A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 25, 2011 and May 25, 2013.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Taiwan Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles Japan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 00:58, April 30, 2024 ( JST, Reiwa 6) ( Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: history watch purge Peer review: Kako River (Japan) A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Pure Japanese, Vinland Saga (TV series), Japanese destroyer Ume (1944), Mai Fujisawa, Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Wikipedia into English. Assess unassessed articles East Asia ( defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia articles

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The Treaty of Shimonoseki was signed on April 17, 1895 in Japan.

The article states "The republic was proclaimed by a group of pro-Qing high officials and members of the local gentry, many of whom fled the island upon Japan's invasion."

At that point in time, Taiwan is known as Taiwan by the Qing imperial dynasty.

1. How is "Táiwān Mínzhǔguó" translated into English as the "Republic of Formosa" or the "Formosa Republic". How does the idea of "Formosa" dawn on the handful of pro-Qing officials?

2. "Pro-Qing" officials? Under Qing rule, there can only be Qing officials. It does not matter whether these people are mainlanders or islanders so long as they serve and assert Qing sovereignty over the island. The corollary of pro-Qing is anti-Qing. Agreed, that there can be still be an anti-Qing movement in Taiwan some 250 years after the fall of the Ming in 1644 (the revolt of the remnants of Ming Chinese in southern China in 1673 was put down by Kangxi).

3. Sun's revolutionary movement in 1894 was still very young. After a failed coup in 1895 Sun was running around in Europe and North America as a fugitive of the Qing government. Could his ideas inspire the "pro-Qing" officials or the anti-Qing movement in Taiwan? If not, what could have inspired the declaration of the "Repunlic of Formosa" by the few? Where and what then are the sources of republicanism and its ideals for a Republic of Formosa? What then is the executive power and authority of the so-called presidents (Tang Ching-sung and Liu Yung-fu)? What are the programs of the president for the republic?

4. In the twilight period of 6 months between April 17, the signing of the Treaty and October 21, 1895, before Japan took effective occupation replacing the Qing government on the island, the gentry were evacuating the island. In an increasingly absence of governing authority, can a "republic" be assumed to have been borned?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.62.27 ( talk • contribs)

Re:

Question 1: I assume the name "Formosa" is used here to avoid misunderstanding with the modern proposals of the establishment of the Republic of Taiwan.

Question 2. "Pro-Qing" in this context means that the Qing officials who were proclaiming the Republic did it mainly as an act of loyalty towards Chinese Empire and the ruling Qing dynasty. They did not really want to create an independent state, and cut themselves off China. It was China, which gave up the island, together with the inhabitants, who were not exactly happy about this.

Question 3. As far as I know there was no cennection between the people who established the Republic and Sun's movement; they also did not appear to have any ideology etc. They mainly did not want to be a part of the Japanese Empire. There was no true executive power of the Presidents: first ran to China with the treasury 10 days after proclamation. The second was a nominal president, but in fact he was a commander of the troops, which had been sent earlier to Taiwan from Yunnan province. He had the powers of commanding officer and commanded his and local troops in fights against the Japanese. When he finally lost the war, he also escaped to China.

Question 4: there were some gentry evacuating, but many stayed. During the period before October 21 there was a pretty heavy fighting on in the island. The "Republic" has never beed formed as a state, excpet for proclamation; but Liu used the title whe commanding his troops. See above.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.151.3 ( talk • contribs)

The info box says "Republic of Formosa", the title of the article is "Taiwan Republic", but I've never heard either name before, because every source I've read calls it the "Republic of Taiwan". I think it would make sense to use the more common English name "Republic of Taiwan", but even if we don't we should settle on a single name to use. Readin ( talk) 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

There is already a article called Republic of Taiwan. One solution is to move that article to Proposed state of Taiwan.-- Jerrch 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC) reply

I've moved this page to Republic of Taiwan (1895), and I think the disambiguation line is pretty clear.-- Jerrch 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC) reply

it should really be properly translated as "Taiwan democratic state". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2406:3003:2006:C2A4:B405:9560:466E:CA0F ( talk) 18:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The English translation is claimed to be a 'rough' translation of the Chinese. 'Rough' is a euphemism for 'inaccurate'. This is an unduly sanitised translation, which gives a false impression of the original. Why not translate it accurately? The first line should start with the words, 'The Japanese robbers', not 'The Japanese'. The intemperate language used by the supporters of the Taiwanese Republic in 1895 was noticed not only by the Japanese, who were routinely referred to as 'dwarves' by Tang Ching-sung and his supporters, but also by Western observers. The vituperative tone of this and other Republican proclamations is a historical fact, and should not be airbrushed out of history simply because it gives a poor impression of the Republic and its adherents.

