Talk:Lithuania–Taiwan relations

Comment - Taiwan was not a Qing "colony" - in edit history

I do not intend to get involved directly in this dispute. Since there's been a disagreement, I think we should discuss the issue on the Talk page before making further edits to this particular piece of wording. Horse Eye's Back changed the terminology of Taiwan from a "Qing prefecture" to a "Qing colony". [1] Morrisonjohn022 changed the terminology back to a "Qing prefecture". [2] Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Comment: If we're going off of the official name of Taiwan under Qing rule, I think we need to investigate the official name of Taiwan under Japanese rule as well. It does seem that there's a bit of a gaping hole on Wikipedia with regard to this issue... There doesn't seem to be any definitive info about what Japan actually called Taiwan under their administration. Did Japan really call their administration of Taiwan "Taiwan Colony, Empire of Japan"? That seems unlikely to me. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

December discussions

Partial revert

Partial revert of some recent edits with explanations below.

• 1. Removed: "although Taiwan did not recognize the Soviet annexation (PRC did not recognize the Soviet annexation either)" if neither recognized it, then it's a non factor, and does not belong in the lede.
• 2. Removed: "In the absence of diplomatic relations, the two parties are focusing on trade and cultural relations." Not supported by any of the articles, and this is editorial. The Reuters article calls TRO a "de facto embassy" so "unofficial" is justified. The Lithuanian article linked says "also handles consular matters".
• 3. Removed: "(Taiwanese referring to the Taiwanese people, not a Taiwanese state - a clear distinction in the Lithuanian language" This is WP:OR. Editors should not be making interpretations like this in translations. The current translation in English does not suggest recognition of statehood, which is clearly not being suggested by any of the text (in fact, the opposite). In either case, this clunky clarification of a non-confusing issue does not belong in the lede.
• 4. Removed people to people relations section: unsourced (in the Lithuanian Wiki as well; Wikipedia is not a source).
• 5. Removed "trade and cultural" -- again, Reuters link says it's de facto embassy and Lithuanian article says it handles consular affairs.
• 6. Reverted "asked to leave" to "expelled" and added AJ source with this language (which is more common). This is silly; when an ambassador is "asked to leave" they are expelled.
• 7. Removed most of sentence: "interpreting the Lithuanian naming of the office in Vilnius as that of "Taiwan" instead of "Taipei", in divergence from established international practice, as being violation of the 1991 Chinese-Lithuanian treaty on the establishment of diplomatic relations, China recalled their ambassador from Vilnius". None of this is supported by the sources, and "Taiwan" vs "Taipei" is not an interpretation here, it's how it's being translated by all RS. "Divergence from established practice" is editorial in nature, and the treaty part needs RS.
• 8. Removed "As of December 2021 the extent of Lithuanian-Taiwanese trade does not merit appearance in official Taiwanese bilateral trade statistics." this is clearly WP:OR.

DrIdiot (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

More (generally, lots of POV and OR issues with recent edits):

• 9. Removed: "(roughly 2x Lithuania's annual exports to Taiwan at a time when Covid-19 travel bans were in place throughout the world and more than 8,000km separating the two)" Not supported by the article, editorializing.
• 10. Removed: "however a Lithuanian media investigation found no evidence of any Taiwanese spending in Lithuania via e-commerce or otherwise" not supported by the article. The article seems to suggest that there was an increase in volume but it's somewhat unexplained and that some of the "largest ecommerce sites" did not see orders. It's unclear what this means: did they go through different channels? Omit if something definitive can't be said.
• 11. Removed: This thing about top 10 destination -- the article attributes it to Hsiao, which is head of USA TECO (and this was probably a Twitter post?) Anyway, not an official announcement.

DrIdiot (talk) 03:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Further comment on (9), the COVID/distance stuff is irrelevant since the article is clear it's e-commerce , and I think readers can do the math. DrIdiot (talk) 03:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Closing remarks: most reverts have to do with POV pushing (usually via WP:OR or stretching the claims of references). There's no need to downplay or up-play the relationship; just state the facts. There's a strange fixation on the language used to describe the TRO, which is pretty well established by RS: it's a de facto embassy and/or a representative office. Excess weight on "trade and cultural" is unwarranted, or on grammatical features not present in English are not warranted. I expect the IP user to discuss here before continuing that line of edits. DrIdiot (talk) 06:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

* 12. Removed claim in body that PRC did not recognize Soviet occupation. Very well may be true, but need a reference in any language. Found an imperfect reference for the ROC (opinion piece, but in what seems to be RS). Do not add back to lede without discussion. DrIdiot (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Retracted DrIdiot (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Other changes

Made other changes unrelated to the above reverts.

