic fact then we are at an impasse and I will ask DRN to assess if my edits are indeed supported by the facts. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Legal is part of political. It's a huge part. So don't claim legal status is undue. And the only people misrepresenting my articles are the ones claiming that ROC constitution makes them de Jure independent from China. It doesn't. And I am only referring to De Jure (international laws), not defacto (in practise). I don't deny it's defacto independent but it's definitely not De Jure independent when ROC doesn't even consider itself independent specifically from "China" in the formal sense. The ROC has never declared independence from “China” in legal terms. The constitution has never been rewritten to formally declare that the ROC and the PRC are occupying two separate countries but just same disputed one country of China. Just because you don't like this narrative, doesn't mean you can deny it. But I am not going in circles arguing over this with you. If you think Taiwan has formally declared independence from China (they did not), and my sources don't support then we cannot agree at all at this rate. And DRN is the next step. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:22, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Btw the reason I haven't filed for DRN and replying slower is because I am bit busy this week with work. So probably after a week's time, I may come back and reply and engage more promptly. But read my replies above - I disagree my edits that "Taiwan never declared formal independence as a separate state" are unsourced and also in the Chapter (legal arguments) right now. You already got so many weak arguments for why Taiwan is independent under international laws. Most of them are actually unsourced or wrong. But it's not undue to add in a counter legal argument that under international laws, Taiwan never formally asserted a legal separate status/declared formal independence. If you continue to claim this is false then this conversation is unable to continue and we ask others at DRN to assess the facts impartially. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:31, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Please try to reply less and with less words. It can unfortunately be intimidating. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

They falsely say Legal status is not part of political status, and my sources don't support the fact that Taiwan never declared formal Independence/assert themselves as a new separate state. I didn't say they declared independence from PRC. I said from "China" in which refers to the state that both ROC and PRC are disputing over. And my proposal is definitely due for Legal argument section. To be honest, it's almost impossible to continue to see them in good faith if they falsely claim my sources don't support and that legal arguments are not part of this article and I simply do not want to argue with them further. Bur per Due weight, Taiwan's legal status under international law should definitely be noted and they can't argue to remove just because they are attached to the idea that Taiwan is de Jure independent when legal realities do not support it. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is really hard for me to read really long things that seem uncondensed. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Basically I think they are wasting my time. Either they read the source and lying or they didn't read the source and assume they are correct. And they constantly tell me my sources don't support what I write or its undue. It's hard for me to Work with that. If they continue to make same arguments and we are going nowhere, how else to proceed? I believe my edits are verified and due weight and don't think they are arguing fairly at all. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Whatever is happening, replying so much and so long does not help anyone. It's making a lot of people including me and Horse confused and simply repeating things you've previously said but longer and more pointedly does not help anyone understand what you're saying better. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

He makes false claims at me that my sources don't support what I say. Then later claims he never said my edits are unsourced. This is the pattern over and over. I think he is just making me reply over and over again and not wanting the conversation to end by repeating this circle. Also note this is simply about the undisputed fact that Taiwan never declared formal independence/asserted a separate legal status. I do not believe at this rate - I can make them admit to even this fundamental fact and waste of time trying to do so. That's why I want to stop this and make him acknowledge exactly what the issue is then I will take it to DRN as I no longer believe this issue is able to be resolved with SPECIFICALLY them on talk. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on talk thread. I do appreciate it. Tho I am sorry that I didn't follow your advice about keeping replies short. I don't intend to edit in bad faith but sometimes it's difficult for me to keep it brief. I been told so many different policies that my edit breaks but I don't think those claims are sincere or right. After reading the thread just now, I can understand the importance of replying as brief as possible - and is the one thing I probably should learn. So thanks for that advice. I will try to master that overtime. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:17, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPOV and No true Scotsman. I'm not sure you get what I'm saying... But I'm not sure that saying more is going to help you get it so I will desist here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Have you read the legal arguments for Taiwanese independence? They literally claim sovereignty hasn't been handed over to even ROC. No scholar seriously claims that nowadays and it's unsourced and it's a bold claim that is not even recognised by any reliable sources. Meanwhile you consistently tell me that my sources don't support what I wrote. That's false and either you didn't read it or you did and lying. Neither possibility is acceptable and why I also want to stop talking with you if you continue to falsely label me as making unsourced edits when that is NOT the case. My sources back me up. And I believe impartial editors will agree with me on this.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