Djwilms ( talk) 03:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC) reply

According to Liu Yung-fu he became head of state after Tang Ching-sung fled, but did not succeed him as president. דב ט. ( talk) 14:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC) reply

I intend to substantially overhaul this article in the next few weeks. I will be including more information on the administrative organisation of the Republic and its various decrees and acts during its brief existence. I will also try to shed more light on the collusion between various Chinese and Taiwanese statesmen in setting up the Republic. I will try to resolve the issue of Liu Yung-fu's constitutional status after the flight of T'ang Ching-sung. I will also expand the section on the historical significance of the Republic to make it clear that the events of 1895 were not a rehearsal for eventual Taiwanese independence. All non-Chinese contemporary observers - Japanese, British, French and Americans alike - condemned the proclamation of the Republic as a dishonourable maneouvre by the Chinese to evade their obligations under the Treaty of Shimonoseki.

I have removed previous versions of the Declaration of Independence (a Chinese text and an English translation) because they have no independent validity as historical documents. The closest we can come to the text of the original Declaration is the English translation quoted by Davidson, who was in Taipei when it was issued and, as a war correspondent assigned to cover the imminent Japanese invasion, enjoyed access to T'ang Ching-sung. Davidson's version is our only valid source for the contents of this Declaration, and all variant versions presently floating around in Taiwan derive ultimately from Davidson's translation. -- Djwilms ( talk) 01:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

This isn't exactly on-topic to your comments, but regarding the recent move, I'm not sure why this was ever moved from "Taiwan Republic." Last time when I checked, that was by far the most common English name. See "republic of formosa" 1895 vs. "taiwan republic" 1895, for example. I suppose a few of the early sources might use "Formosa," I didn't think that was predominant. Am I wrong? Dominic· t 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I didn't realise the initial move to Republic of Formosa (1895) was done unilaterally. Just give me a shout if someone wants me to move this back to where it originally was. I will move it back if asked since it was done apparently without discussion and it is now a controversial move. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I didn't realise this move was likely to be controversial, though I perhaps should have done. I fully appreciate that 'Republic of Taiwan' or 'Taiwan Republic' are the most natural modern translations of the Chinese name of the Republic, but what we should be looking at is the English form used at the time. In 1895, during the brief period of the Republic's existence, English translations of its propaganda output (including the declaration of independence) seem consistently to have used the term 'Republic of Formosa', implying that that was the Republic's official name in English. I am trying to find a concrete example of official usage in English, besides the documents quoted in Davidson, such as a banknote or stamp, but have not so far been successful. Perhaps someone could shed light on this issue. It seems to me that, if the Republic did adopt an official style in English, we should be using it. If anyone can show me an example of the term 'Republic of Taiwan' used in 1895 in an official context, I will happily yield on this issue, but I suspect 'Formosa' was used more or less consistently, as it was then the accepted English name for Taiwan. Djwilms ( talk) 06:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I guess I was just thinking that absent any official name in English, we should adopt the dominant name used by scholars over the last century. I think that all other things being equal (both names being non-official) "Taiwan Republic" (and not "Republic of Taiwan") is used by most sources including early ones, but especially modern, scholarly ones, and "Republic of Formosa" is used almost exclusively by some early records. If that's right, I would think we should be using "Taiwan Republic" as well. Dominic· t 09:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree that all the variants have their place, and I think if you type in any of them you will get an automatic direction to this article. My point is that we should use as the title of the article the official or semi-official English name of the Republic in 1895, not an unofficial modern translation of its Chinese name. When T'ang Ching-sung notified the European Great Powers of the establishment of the Republic, presumably in French (as the diplomatic language of the day), did he call it the Republic of Formosa or the Republic of Taiwan? Whatever the answer, that is the term that should surely be used.

I'm sure you are right that the English translations 'Republic of Taiwan' or 'Taiwan Republic' are much more common nowadays than 'Republic of Formosa', especially in Taiwan, but that does not mean we should privilege them if 'Republic of Formosa' was an official term. Djwilms ( talk) 09:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I found this article confusing until I realised that the term Ch'ing it uses extensively appears to be an alternate spelling of the more widely used Qing. Qing does appear a few times in the article.

