Talk:Holy See–Taiwan relations

Should this article be moved to Holy See–Taiwan relations?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Republic of China–Holy See relations → Holy See–Taiwan relations – In Talk:Republic of China it looks like they propose all Republic of China after 1949 should be renamed to Taiwan per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:POVTITLE. ––虞海 (Yú Hǎi) ✍ 19:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make more sense to wait until the main page is moved.--70.24.215.154 (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• While I am supportive of moving the ROC article to Taiwan, I agree with the IP. Wait until the there is consensus for what to title the main article and then these bilateral relations article could all be moved en masse. Jenks24 (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. Wait. Rennell435 (talk) 03:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Belize–Republic of China relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Quotations requested 22 November 2024

Both are on the same page and nicely flow into each other:

"The Communist authorities expelled the Apostolic Internuncio in 1951, and a few years later the Internuncio moved to Taipei. The Holy See's official position is that it stull has a relationship with China, following in effect a policy of de facto recognition; it does not recognize the Republic of China as such (that is, as opposed to the People's Republic of China [PRC]); much less does it recognize Taiwan as an autonomous legal entity. This position has suited the ROC authorities, whether under the old autocracy or the newer democracy, as it provides a reason for their keeping an embassy to the Vatican, Taiwan's sole remaining diplomatic outpost in Europe."

The italics and brackets are Moody's own. JArthur1984 (talk) 04:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a source saying otherwise: . Also, the official Bilateral and Multilateral Relations of the Holy See refers to the Republic of China as "China". --Matt Smith (talk) 07:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I assume you copied and pasted #2 and didn’t actually look it up: that 2007 link is broken. It was probably consistent with the academic source you questioned have here (ie it referred to the apostolic nunciature in Taipei as “China” - see Moody’s parenthetical).

1. 1 is just non technical, less accurate, newspaper speak. It’s close but not quite right. We’re an encyclopedia and must be more precise. As noted above and in our article, it is a matter of de facto, not explicit recognition JArthur1984 (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I can open the 2007 link without any problem. If it isn't working for you, try the archived version.

The first source simply uses "Taiwan" instead of "the Republic of China", and I think that is not that bad. Therefore, I would say it's still a usable one. Matt Smith (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, but I found the current version of the Holy See official diplomatic relations page, and it is correct and consistent with what we have in the article and the academic text.

The Holy See's position is that it has maintained uninterrupted relations with "China" since 1942. First its nunciature (the papal embassy) was in Nanjing when the city was under under nationalist control. Then for a couple years in Nanjing under PRC control. Then in limbo but the nuncio (the ambassador) had been expelled by PRC and was in Hong Kong. Then in 1953, the nunciature and nuncio moved to Taipei. Then in 1971 the ROC lost the UN seat for China. Then, in rather a clever bit of diplomatic maneuver, the Holy See appointed the nuncio (idris cassidy by then) to also be the nuncio to Bangladesh and he left Taipei. Since then there has been no Holy See 'ambassador' in China (however defined), although there is an 'embassy' in Taipei. Then when Cassidy left office, the Holy See never replaced him: so there has been no ambassador to China (however defined) since 1979. Through all of this, the ROC retains its embassy to the Holy See.

It is all very adroit and complicated management of a difficult diplomatic situation. In short the Holy See never takes a position on the primacy of the ROC vis a vis PRC, it simply only conducts formal relations with ROC. This is why we say "de facto" and "not explicit" and avoid the newspaper-y oversimplification. JArthur1984 (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The 2007 link shows that the Holy See refers to the ROC as "China". I'm not sure whether you have seen the point.

And we are not talking about the ambassador thing; we are talking about which government the Holy See recognizes as the representative of China. Matt Smith (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Why is a 2007 archive link more important to you than a 2024 Version of the same source? JArthur1984 (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Because the 2007 link (which is live, by the way) has key details that the 2024 version lacks. Matt Smith (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

And I'm advising you to not reverting again until we reach a consensus. We don't want any edit wars. Matt Smith (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@JArthur1984 I have already replied you above, haven't I? Please desist on changing the article because you haven't had a consensus for doing that. Matt Smith (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Please quote the language from the 2007 Vatican website which you says supports your position and please state why we should cite an archive version from 17 years ago instead of now. Also, explain why we should rely on the 17 year old website snapshot instead of an academic source. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

The 2007 version explicitly refers to the ROC as China. If you think there is any sentence in the current article that is not covered by the 2007 version, please let me know and we can work on a better wording.