In what way was that comment labeling you as making unsourced edits? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

First reply; you claim they can not be used to make statements beyond that which is apparently what you want to use them to do. Later you go switch to claiming NPOV. Then you quickly claim WP:OR especially WP:SYNTH. All different reasons. I think you are just throwing out terms and excuses so I ask you to be specific. Finally you claim that ROC didn't assert a new legal identity "from China". Except don't be obtuse. Who do you think they are declaring independence from and also a "separate legal status" from? The sources were clearly referring to China as what else would it be? What I found particularly annoying is how you keep accusing me of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and all the other stuff that doesn't apply to me. I did read them and fyi - per WP:NPOV and No true Scotsman, we should only be deleting most if not all arguments for Taiwanese independence, as most of them objectively fail at Reliable sourcing and none even establish a legal independence or sovereignty. They shouldn't even be there. I mentioned that and yet you shown that you only want to push a pov even if it means failing those policies. If you cared about policy, you would agreed the current section with pro independence arguments break policy. I deleted two. A balanced presentation is indeed necessary, which is why I cannot agree with leaving this perspective unmentioned.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Regardless it seems to me you are giving me wrong policies that don't apply to me. If that's not the case and I am mistaken, I request you to put down your specific reasons against my edit and below 👇 my comment on conflict summary. I don't think my edit violates WP:OR especially WP:SYNTH, Npov, verifiability due weight, opinion etc - if those are your final reasons why my edit shouldn't be allowed and you do not clarify below if not - then I will assume that's your reasons against my edit. So far I see only you and to a lesser degree Amigao claim it's all opinion. Aaron seem to disagree and also say the edit is correct in spirit. I do not agree my edit breaks any policy. If discussion has stalled and the issue remains unresolved by next Wednesday, I think discussion is unable to be resolved here at this rate and will take it to DRN to assess if my edit breaks those policies, or is warranted.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Conflict summary. Before filing for DRN, I'm summarizing my points and inviting all opponents to clarify their specific concerns. My comment; This dispute concerns the edit - - about Taiwan (ROC) never formally declaring independence or asserting a "separate legal status". Horse had argued either that the sources do not support it, or claim that legal status differs from political status and possibly stating is therefore not of due weight or correct topic. I respectfully disagree & if the issue remains constantly about sources not supporting what I wrote, or is off topic, or not due weight, then I am not able to work with that. However Arron, another party that joined discussion as my mentor, states my sources does say all that. but suggested some rewording. Horse seems to agree with that and that issue was rewording but is vague on details. If that's now the remaining case, I can work with that - if remaining objections are about some rewording, I am open to adjustments as this should be easy to resolve. But if not resolved or issue is still over "sources not supporting the edit", then I may proceed to DRN. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back Your reasoning appears to be shifting. First, you said it wasn't supported by sources in which I can not agree and so was about to file at DRN to ask if sources do support.