* Removed the reference to Qing prefecture. Not relevant to this article, since this predates ROC. Do not need a full discussion of history of Taiwan.

• In lede, linked to Taiwan instead of Republic of China. Better to use the common name for the link.

Comment: it's a little weird to consider ROC relations from 1912, discontinuous from present day, as Taiwan relations. Merits a discussion certainly, but I'm not sure how appropriate it is to foreground in the lede. Haven't chagned anything re: this.

DrIdiot (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Retracted first point DrIdiot (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Some points taken, some not

I feel some of the edits suggested were not warranted and I edited them while leaving the additions by last editor's POV broadly in place. For example, the Taiwanese "cat warrior" diplomat in the US announcing something on her official Twitter is same as "Taiwan" announcing it; she has no disclaimer saying her Twitter expresses personal and not official opinions. Furthermore, she quoted official Taiwanese data, and the report was picked up by mainstream English-language international media. Comparison with overall trade figure should stay in place - I do not buy arguments such as "Wikipedians are smart enough to compare"; we must make it easy for them to, and if we trust wisdom of Wikipedians, maybe we should unban Global Times from being referenced on Wikipedia too?

I will review the changes again later today and see if anything of particular importance has been removed by the previous editor.139.47.34.245 (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding analysing statistics, read WP:SYNTH. The user also blanked a SCMP reference referring to 17+1 which is basically a direct quote from the title of the article for no reason, which I have restored. DrIdiot (talk) 13:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Your claim that SCMP is not RS is completely unfounded. [3] DrIdiot (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

SCMP reporting on Lithuania is done by a person who does not speak either Lithuanian or Chinese and seems biased. However what interests me most is SCMP being owned by Alibaba, founder of which is known to be both anti-Chinese government and with significant economic interests in Lithuania.

Doesn't matter, consensus says it's RS. I don't always agree with editorial line of SCMP but I don't get to remove it as a reference willy nilly. DrIdiot (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to say I did something for "no reason" whereas I provided reasons in the edit description; just because something is in the title of the SCMP article does not mean any evidence of it is provided in the article. If it is otherwise, please provide factual quote(s) from the article itself. It is pure conjecture.

I advise you read WP:RS on how sourcing is done here. DrIdiot (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I have. Media articles cannot be credibly used as a source of information if they do not provide any backing or source for their claims, which seems to be the case with this article exactly.139.47.34.245 (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Please refer me to the section of WP:RS where this is stated. DrIdiot (talk) 14:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "common name is Taiwan", this is literally why the common name for the article is Taiwan and not Republic of China (see [4]). DrIdiot (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a convincing argument - Wikipedia articles reflect consensus of editors but noone would consider Wikipedia information as yardstick for anything official or concerning tens of millions of people. Wikipedia consensus is invariably by a handful of people at best.

Amazing. You are on Wikipedia, saying that official Wikipedia policy is not a good argument for how to do things on Wikipedia. DrIdiot (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, not what I said. Wikipedia is not circularly self-referential; it aims to reflect the world, not itself; title of a Wikipedia article is no proof that something is "commonly known as"139.47.34.245 (talk) 14:01, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I am citing the RfCs (there are many others) which establishes consensus, with references, that Taiwan is common name. DrIdiot (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Hsiao, consider that if every belligerent comment by a Chinese ambassador on Twitter was taken to be PRC policy, well... fill in the blanks. DrIdiot (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

If you have a source, then cite it and move on. DrIdiot (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Your assertion that the "investigation" found "no evidence" of spending is clearly contradicted by your own source. You are cherry picking and extrapolating a single sentence. DrIdiot (talk) 13:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Please care to provide exact quote(s) which would prove I am extrapolating.139.47.34.245 (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's not how it works. You provide the quote which justifies the claim you want to include in the article. I don't have to prove a negative. DrIdiot (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm saying that you are twisting the article to serve your POV. What you say is there is not there. Do you speak Lithuanian?139.47.34.245 (talk) 13:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

No. I am using Google Translate, which is giving a reasonable output. If you disagree with it, the you should provide a translation. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. DrIdiot (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by consensus WP:CON. You are required to work our disagreements on talk. I have put in significant time and effort in going through your changes. DrIdiot (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

You are also required to work out the disagreements here instead of threatening bans and failing to observe Wikipedia's own policies on editing in good faith.139.47.34.245 (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I had the ability to ban anyone. DrIdiot (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not what I said - please refrain from twisting my words (not twisting facts would help also).139.47.34.245 (talk) 13:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

"Threatening bans" DrIdiot (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the reference the IP user has provided ([5]) does not justify the removal of the cn tag in this edit: [6]. DrIdiot (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

How so? The article in top-2 Lithuanian media quotes Lithuanian MFA directly. I plan to add referenced quotes from key Lithuanian protagonists such as Matas Maldeikis, Gabrielius Landsbergis (MFA), Ingrid Simonyte (PM) and probably even Mantas Adomenas. Would that satisfy your criteria?139.47.34.245 (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

It does not justify the claim about the one china principle. DrIdiot (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Consensus works after all (?)

