not a fan of China government but in this case I tend to believe them, I've seen Wikipedia volunteers spread actual disinformation in a concerted effort especially on politically charged topics.
China saying that Wikipedia Taiwan is spreading misinformation is just an effort to warp reality to fit China's alternate-universe version of the facts.
I don't get the feeling you're anti-Taiwan, but I think calling Taiwan a "de-facto" implicitly questions its status and should be avoided.
And I'd like to point out that the ROC and the PRC don't even have the same land claims. The PRC claims the mainland and Taiwan. The ROC claims the mainland, Taiwan, and Mongolia. Mongolia claims Mongolia. There are three separate countries making these claims.
The fact that (some of) their claims overlap doesn't magically mean that the ROC and PRC aren't two separate countries. It just means that they are two countries that claim more land than they control.
As of today, the governments in Beijing and Taipei agree that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of it. That's the "One China" principle.
Taiwan does not assert that there is a sovereign country whose territory consists of the island of Taiwan. Taiwan's government still claims that the Republic of China still exists and that it is the legitimate state in all of China including Tibet, Inner Mongolia, and Xinjiang. This position is accepted by very few countries.
The fact that they are able to act in many respects as though they are the government of a sovereign country whose territory consists of the island of Taiwan is what makes them a de facto country.
Unlike both the ROC and the PRC, they don't actually govern anything in practice, irrespective of whether it is coextensive with their claims. Upthread post claimed the ROC and PRC are both governments of real and separate countries in practice, independent of their overlapping theoretical claims. Doesn't seem a related thing at all to your question.
*Well as much as a such a claim can be made without specifying what legal system is being referred to.
De facto mainland China and Taiwan are separate countries, with distinct territories, governed respectively by the PRC and ROC.
That is the basis (or perhaps just expansion) of the upthread description that Taiwan is, de facto, a distinct country from China.
I still don't understand the point of the qualifier. I don't hear people refer to China as a de facto country so why use the qualifier for Taiwan?
Actually, looking back, that was probably not something I should have said.
ROC and the PRC are each (in their own legal systems) the de jure government of the same (widely formally recognized, usually with the PRC formally recognized as the government) country, “China”.
“Taiwan” and “mainland China” are de facto countries, governed in fact by the ROC and PRC, and are often treated as such by countries that formally recognize one China with the PRC as its government.
> why use the qualifier for Taiwan?
Because in most legal systems that aren’t that of the ROC itself, the PRC is the recognized government of the single de jure country of “China” that subsumes both the de facto countries of mainland China and of Taiwan. ROC is, in those systems, only and exclusively the de facto government of the de facto country of Taiwan, and not the de jure government of anything, and Taiwan is de jure a province of China.
Which legal systems are you referring to in your last paragraph? The US, for example, does _not_ recognize Chinese claims to Taiwan. They acknowledge that China makes them and has agreed not to have official relations with the ROC, but they've never agreed with the claims nor have they ever made any statement to the effect that the ROC isn't a country nor that the ROC is not a legitimate government.
Frankly I suspect your confusion is a result of a misunderstanding of UN resolution 2758. That resolution said that the PRC gets the seat of "China" at the UN. It never said anything about what the borders of the PRC are. It also never said that Taiwan couldn't become a member as "Republic of China" either. (Of course, since China can block that action unilaterally as a member of the security counsel it's a non-starter.)
Anyway I may be wrong about your misconception, but then I don't know what you mean exactly. The US definitely does not consider Taiwan as a province of the PRC. I can't speak for other countries' legal systems, but at least I'm not familiar with many in Europe that have that legal designation. Sure most don't have relations with the ROC, but that's obviously not the same thing.
Exactly claims are cheap. Hence why the PRC's claim that Taiwan is its territory is so worthless given that it has _never_ controlled it. Also why the ROC's claims to the mainland and Mongolia are so worthless given that they haven't controlled any of that for more than 70 years.
The claims are cheap and meaningless. The reality is that China and Taiwan are two separate countries.
... the Taiwan independence movement claims only the island of Taiwan for the Taiwanese nation, and is a core aspect of the Pan Green Coalition, which has 56% of the legislative and the president.
I think it would be ideal of Taiwan could be come de jure independent and sovereign, but that would essentially require some deal between China and the USA which is certainly not forthcoming.
Right, and one could also say that America's position is that China isn't allowed to invade Taiwan, so I guess if China wanted to do that, it would need to trade something of value to America to let it happen, and I'm not sure China has anything to trade that matters to America. This is the US-Sino agreement -- China isn't allowed to invade, the US isn't allowed to recognize independence. The situation can only be settled with diplomacy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy for more information about this agreement -- which both the US and China signed.