Is it possible to change the article to use Qing for the benefit of non-specialists such as myself? If not can a note be added either explaining that the two terms are equivalent or what the difference is between them please? Kiore ( talk) 05:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Seems this isn't very contentious. Unless anyone objects I'll change the article to read Qing. Kiore ( talk) 07:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Was Mandarin really an official language of the Republic of Formosa? Can we get any sources on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.94.23.150 ( talk) 01:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

The place to discuss is here, not reverting on the article itself. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC) Ping Matt Smith -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 08:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

There is a difference between a state and government. USA is a state, US government is a government. "Republic of Formosa" is the state, "government of Republic of Formosa" would be the government. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Just because a polity calls itself "Republic of BlaBlaBla" does not mean it really is a state. It can be just a rebellious government that tries to usurp. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 09:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Now that we have two reliable sources each uses a different word ("republic" and "government", respectively) to describe the Republic of Formosa, according to policy WP:NPOV, we need to use a neutral word instead. I propose using "polity", which is a pretty neutral word. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 09:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

According to your source, This republic will pass into history as the most short-lived government that ever existed... it was still called a republic right? I don't see what is the problem here at all. The term republic is well sourced. If you have a problem with NPOV, I suggest you post at WP:NPOVN. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

And more source using republic [1] (read page 106). -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 09:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

My source emphasizes that it is a government three times. ("Most Short-Lived Government", "republican form of government", and "most short-lived government")

There are also Chinese sources calling it a "regime" (政權). [2]^: 241 [3]^: 32 -- Matt Smith ( talk) 10:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Although "republic" is not a bad word, it can imply statehood and mislead readers. Therefore I think it needs to be replaced with a neutral word. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 10:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

We prefer English sources. And as for Although "republic" is not a bad word, it can imply statehood and mislead readers. It is your opinion. I don't think it misleads readers. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Is it English Wikipedia's policy that English sources are preferred, or is it your opinion? -- Matt Smith ( talk) 11:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

See WP:NOENG. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I don't see it says that English sources are preferred. If it does, please quote the text. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 11:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Are you trolling here? I'm curious to understand this. I mean if it is not obvious to you, then maybe you are not reading the source. Are you 100% sure that there is absolutely no mention that English sources are preferred in the link I provided above? -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Somehow I was focusing on only the two "see also" links Wikipedia:Translators available and Wikipedia:No original research § Translations and transcriptions and their contents, and completely missed the two subheadings "Citing non-English sources" and "Quoting non-English sources" below. That was my mistake and I appologize.

Back to the topic, "republic" implies statehood, and I believe you will not deny that. By comparison, "polity" is a lot more neutral. It is not rational to insist on using a less neutral word over using a more neutral word. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 12:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Ah, all right. "Republic" doesn't automatically imply a recognized state. "Polity" is quite vague here (and polity can refer to anything - government, state or empire). I think this is fine, but if you feel it is incorrect, I suggest you post at WP:NPOVN. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 12:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Please participate the discussion further in Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Wording_issue:_Republic_vs_Polity. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 13:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

According to Merriam-Webster, "republic" also means republican government. [4] So it does not necessarily mean the entity is a state. The use of "republic" is okay. This discussion can be ended. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 14:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Also, in the right side table, it is currently being asserting that Taiwan was the polity's territory and that the population of the polity was 2,980,000, without citing any source. I will modify/remove the text if no source are being added after two days. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 10:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

2 days? What kind of an arbitrary deadline is that? -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

How many days do you personally think is not arbitrary? -- Matt Smith ( talk) 11:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Considering that an RFC usually runs for 30 days. For long standing info on topics such as these, we are usually lenient and give more time to locate sources. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Okay. Is one week enough? -- Matt Smith ( talk) 11:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

No it isn't. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 11:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I will ask for an assistance in Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests on this matter. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 12:06, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Lemongirl942: My this edit was reverted by you. Could you explain which policy your revert was based on? -- Matt Smith ( talk) 16:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

WP:CONSENSUS and also to a limited extent, WP:IAR. Like I said, I am not opposed to ultimately removing it if sources cannot be found. But it is disruptive to remove material solely because you don't agree with it. You reasoning As a result of the Treaty of Shimonoseki the Formosans became Japanese citizens and therefore subject to the laws of Japan." (source: Special:BookSources/9401509719) Therefore this polity did not have population. is not well thought out - and also disputable. As I said, I will wait for others to comment here. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

It seems to me that WP:CONSENSUS is not a good reason at here because the content I removed based on a reliable source have gone through no edit warring, and thus is not a disputed content. I accept WP:IAR for now. Next time, please cite policies in the edit summary when reverting others' edits which are based on reliable sources (Please keep it mind that your reason will not always be accepted by doing that).