Happy to note that the other editor and I seem to be reaching a consensus on a few issues which were contentious at first: 1. The non-diplomatic status of the TRO in Vilnius. 2. Necessity to include background to understand Chinese reaction to opening TRO in Vilnius (I would venture to include that Lithuania veered away from international practice of calling TRO that of Taipei and not of the Taiwanese people, but I'll leave that for another day). 3. Necessity to include Lithuanian distinction in wording TRO title. Otherwise we would be pretending that Lithuania somehow defines things on its territory in the English language, which would be odd. Overall a better article than it was. Still not perfect but it's getting there.139.47.34.245 (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with the assertion that consensus is being reached. I am refraining from editing the main page for now. DrIdiot (talk) 14:19, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

IP user has reverted in two instances before gaining anything resembling consensus: their apparently refusal to recognize SCMP as RS, and the issue surrounding "no evidence" (ctrl+F above). DrIdiot (talk) 14:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Well then let's reach it - ideally here by means of open discussion. I do not accept your criticisms re: my supposed trigger-reverts. I assumed you will continue edit-warring instead of engaging here. Arguments seemed scant. My criticism of SCMP creditability is beside the point; my point is that the article text does not provide backing for the headline (not far from it being clickbait).

Unless there is some evidence to the contrary, the article does not have to "back" its claims if it is RS. DrIdiot (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll add a 4th point of contention:

4. Taiwanese credit card spending statistics.

I suggest we drill down into the reference. 15min is part of western investigative networks covering key issues of the day - from Mossac Fonseca to other major cases of international corruption. No wonder they paid attention to the Taiwanese announcement - extremely odd in the context which they did not detail but I would guess may include:

• Taiwan habitually paying for diplomatic recognition in the past (see Taiwan FR Wiki article).

• Corrupt backgrounds of 2 key politicians promoting ties with Taiwan in Lithuania (see their Wiki articles).

• The sheer impossibility of 112,000 transactions in a country of 2.7m people - a proportion of such transactions would rank Taiwan as no. 1 foreign e-commerce destination and would be noticed immediately. As the investigation found, that was not the case.

• The sheet impossibility of Taiwanese placing 112,000 orders from a country that is outside main western e-commerce shipping networks and thus shipping to Taiwan is either not provided (I would judge 90%+ of Lithuanian e-commerce stores do not provide a shipping option to Taiwan) or provided at extraordinary cost.

• Taiwan not being member of most international organizations and not being under supervision of international anti-corruption and money-laundering bodies.

• American academic studies having found 50%+ Triad infiltration at local government level in Taiwan (i.e. 50%+ of local government being Train members); NYT reporting of Taiwan transshipping Iranian oil to North Korea in breach of American sanctions.

But those are purely my own opinions. The reference stands on its own merits. 139.47.34.245 (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

What video are you referring to? This sounds a lot like WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. A video in a foreign language may not be admissible as RS since it is completely unverifiable by editors (except, I guess, presently, you). DrIdiot (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh 15min is the newspaper. The issue is that the translated version of the article does not justify the text. [7] The article does not say there was "no evidence". It says certain banks have noticed increased volume in payments, that some shops have noticed small increases in spending, and that large e-commerce sites have not noticed a significant increase. Furthermore, construing Hsiao posting on Twitter as "Taiwan announcing" is deeply misleading; are you aware of the amount of puffery by officials that goes on on Twitter? This feels strongly like WP:UNDUE. DrIdiot (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

One could include the Tweet if one were to attribute it to Hsiao and not the gov't. But again this feels like WP:UNDUE. DrIdiot (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Btw Hsiao's tweet [8] just links a UDN article, which cites a credit card company. Hardly an official announcement. DrIdiot (talk) 15:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Revert again

Issues already discussed above. Since there is active discussion of these issues do not revert until consensus is reached.

• The SCMP article is fine, it is RS, and the line is supported by not only the article but the title. The IP user seems to be uninterested in learning about WP:RS sourcing and more interested in pushing a POV.