So you see, China can't really prevent the US from recognizing an Independent Taiwan, but neither can the US prevent China from attacking Taiwan. Both of these balance. China can sabre rattle, sort go up to but not actually invade, just as the US can go up to but not actually recognize Taiwanese independence. For example China can violate Taiwanese airspace but then leave without shooting at anyone. And the US can open an "office" in Taiwan that isn't quite an embassy but does some consular work. And perhaps an American official might visit that office and shake a few hands.
It's a weird tit-for-tat.
This is the game that is being played. The US is betting that it has time on its side. With each year that passes, the Taiwanese consider themselves more independent in their own consciousness. China is betting on rapidly becoming so rich and such a pleasant place to live that the Taiwanese will want to reunify in order to enjoy the Blessings of Beijing. Everything else is either play-acting or dangerous stupidity. Because I think Xi is a smart guy, I think he is play-acting and for a domestic audience. Whenever there is some problem like electricity blackouts, or some corruption scandal, Xi does some provocation against Taiwan and people fall behind him ready to avenge Chinese honor. But I know there is a non-zero chance that I could be wrong, and perhaps Xi really means it. That would be disastrous for all sides.
So international disputes are not really settled by one side having a position only, there are multiple sides, each needing to compromise on their position. Being rigid often ends up backfiring, particularly for a nation locked into the dollar system and one that isn't food or energy independent.
The only thing that can be concluded is that you apparently believe the wikipedia page of every US politician is somehow anomalous. It tells us nothing.
one can argue, that if MSM spreads disinfo what can you expect from wikipedians, but the problem is their "power editors" and admins are a small clique with very particular political bias, it's just another echo chamber
You didn't really respond to the assertion that all American politicians are right-wing, but it's true. We have a "blood and soil" far right party and a "diverse corporate oligopoly" center-right party.
"Two people repeating it on HN comments" != "it's true".
It really boils down to: What's your standard of reference? You seem to want to use Europe (I assume) as the standard for defining left and right in US politics. Why do you consider that a reasonable thing to do?
And even if you consider it a reasonable thing, why Europe? Why not Asia? Or the Middle East? Or Africa? Or the world as a whole?
Or why not, you know, use the US as the standard for judging what left and right are in US politics?
Right up until politics, crime rates, infrastructure, public policy, or really any matter of consequence is discussed, at which point we transform back into a Western European nation.
There must be a word to describe this type of dualist rhetoric but I can't quite put my finger on it. Also, those people complaining about the Democrat or Republican party being too right wing tend to be Americans who know nothing about right wing political parties in Europe. Yes, left wing parties in a multi-party system are much more radical in Europe, but so are right wing parties. What these people want is the stability and institutional weight of a party in the two-party system but the radicalism of a European left-wing party.
Now, I agree that the Middle East is not where the standard of reference should be, but it's the area that I'm pretty sure of how we compare. Others are more tricky.
Central and South America? There are countries there that we are clearly to the right of, but also some that we align somewhat with. I don't recall whether there are currently any right-wing dictatorships there.
Asia? We could be to the left of some countries there. I don't have a good idea of how to describe where China is right now - are they right or left? They kind of have elements of both. At least some parties in India are to the right of the US. I don't have a good feel for Africa, though I'd bet that in at least some countries, some parties are to the right of the US.
So... it's complicated. I think I can make a... a "case" might be overstating it, but at least a handwaving argument that if you move the focus off of Europe, then US political parties are less clearly right-wing. But an actual case? That would take something like a worldwide ranking of political parties on a left-right axis, which is data that I freely admit that I do not have.
When it is just the truth, you don't need to spin it to have a certain kind of impact. The impact exists even when you view things impassively, without much care one way or the other.
Then there's this:
> Most of Scottish Wikipedia Written By American in Mangled English
https://www.vice.com/en/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wiki...
Some examples of the writing here: https://twitter.com/NeerajKA/status/1298579510581960705
And finally, I remember some translated wikipedia language was mostly written by like 10 people and went kind of nuts, but I can't find a link.
This stuff is like @tptacek bait -- I heard of these by reading his twitter.
Wikipedia can't disclaim the information on wikipedia.org if they want to be a credible organization.
Other editors get in her way, but that’s still in good faith. Not exactly a situation that backs up that commenter’s point, for sure.
The second isn't politically motivated, but simple vandalism.
> actual disinformation in a concerted effort especially on politically charged topics