Your reason "You reasoning ...... is not well thought out - and also disputable." is merely your own opinion, not a policy. I cited a reliable source, and you did not. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 02:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC) reply

See Template:Citation needed#How to respond to this tag. Wait 30 days and the remove the material only if it seems to be incorrect. This source, Rubinstein, Murray A. (2015). Taiwan: A New History. Routledge. pp. 9–10. ISBN  978-1-317-45908-8. gives the population in 1905 as 3,039,751, so the 1895 number may well be right. But the same source says that there were no reliable population statistics before the 20th century, so it may be just as well to put in the 1905 number instead. StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Is "30 days" based on a certain policies? You could also participate a discussion at here.

As policy WP:NOR states: "Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources". The number "3,039,751" from that source is for 1905, not for 1895. Therefore it cannot be used on this matter. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 02:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Update: The number of days to wait for has been answered by User:StarryGrandma. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 07:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC) reply

There is a related Chinese source which also has English version of the title and the abstract. It is a master’s thesis published by the Department of Law of National Taiwan University, as shown below. ^[1] Because there is this source that shows the controversy of the statehood of the republic, the phrase "Unrecognized state" in the infobox of the article can be changed to "Unrecognized republic". I could have gone ahead and performed the change, but considering that some editors might be nervous about the change, I leave a notification at there first. I will go ahead after three hours. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 08:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Update: Done. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 12:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: You reverted my edits by citing policy WP:NPOV. But as far as I can see, even your revert itself conflicted with WP:NPOV. Since you cited WP:NPOV, please explain how not consistent with WP:NPOV my edits are. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 03:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply

That revert is fine. As I have said before Matt, that original version is fine. As they say If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Honestly, all of this looks like a Solution looking for a problem. You have a warped view of NPOV - what seems like a problem to you is not a problem to the rest of us. If you still feel that you are right, try convincing other experienced editors and obtaining consensus. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply

If you would like to reply, please be constructive and help answering one or two questions based on core content policies ( WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V), and do not just say something like "This is fine. That is fine. ......" that may be considered perfunctory. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 05:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Get WP:CONSENSUS. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 05:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply

That's why I started this discussion. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 05:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It has been two days and I still haven't received your words so far. I hope you will understand that being responseless does not contribute to and can only impede a consensus, which you stressed before. Although you cited policy WP:NPOV as your reason of the revert, it seems to me that you didn't fully understand that policy. Here's why:

1. Regarding the content I added that described the notion of the entity, WP:NPOV does not encourage removing a content simply because it seems biased. As WP:NPOV says, "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." If you thought the phrasing of the content was biased, you should have helped revising its phrasing, not removed it completely, especially when the source of the content is published by an authoritative academy and was written by a known scholar. And if you were not sure about how the content could be revised, you could have discussed with me in this talk page.
2. Regarding the status of the entity that I changed from "Unrecognized state" to "Unrecognized republic", it is a basic principle of WP:NPOV that when the standpoints of two sources contradict with each other, Wikipedia then cannot use the standpoint of either source and has to use a neutral standpoint instead. I believe that is a very basic understanding of WP:NPOV that an experienced editor shouldn't have forgotten. The legal source I cited contested the statehood of the entity directly, and that means the statehood of the entity is in dispute and therefore Wikipedia should not assert that the entity was a state. That's the reason I revised its status. However, after your revert, the status of the entity shown in the article became biased again.

-- Matt Smith ( talk) 05:22, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Matt Smith: Please refrain from edit-warring: my revert was in the interests of the staus quo ante. Cheers, O Fortuna! ^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 05:31, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I would like to remind you that no one has edit warred since the creation of this discussion. As described above, your revert did not follow WP:NPOV well. And after I invited you to this discussion, you still showed no response until now. Since you did not agree with my edits, it looks like you are the one who is responsible for participating in this discussion for reaching a consensus. Please share your opinions about the two contents mentioned above. Thanks. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 05:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Dear @ Matt Smith:. Your arguments are completely spurious and disingenuous. You were requested by EdJohnston to revert this edit. You did not do so. You were then BLOCKED for edit-warring. So that edit still had to be reverted. Which I did. Please do not pretend you do not understand. Please also note that the page will now stay as it is until a broad consensus is established on this page. Note too the word 'broad': that means multiple editors, not just you. This converstaion, for which you have kindly namechecked me in the title, is now closed. Many thanks. O Fortuna! ^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 07:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi:

I suggest that you read WP:Etiquette and do not use insulting words recklessly. That helps maintaining your reputation. Otherwise you might be reported as violating policy WP:No personal attacks.