It is not fine - the information is pure conjecture. Would you mind finding one another source backing up your claim in a factual, evidence-based way? If you do I will have no objection.

• Expelled is fine. It is not "violent". It's standard language for this situation as the AJ RS shows. "Asking Lithuania to reciprocate" is an even more ridiculous way to formulate this than the IP user originally proposed, and this is a clear example of POV pushing.

It is not fine as it is not the language in the reference and not the language I have seen across vast majority of media, English or Lithuanian-language.

• See discussion re: WP:UNDUE regarding Hsiao's tweet of a UDN article and response to it. Not every Tweet by a tangential official and every response to it merits inclusion in the article. Furthermore, the wording violates WP:NPOV and is also not justified by the source as explained above.

You are twisting the facts.

Why have you edited the article before any consensus has been reached? You are clearly acting in bad faith.

New issues:

• The interpretation of "people" vs "nation" is WP:OR. The source appears to be about a translation from English into Lithuanian and not the other way around. IP user should discuss this here before re-inserting it.
• The stuff about 1991 agreement needs RS.

DrIdiot (talk) 06:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Retracted the revert on 1991 after finding RS. DrIdiot (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, comment, the interpretation of "people" vs "nation" is not a new issue, it is also discussed above. All reverted edits now have to do with previous issues. DrIdiot (talk) 08:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Taivaniečiai is people. Taivaniečių tauta is Taiwanese nation. The TRO is the former, not the latter, and I have not read a Lithuanian-language article so far referring to the Taiwanese as a nation (Lithuania tends to perceive itself and other countries as ethnic and not political nations, if you know what I’m referring to). 195.235.52.102 (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I can see a case for inclusion of the 3rd point re: the Hsiao tweet. However, it has to be properly attributed. It's not an official announcement, it is the US ambassador tweeting about a local newspaper article. Furthermore, the wording regarding the Lithuanian news article has to better reflect the balance of the content. For "people" vs. "nation" I would request the IP user translate and explain the relevant sections per policy Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources. DrIdiot (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

By that, I mean do so here on talk so we can discuss it. DrIdiot (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

That said, I am worried that focusing on this linguistic issue is still WP:OR and gives undue weight to it. Namely, it's not clear at all that this linguistic issue is really relevant. The point is that the Lithuanian side maintains they are not in breach of an agreement. Is this language issue actually being presented to the Chinese side as a rationale (e.g. via a foreign affairs spokesperson), or is it just internal to Lithuanian discourse? If the latter, it's a stretch to me for inclusion. DrIdiot (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

It is presented as rationale and an internal discussion (Lithuania is a democracy, so it would be odd if the government was messaging differently to the Chinese and the national audience, don’t you think? It’s quite odd you are making such a distinction. Is that how things are usually done in Taiwan, do you think? 195.235.52.102 (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

What? MoFAs often address foreign governments through statements. But statements made by domestic politicians don't have the same weight in foreign affairs, especially those made on Facebook, as your source suggests. DrIdiot (talk) 00:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry but I will be reverting the edits you have done unilaterally and without seeking consensus. That is not how Wikipedia works. I also take issue to how you are editing this article - full revert, then partial backtrack. Are you doing this on purpose so that reversal of your unilateral edits would be more difficult to accomplish? Not accusing, just asking. 195.235.52.102 (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Full revert of non-consensus, unilateral, non-NPOV edit by previous editor

1. Please see Wikipedia article on diplomatic missions to clarify which types of missions Wikipedia considers “official” and which not. It does not consider representative offices to be diplomatic missions.

2. Please refrain from edit-warring unilaterally, without reaching consensus and reverting large blocks of text, partially un-reverting and thus making the article difficult to edit (this is borderline vandalism on its own without even taking into account your actual editorial choices).

3. Some of the incremental data you added is questionable - are you sure Lithuania’s independence in 1918 was from Russia? And even if partly true, which Russia? I doubt you have much knowledge of the subject.

4. Once again it seems to me you are pushing a biased, doubly politically partisan, Democratic Progressive Party line on the subject consisting of the following ingredients:

A. Deleting the referenced fact that Lithuania has no diplomatic relations with Taiwan and does recognize the One China principle. Wikipedia does not consider representative office a form of diplomatic relations.

B. Pushing one-sided reporting on supposed Taiwanese credit card spending in Lithuania that the Lithuanian side has not detected (to put it politely). The same Lithuanian investigative media has detected everything it sought to detect so far globally with international partners like the Guardian, Le Monde and on on - so as far as I’m concerned the payments never existed (no proof).

C. Editorializing the article with your own language expressly designed to present PRC in negative light.

This is very odd. Lithuania has one of the freest media (Press Freedom Index, Freedom of the Press (report)) in the European Union. Google Translate speaks perfect Lithuanian. The subject of this article has been reportsd by the media almost daily in the last few months. There is no excuse for you to continue editorializing and twisting facts.

If you continue with your one-sided trigger-reverts I may want to dig into my bookmarks on the bilateral relations and find out whether the former representative of the Legislative Yuan in the Baltics (and thus Lithuania) has really had business ties to Taiwan’s (and possibly Asia’s) largest pornographer - or not (I remember it being reported in an English-language business publication and illustrated with clear photography). I’m still unsure though whether this topic should be considered for Lithuania-Taiwan relations or for the “crypto congressman’s” own Wikipedia page. What do you think?

Also, should we include the fact that TRO indirectly led to downfall of the MFA of Lithuania (the most unpopular politician in the most unpopular government of the last 31 years - poll data)? It seems to be exactly the standard of causal relationship that you are using for editorializing around the 15min article, only stronger (i.e. it is more or less correct instead of being certainly wrong). 195.235.52.102 (talk) 20:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

For (2), and what are you doing, anonymous IP user who is most likely one user changing IPs? For (3), just adding something already in the lede per edit summary. For (4), I restored (A), I deleted everything for (B) on the basis of WP:UNDUE, and inserting language contained in the title of RS is not "editorializing". Furthermore, nice threat, I don't really care? If it's backed by RS it can be on Wikipedia. I think your reply exhibits your view of Wikipedia editing: as a way to push POV. DrIdiot (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

References (discussion subsection)

I will provide here references on the subject with quotations in English OR, if in Lithuanian, accompanied with unedited Google Translate output in English.

Matas Maldeikis, one of the architects of TRO in Lithuania who led delegation of Lithuanian parliamentarians to Taiwan in late November 2021, in Delfi.lt:

https://www.delfi.lt/news/daily/lithuania/kinija-baiminasi-kad-lietuva-ras-pasekeju-gali-panaudoti-visa-savo-galia-surengti-tikra-sou.d?id=88526057

Maldeikis: Lietuva nepažeidžia „vienos Kinijos“ principo

Seimo Europos reikalų komiteto narys Matas Maldeikis, kalbėdamas apie Kinijos galimus sprendimus akcentavo, kad autoritariniai režimai visada turi idėjų. „Mes negalėjome pagalvoti dėl migrantų – kas galėjo pagalvoti, kad turėsime krizę su tūkstančiais migrantų, iš kažkur atėjusių prie Baltarusijos sienos? Kinija mato, kad tas ekonominis spaudimas veikia ne taip, kaip jie galvojo. Nepaspaus taip smarkiai, kaip kad jie tikėjosi. Jie neturi labai didelių svertų spausti ekonomiškai, nes verslas turi kelius ateiti, o jų investicijos Lietuvoje yra labai mažos“, – pastebėjo politikas. Vis dėlto, jo nuomone, didesnę grėsmę galime turėti iš nekonvencinių Pekino sprendimų, pavyzdžiui, kibernetinių atakų. „Tai prognozuoti žymiai sunkiau. (…) Čia jau specialiųjų tarnybų pasiruošimas – kaip jie projektuoja grėsmes, kurios gali kilti iš Kinijos, kažkokios dezinformacijos kampanijos. Reikia suprasti, kad kokia bebūtų mūsų politinė pozicija ar valia atstovybės klausimu, mes su tuo galėtume susidurti bet kada ir tam visada reikia būti pasiruošus“, – akcentavo M. Maldeikis. Seimo narys teigė, kad visiškas diplomatinių santykių nutraukimas yra vienas iš instrumentų, kuriuos Kinija gali panaudoti, tačiau, pasak jo, tam nėra priežasčių. „Mes žiūrėtume į tai keistai, nes reikia suprasti vieną dalyką, kad Lietuva tikrai nepažeidžia „vienos Kinijos“ principo“, – tvirtino M. Maldeikis. Jo teigimu, „vienos Kinijos“ principas būtų pažeistas, jei Lietuva pripažintų Taivaną kaip nepriklausomą valstybę. „Apie tai kalbos nėra. Visi kiti žingsniai yra tam tikras spaudimas, bandant paspausti viešąją nuomonę, primesti jai tam tikrą naratyvą. LR Vyriausybė nepripažįsta Taivano ir mes laikomės „vienos Kinijos“ politikos – tai niekaip nesikeičia“, – akcentavo M. Maldeikis. Matas Maldeikis© DELFI / Andrius Ufartas Tai, pasak parlamentaro, įrodo ir atstovybės pavadinimas – taivaniečių, o ne Taivano. Visgi kitose valstybėse panašios atstovybės pavadintos Taipėjaus vardu. „Taivanas yra sala, kurioje gyvena taivaniečiai. Mes užfiksuojame tai, kas yra – Taivano saloje gyvena taivaniečiai. Tai niekaip nepažeidžia „vienos Kinijos“ Taivano nepripažinimo principo. Mes nepripažįstame Taivano nepriklausomybės, to šiuo atveju ir jis pats nesiekia“, – pažymėjo M. Maldeikis.195.235.52.102 (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Google Translate output (emphasis mine):

Malikis: Lithuania is without prejudice to the principle of "Vienna, the Seimas European Affairs Committee Malikis, talking about China's potential decisions highlighted that authoritarian regimes always have ideas. "We could not think about migrants - who could think that we have a crisis with thousands of migrants, from somewhere came to the Belarusian border? China sees that the economic pressure is not the way they thought. Won't get the same as they expected. They do not have very high levers to press economically, because the business has the road to come, and their investment in Lithuania is very small, "- noted the politician. However, in his opinion, we can have a greater threat from the non-convoluted Beijing solutions such as cyber attacks. "It's predicted much more difficult. (...) Here are the preparation of special services - as they design threats that may arise from China, some disinformation campaigns. It should be understood that whatever our political position or will in the matter of representation, we can face at any time and always need to be prepared, "- emphasized Malikis. The member of the Seimas stated that the total termination of diplomatic relations is one of the instruments that China can use, but according to him, there are no reasons. "We look for this weird because it is necessary to understand one thing that Lithuania really does not violate the" one Chinese "principle," Malegeikis said. According to him, the principle of "one Chinese would be violated if Lithuania recognizes Taiwan as an independent state. "There is no language about it. All other steps are certain pressure, trying to press the public opinion, impose a particular narrative. The Government of the Republic of Lithuania does not recognize Taiwan and we comply with the "one Chinese" policy - this is not changed in any way ", - emphasized Malikis. Mat Malikis © Delfi / Andrius Ufart This, according to the parliament, proves the name of the Representation - Taiwan rather than Taiwan. However, in other countries, similar representations are named in the name of Taipei. "Taiwan is an island living in Taiwannians. We are capturing what is - Taiwanese island. This is without prejudice to the principle of "Vienna in China" Taiwan. We do not recognize the independence of Taiwan, in this case, and he is not for him, "- Malegeikis noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.52.102 (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I excluded the last paragraph of this text where Maldeikis says he’s interested in Taiwan for trade and ideological reasons only (consistent with what he already said, so irrelevant).195.235.52.102 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė in Kauno diena:

https://kauno.diena.lt/naujienos/lietuva/politika/i-simonyte-nesutinka-su-kinijos-kaltinimais-mes-laikomes-sutarties-1052890

I. Šimonytė nesutinka su Kinijos kaltinimais: mes laikomės sutarties 2021-11-25 14:33:00 Benas Brunalas, ELTA

Premjerė Ingrida Šimonytė pažymi, kad priešingai nei teigia diplomatinį ir ekonominį spaudimą Lietuvai taikanti Kinija, Vilnius, net ir atidaręs Taivaniečių atstovybę, toliau laikosi susitarimo dėl „vienos Kinijos“ principo. „Mes manome, kad mes laikomės sutarties. Sutartis galioja, niekas nekeičia pozicijos dėl sutarties“, – ketvirtadienį Seime žurnalistams sakė premjerė. Kinija trečiadienį paskelbė, kad Vilniuje atidarytos Taivaniečių atstovybės pavadinimas yra klaida, kurią Lietuva turėtų ištaisyti. Kaip trečiadienį teigė Kinijos ambasados Lietuvoje laikinasis reikalų patikėtinis Qu Baihua, atidarius atstovybę Taivaniečių pavadinimu buvo pažeistas „vienos Kinijos“ principas.

I. Šimonyte disagrees with the Chinese accusations: we follow the contract 2021-11-25 14:33:00 Ben Brunal, ELTA Text Size: Print I. Shimonyte disagrees with the Chinese accusations: We follow the Treaty Paul Peleckio / "BNS photo". Prime Minister Ingrida Šimonytė notes that, contrary to the diplomatic and economic pressure on Lithuania, Vilnius, even after the Taiwanese Representation, continues to comply with the "Vienna Chinese" principle. "We believe that we follow the contract. The contract is valid, no one changes the position on the contract, "said Prime Minister for journalists on Thursday. China announced that the name of the Taiwanese Representation opened in Vilnius is a mistake that Lithuania should remedy. As Wednesday said the Chinese Embassy in Lithuania Temporary Affairs Trustee Qu Baihua, opening the representation of Taiwanese name was violated by the principle of "one Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.235.52.102 (talk)

There are a few more references I could provide in an instant if the above are insufficiently clear.195.235.52.102 (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

President of Lithuania Gitanas Nausėda comment and official MFA press release in Verslo žinios: https://www.vz.lt/verslo-aplinka/2021/08/10/kinija-del-taivano-atstovybes-atsaukia-savo-ambasadoriu-lietuvos-reikalaujapadaryti-ta-pati

Lietuva laikosi „vienos Kinijos“ politikos

Šalies vadovas teigia, kad „vienos Kinijos“ politikos Lietuva laikosi nuo 1991 metų, kai buvo užmegzti diplomatiniai santykiai su Kinijos Liaudies Respublika. „Tikimės, kad Kinija dar kartą permąstys ir pakeis savo sprendimą. Matome perspektyvą plėtoti su Kinija politinius, ekonominius ir kultūrinius santykius, tačiau tai neturėtų būti „eismas viena kryptimi“, – pridūrė jis.

Lietuvos užsienio reikalų ministerija (URM) išplatintame komentare teigia apgailestaujanti dėl tokio Kinijos žingsnio ir dar kartą pabrėžianti, kad, gerbdama vienos Kinijos principą, yra nusiteikusi plėtoti abipusiai naudingus ryšius su Taivanu, kaip ir daugelis kitų Europos Sąjungos ir pasaulio valstybių.

Google Translate output:

Lithuania adheres to one Chinese policy

The President of the country claims that Lithuania is in Lithuania since 1991, when diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China have been established. "We hope that China will oversee again and change its decision. We see the perspective to develop political, economic and cultural relations with China, but it should not be "traffic in one direction", - he added.

The Lithuanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (URM) says the comment says regreting the step of China and reiterates that, while respecting one Chinese principle, there is a mutually beneficial relationship with Taiwan, like many other European Union and the world.

Since Google had trouble with the President’s sentence, I’ll help manually here:

Šalies vadovas teigia, kad „vienos Kinijos“ politikos Lietuva laikosi nuo 1991 metų, kai buvo užmegzti diplomatiniai santykiai su Kinijos Liaudies Respublika.

My translation: Head of the state says, that Lithuania adheres to “one China” policy since 1991, when diplomatic relations with People’s Republic of China were established 195.235.52.102 (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand. We can Google Translate ourselves. The problem is you want to insert text about a specific grammatical feature of the Lithuanian language which the machine is unable to translate. That needs explanation and discussion about whether or not it is WP:OR. DrIdiot (talk) 00:34, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Photo copyright status

I have doubts regarding copyright of the photo used to illustrate this article. What is its copyright status? 195.235.52.102 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

User DrIdiot, please provide relevant sections and translations here:

Would you kindly drill into the texts of the SCMP article (plus one additional article, as requested above) and the 15min article (Google Translate works a breeze as you’ll see elsewhere here on Talk) backing your previous points?195.235.52.102 (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

What Wikipedia has to say on 15min, for context:

“15min is known for its explanatory journalism and investigative journalism and was an official partner of the Panama Papers investigation team.

In March 2019, in conjunction with the Sarajevo-based Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, 15min broke a story regarding a nearly $9 billion global money laundering scheme allegedly constructed by Sberbank CIB (formerly known as "Troika Dialog").[2] The scheme is known as ŪkioLeaks or Troika Laundromat.” 195.235.52.102 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I have said repeatedly it's in the title of the SCMP, and I have no idea what you are talking about for the latter because you've written a novella overnight it seems (see WP:BLUDGEON) DrIdiot (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Bludgeoning of both the article and talk page

To all users involved; please stop bludgeoning this article. It's getting ridiculous. There are so many new sections on this talk page that consist of discussions between just two users (one registered user, DrIdiot, as well as one person operating multiple IP accounts, it seems). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I disagree with your assertion that I am bludgeoning anything. My responses are succinct and organized and I have not responded in the last two days or so. DrIdiot (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Items already under discussion above I have reverted since there's been no consensus on them. Additional items:

• One China principle vs. policy. My understanding is 1C principle is PRC's position on Taiwan (see lede in One-China_policy and 1C policy is US policy toward Taiwan (and maybe other countries). I do not know what Lithuania's formal policy but the linked article seemed to suggest it more or less agreed with PRC's position in 1991. Happy to be corrected if this is not right.
• "now commonly known as Taiwan" is better than "also known as Taiwan" because it indicates a shift in usage between 1912 and today. This shift definitely occurred because in 1912 the ROC did not even control Taiwan. This is important to explain because the title of this article is Lith-Taiwan relations, not Lith-ROC relations, per WP:COMMONNAME.
• "international practice of using Chinese Taipei" isn't correct. There is no "Chinese" in TECRO. But the use of "Taiwan" is somewhat new, and I've added a mention of this.