And as stated before, the 2007 version is live rather than an archive. Matt Smith (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The reason you cannot quote it is because it’s not there.

The reason you want to use a 2007 version of the page is because there’s a little ROC flag on the 2007 version.

Your preferred language is WP:SYNTH based on a 2007 web graphic design choice. Because the 2024 source.

“Consensus” does not mean you have a veto power over the page. I am showing you a 2024 academic source and the 2024 version of the Vatican website. You are hanging on the 2007 version of the Vatican website.

But yes, I will restore the sentence not covered by the 2007 website once again so you can see the language that is not covered. JArthur1984 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It's right in the table and you already saw that. You need to explain which sentence you think is not fine so that we can work on a consensus.

Do not change the article again because that is WP:disruptive editing. Matt Smith (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@JArthur1984: This discussion is still ongoing, and you just unilaterally changed the article again. Your behavior is not conforming to WP:Consensus and is unacceptable. Please do a self-revert otherwise I would report you to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I am afraid that the discussion is not on-going, because while you type many words, you will not engage with the substance of the issues.

The material not covered by your 2007 web page, but for which I cite a 2024 version of the same page and a 2024 academic source is:

The Holy See conducts diplomatic relations with the ROC, with its apostolic nunciature in Taipei and the ROC embassy's embassy at the Holy See. Academic Peter Moody describes this as a policy of de facto but not explicit recognition. the Holy See describes itself as maintaining its relationship with China, it does not explicitly recognize the ROC as such (and it does not recognize or conduct official relations with the PRC), and it does not recognize Taiwan as an autonomous political entity.

Although ideally I would delete the unnecessary attribution of "Academic Peter Moody describes" because that's not the sort of statement that needs inline attribution. That was something I did in the hope it would avoid more reversions from you. JArthur1984 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

But I believe we have reached a point where a third view is best. Although I encourage you to re-consider your mindset, I have gone ahead and requested that we get a Wikipedia:Third opinion. JArthur1984 (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

So, while I haven't really dug into this, it seems that the Holy See doesn't really recognize either government per se, yes? The official page only seems to list "China" (notably, they no longer show flags). This doesn't really seem to say that the Holy See actually recognize the PRC as "China," just that they are willing to negotiate with the PRC's government. This (somewhat) explains the history; basically, Catholicism wasn't very welcome in the PRC for most of the Cold War. With regards to Taiwan/ROC, it seems to be the de facto recognized country (probably because Catholicism wasn't allowed in the PRC), at least according to this. The general view online seems to be that the Holy See recognizes the ROC, but I think that the truth is that Taiwan has historically been the one that actually accepts Vatican diplomacy. Ultimately, I think that, for all intents and purposes, the Holy See does recognize the ROC, but not necessarily as the government of China (its position on the PRC is probably similar to the US' position on Taiwan, just reversed and unofficial). Personally, I say it's too early to declare that the Vatican does not recognize the Republic of China as such.

Also, @Matt Smith, while your 2007 source does have the flags, it is also 17 years old. It doesn't have key details that the 2024 version lacks, it's just outdated. Your point is valid and supported by evidence, but you need to make it with better sources. @JArthur1984, just because a user is not willing to "engage with the substance of the issues" does not mean that you can unilaterally decide to change the wording. Regardless of what you think the debate is, if your partner doesn't agree, you get an edit war. Ships & Space_(Edits) 02:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable input. I really hope more editors can understand the core of WP:Consensus as you explained. Regarding your pointing out my 2007 source being outdated, I'm accepting it and just found a 2018 book on the internet saying "Fewer than 40 States still recognized the ROC as the representative government of China. All of those States were small and, except the Holy See (the Vatican), had received significant financial aid from the ROC government." When you have a moment, please help check whether that book is sufficient. Thanks. Matt Smith (talk) 02:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That's referring to 1988, but it might be a good reference/thing to add to the history section. This article by The Interpreter from 9 July, this EWTN Vatican article from 22 October, and this Catholic News Agency article from 10 October are all better. Note that the first shows that the Vatican might be aligning more with the PRC (though I doubt that that will happen within the next few years). Ships & Space_(Edits) 02:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ships&Space thank you for adding your voice to the discussion. Your questions regarding the substance are mostly answered by my quotation from the 2024 academic source at the beginning of this talk section. Addressing them specifically here, and I'll italicize your questions.

[T]he Holy See doesn't really recognize either government per se, yes? Correct. That's the core of what my edit is trying to fix. There are different ways to word this: I've written "...de facto but not explicit recognition." We could also say something like "implicit but not explicit". But we can't say "recognize" without being more specific that it is not an official recognition, but is implicit, de facto, impliedly...something like that.

This doesn't really seem to say that the Holy See actually recognize the PRC as "China," just that they are willing to negotiate with the PRC's government. Also correct. My edit does not suggest otherwise (I have written: ("...and it does not recognize or conduct official relations with the PRC)").

Personally, I say it's too early to declare that the Vatican does not recognize the Republic of China as such. I tracked the source closely so maybe we could improve the wording but -- the point of this phrasing is that the Holy See treats the ROC's representative as "China". The Holy See never says we recognized the REPUBLIC OF China. It takes no explicit position on the primacy of the "ROC" vs the "PRC." The Holy See's position, as discussed in the 2024 academic source, is that it has uninterrupted relations with "China", whatever that happens to mean.

One of the disagreeing editor's own sources, the memoir written in Chinese, actually makes this point, in talking about where the ROC representative will be sat at Vatican events (i.e., the ROC representative is taken as "China" not "ROC" and sat next to "Chile" or whomever).

In short, all three of the sources you post here (and the disagreeing editor's 1988 source) are not inconsistent. They're just not quite detailed or specific enough. JArthur1984 (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

While I do agree with that, most sources say that the Holy See recognizes the ROC. As per Wikipedia's undue weight policy, that should be treated more in the article. Currently on mobile, so I can't really talk more right now. Ships & Space_(Edits) 04:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That's ok and not inconsistent with my approach. What you won't find is sources saying something like "the Holy See explicitly recognizes the ROC" or "The Holy See says that the ROC is the government of China". This is what I'm trying to get us to -- conducts formal relations only with ROC in a form of de facto (or implied, implicit, practically, (whatever)) but not explicit. There could be various ways to word this, I used my word choice to closely match a high quality academic source but I'm open to other alternatives. JArthur1984 (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Ships&Space: Thanks, I see. Here is a 2023 website, a 2022 magazine and a 2019 book (p. 66) that says the Holy See recognizes the ROC/Taiwan as the representative of China. Kindly evaluate them. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I think I can make a recommendation here. If I'm getting this right, the debate is over whether the page should say "the Holy See recognizes the Republic of China as the legitimate government of China" or "the Holy See does not officially recognize either the ROC or PRC as the legitimate government of China, but maintains relations with the ROC." As far as I can tell, the answer is actually both: the Vatican asserts to have maintained relations with "China" since 1942, with it maintaining closer relations with the ROC than the PRC. I think the reason this has gotten less clear is because of the 2018 agreement, which, having been renewed three times, seems to be a sign that the Vatican is warming to the PRC. I suggest wording similar to this:

Officially, the Holy See has maintained relations with "China" since 23 October 1942, but does not strictly clarify which government it considers to be "China." Unofficially, the Holy See views the Republic of China as the representative government, and maintains diplomatic relations with the ROC, with an embassy in Taipei. In 2018, the PRC and the Holy See signed an agreement allowing the pope to appoint bishops, potentially indicating a willingness to shift recognition to the PRC. When arranged alphabetically with other heads of state in Vatican ceremonies, ROC presidents are arranged under "Chine", French for "China" (French being the diplomatic language of the Holy See).

Basically, while JArthur1984's version is more technically correct, it doesn't do a great job explaining the Vatican's position (that is, it maintains official relations with the ROC but does not view it as representing "China"), as it focuses too much on how the Holy See doesn't officially recognize either government (the majority of sources say that the Holy See recognizes Taiwan, with a clarification that this recognition isn't strictly explicit). The current version also relies very heavily on a single source. Ships & Space_(Edits) 18:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Fine from my perspective, thanks for adding the third voice. If we switch it to this, I'll leave the issue alone. JArthur1984 (talk) 18:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That's fine to me in the light of present situation. Thanks for your opinion. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Citations
References