EdJohnston requested me to revert my edit because you reported that edit to him, didn't you? Note that what he previously warned me is to avoid "mak[ing] any more reverts". Was my edit you reported a revert? It was not. So why did you make that report to him as if I was edit warring again? Who was and is the one that was and is being spurious?

As to the block, although I tried my best to explain to him that particular content I edited had never gone trough any edit warring and I did no edit warring to it, he still listened to you. I regretted to see that.

You said you still had to do the revert because EdJohnston requested it. Okay. On that request alone, your reason is acceptable. But again, my that particular edit was not an edit warring at all and shouldn't had been reported misleadingly as if something serious happened again. Further more, EdJohnston only requested my this edit be reverted; why did you also revert my these edits (5 in total) and this edit? Are you going to say that you wasn't aware of those noticeable edits?

Of course I know a consensus is need before major changes be made, and that was why I started this discussion. Now you stressed "consensus" once again, but why were you being responseless when a discussion needed your participation in order to reach a consensus? Wouldn't that be self-contradictory? And this discussion will not simply close just because you, who is also responsible for reaching a consensus, say so. Unless you state that you no longer have opinions about the proposed changes of this article, you are not in a position of evading your responsibility in this discussion.

-- Matt Smith ( talk) 09:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Matt Smith: yes, I think you should report me. Please file a report at WP:ANI. Cheers, O Fortuna! ^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 12:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I try not to report others and incur their dislikes when problems can be solved through communications. So I hope I won't need to resort to WP:ANI in the future.

The discussion between us hasn't ended. Please let me know if you still have any objection to these two major changes: [5] and [6] (after making the tone more neutral). Thanks. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 13:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

A word in your shell-like, Matt Smith: when you find yourself in a dispute with other editors (me, LG942, and an administrator), you should probably avoid ANI for a while. Incidentally, I have changed this section header as per WP:TALKNEW. Cheers. O Fortuna! ^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

I had taken note of your advice.

I'm fine if you prefer discussing one thing at a time. Do you have objections to the proposed change? If so, please explain them in detail on the basis of core content policies ( WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, or WP:V). Thanks. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 14:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

As far as I am concerned, the article is fine now. I see no problems with the term "unrecognised state". -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 17:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Please discuss the matter on the basis of core content policies, not personal opinions. A source already contests the statehood of the entity so using "state" does not conform to WP:NPOV. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 02:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Like I said, it is obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of English that it was a state. (We are not using any legal definition here btw, just the common understanding). If you disagree with that, show me sources which say that it was "not a state" (as in a state in common English usage, not a legal term). -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

What a breaking news to me. But is it possible that such a "basic understanding" results from mis-thinking the entity qualifies for the requirements of statehood in international law? I might not know very much about basic understandings of English, but could you confirm that, in common English, it is fine to say an entity like this one is a "state" even if it does not qualify for the requirements of statehood in international law? -- Matt Smith ( talk) 03:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

It is totally fine to say it is a state. States can be of 2 kinds - recognised and unrecognised. This was one an unrecognised state. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Not sure if I understand it correct, but this issue does not seem to be an issue of "recognised" or "unrecognised". It is an issue of whether the entity really operated like a state or not. As I mentioned somewhere else before, this entity was just a rebellion/revolutionary government and did not even administer/rule Taiwan for one day. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 03:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

That's your opinion. It's a pointless waste of time to discuss since you don't seem to understand and anyway, we are not here to convince you. As far as I see, the discussion is over for me. We don't have any consensus to make changes here, so if you edit war/make changes without consensus, you will be reported and blocked again. If you still want to flog a dead horse, you can go ahead - I just won't be participating. Rehashing the same arguments over and over is disruptive and grounds for a block. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

This matter might be related to basic understandings of English, which I'm not very very familiar with. Anyway, I would like to double check the "basic understanding" you mentioned with other native English speakers and then post the result at here. Could you recommend a discussion board in which I can get advices related to basic understandings of English? And I know that a consensus is needed so there's no need to be worried. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC) reply

As a native English speaker, I would agree that this use of "state" is fine; common usage doesn't hew to the definition laid down in the Montevideo Convention. - 165.234.252.11 ( talk) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC) reply

Thanks for confirming that. I have no further opinions on this topic, then. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 03:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC) reply