— DrIdiot (talk) 07:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I've already contacted you on your talk page but you haven't responded yet. Previously, I've advised you not to engage with the IP user because they were escalating the situation and you were helping them do so. Previously, I myself have engaged in discussions with the IP user, though I only did so to the extent that I could determine whether they were editing in good or bad faith. I've already gathered all the evidence necessary to determine that they are a bad faith editor. Hence, at this point, any further engagement is just feeding the troll. In any case, this page has been temporarily blocked for IP users, so I suppose that you can do whatever you want until the block has expired. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up... In the event that this page gets successfully blocked for an even longer period of time, I have it in mind to perform a mass revert of the page to its original state before all of these excessive December edits occurred. In that case, you should probably compile all of the research and sourcing that you've done and prepare it for being reintegrated into the original article. In my view, this is the only way to salvage the article, which is unrecognisable at this point due to the excessive addition and removal of information that has occurred recently. In your own words, the IP user has written a novella overnight. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

^Note: This is what people often refer to as "reverting to a stable version". It's a common action to undertake when there has been a massing edit war at an article. Unfortunately, your edits have been a part of this massive edit war and need to be reverted alongside the IP user's edits too, at least temporarily. After all of the recent changes have been reverted, you can reintegrate your recent edits if you wish to do so. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article might still be salvageable in its current state now that you've reverted the most recent series of edits by the IP user, who is now effectively blocked from editing this page until they make a registered user account. But I will have to do some careful copy-editing in order to make the new version of the article more closely resemble the old version, whilst still retaining any new info (added by either you or the IP user) that is suitable for the article. For the record, this is the version of the article that I consider to be the last "stable version" ([9]). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

The IP user sometimes makes constructive edits. I assumed some degree of good faith in the beginning which generally decreased as time went on. There was some degree of convergence between our edits, but some of the things the IP user would not budge on I found completely inappropriate (e.g. striking the SCMP article content, and replacing "recalling ambassador and expelling ambassador" with "recalling an ambassador and asking for reciprocation"). To me this was the main difficulty in engaging with them. Anyway thanks for the copy edits! DrIdiot (talk) 13:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I think you've probably noticed by now that the IP user has a tendency to change the wording of certain sections ever so slightly in order to push a specific POV. For example, changing "unofficial diplomatic relations" to "trade and economic relations" might not look so nefarious at first, but the intention here is quite clear to me. On the other hand, the IP user has made certain other changes that are much more obviously misleading, such as fixating on China–Lithuania relations to an excessive extent, which is obviously inappropriate given that this article is primarily about Lithuania–Taiwan relations. In fact, they had originally been making these China–Lithuania relations edits to the article China–Lithuania relations, but they got in trouble there a few days ago and the page was blocked by David Gerard for two weeks. It seems that they've decided to come over here after having been blocked over there (but this page got blocked for several days too... go figure). By the way, they were also fixating too strongly on Lithuania–Taiwan relations over at the China–Lithuania relations article... They seem to have difficulty drawing lines between related-but-distinct topics. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I've just read over the "second phase" section. As it stands, it looks reasonably good. I'll have to take a look at the original version of this section to see if any other important information has been removed during the chaotic edits of the past few days. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

One minor detail I've noticed and subsequently changed in my copy-edit... The phrase "X established relations with Y" should really read "X and Y established relations with each other". By its nature, the act of establishing diplomatic relations is supposed be an act of mutual respect. On the same thread, this entire article is supposed to be equally about Taiwan and Lithuania, not focusing on one more than the other in certain sections or even across the entire article. And the article is certainly not about China to a major degree. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect map

The colours seemed to have been switched on the map. Can someone please fix this? Thank you. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 02:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I've swapped the labels underneath; now Taiwan is first and assigned green, whereas Lithuania is second and assigned orange. If the labels are to be in alphabetical order, then Lithuania should come first and Taiwan second... But that means the image file needs to be changed directly, and I have no idea how to do that. So, Taiwan is first, for now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)