- however then, after Aaron clarified it indeed was supported, your last comment admitted the spirit of my edit was correct. It seems you no longer deny sources support what I write. Yet you've avoided clarifying in detail what the actual issue is, if it's no longer on sources supporting edit. If it's just slight rewording issue, then give specific details on what sentences need to be altered. If you believe issue is still over sources not supporting, then please clarify that. You've had enough time to respond; if there’s no clear explanation within two more days, I'll escalate it to DRN as discussion is indeed stalled and unresolved. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 08:46, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu@Amigao@Horse Eye's Back This thread is over. Taking it to DRN. It's a pity. The initial issue was "centred around sources not supporting etc" but that's wrong. I figured when discussion finally progressed to agreeing that sources do say all that - then discussion is over. There's nothing wrong with the edit and it's not controversial to say that TW never declared itself independent. There really shouldn't be a dispute but as discussion is stalled, see no point waiting further. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

In case, it's hard to follow above 3 threads. 1. One issue was ALREADY RESOLVED. Sheherherhers later discussed with me on a revert and came to consensus with me that one of my edit was fine and neutral. They themselves restored that edit as a result of discussion. 2. Additionally my more Recent specific edits here to remove flawed original research (WP: SYNTH) is not even being disputed by anyone including horse. . NOBODY once even reverted them as nobody once raised issues with specifically them. Do not undo unless you actually have issues. NOBODY has so far. 3. The only content primarily and still actively discussed, has still not even been added back in, tho it should. (Taiwan Never declared formal Independence nor constitutionally recognise it) As the sourcing issue has been resolved and there doesn't seem to be any valid reason for removal. The article can't give the wrong impression there's literally zero Legal arguments for Taiwanese independence when there is so many. I understand this may anger politically aligned people but Wikipedia can't take sides here. 4. @Number 57 You entirely reverted edits that aren't even disputed including from other editors like Amigao who put in tags that show certain info is unsourced. Those are improvements and you shouldn't undo them without a discussion. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Btw when has anyone ever reverted and raise issues with these edits? and I have NEVER seen anyone reverted them in the past nor have I heard any issues on them. I gave my policy based reasons on why those two paragraphs should be removed based on WP: Synth. Nobody disputed it.

WP:BRD (Bold-Revert-Discuss) is not a license to revert everything indiscriminately. It’s meant to encourage discussion, not to "roll back to an older version until consensus magically appears." If I and multiple others made completely different edits that are outside of a dispute, reverting them under BRD is an overreach. BRD only applies to the specific bold change that someone actually disagreed with - not to other edits that nobody objected to.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 16:21, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

In regard to the disputed edits, technically it's not even actively disputed anymore. There is already agreement on the talk page above that the disputed information is supported by the cited sources, correct in substance, and not WP:SYNTH. Consensus therefore exists that the material is properly sourced and policy-compliant. If anyone believes there is a valid policy-based reason to remove it, please state that clearly on the talk page or in an edit summary. Continuing to revert without a clear policy justification would raise conduct concerns under Wikipedia's edit standards.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

And I am not going to engage in multiple back and forth. If no valid policy-based explanation is given after several days, I have justification to restore my edit. Only if there’s clear disruptive behavior, like repeated refusals to provide policy-based reasons, yet reverting without explanation. I will not hesitate to report.JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

• To clarify, by "back-and-forth" I mean endless debate without answering the core question: what policy justifies the removal of my edit? Constantly deflecting to my character, attacking my conduct, or refusing to provide a straight answer to a simple question - "Do you have a policy-based reason to remove this edit, and can you show proof?" - is unhelpful. If an editor refuses to provide any policy justification, I am left with no choice but to consider restoring the edit, as it complies with Wikipedia policy and is well-sourced. My mistake in the past was engaging with Unnecessary back and forth, instead of sticking to policy focused discussion.

JaredMcKenzie (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: you say "The edit is clearly constructive" but the very first bit I see in the diff is this "However, post-war agreements did not clearly define sovereignty over these islands due to the ongoing rivalry between the joined a joint statement of African countries in September 2024 (KMT) and the CCP." which is clearly messed up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Good catch, thank you. I have fixed it. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

(EC)Looking through it much of it does seem constructive, but I have reverted to clear a number of what appear to be unintentional or formatting errors. This revert should not be interpreted as a wholesale challenge of the content but as the cleanest of a few bad options. I hope that this isn't stepping on anyones toes too hard. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC)