User talk:Jargo Nautilus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

December 2018

Hello, I'm Dreamy Jazz. I noticed that in this edit to Taiwanese Australians, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Removal of text

I didn't actually intend to remove the text, I intended to rearrange it so that it appears underneath the info box, to make the article look cleaner. I'm not sure how to do this. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jargo Nautilus! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019!

Hello Jargo Nautilus, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mainland China, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Red China, Nationalist China and Communist China (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have fixed the links. Those disambiguation links only refer to a few terms, and most of them are relevant. However, this may change in the future. The terms which I've added probably need their own Wiktionary pages since they are quite specific jargon. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

East Turkestan independence movement

Hey, I noticed you've started work on the East Turkestan independence movement article. You're absolutely right, it's absurdly biased and in desperate need of an overhaul. However, I would encourage you to make sure you find citations for all new information or the article risks becoming vandalised again later on. The sources currently cited in the text are often cherry-picked and mischaracterised but they're still mostly good sources and you can search them on Google Books (and either use this tool or {{harv}} to make citations), so that might be a place to start. Happy editing, ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 08:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I've made some sweeping generalizations rather than extremely specific and assertive statements, thus far. I'm not extremely knowledgable on the subject, but, as you've said, if I were to find some more specific information, it could be seen as cherry-picking. Hence, I'm wary of doing this, and I've instead taken the route of presenting the basic arguments of both sides. By the way, I'm mainly interested in this topic because I have partial Taiwanese ancestry. Taiwan is another territory which is trying to gain independence from China (though, it is kind of already half-independent as a de facto state, with both Chinese loyalists and Taiwanese localists being able to democratically vie for power through multi-party elections). I am more supportive of Taiwan independence rather than Xinjiang independence, though I am aware that certain supporters of both independence movements have decided to collaborate, due to their shared anti-China interests. The two secessionist movements are represented by the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization, which has been commonly cited amongst "secession"-themed articles on Wikipedia. The UNPO seems to be almost like "the United Nations for secessionist movements". The World Uyghur Congress is a member of the UNPO and is hence really the only organization which might be able to convince the rest of the world that Uyghurs deserve independence (which is different to the case in Taiwan since the Pan-Green Coalition is able to be democratically elected into power and can have a much more direct say in matters of Taiwan independence). The allegations against the World Uyghur Congress that it is directly involved in terrorism in Xinjiang are obviously very significant. Across Wikipedia, most articles about or mentioning the World Uyghur Congress directly claim that it is involved in terrorist activities, though none of these allegations have been proven, to my knowledge. The World Uyghur Congress seems to specifically distance itself from terrorist activities in Xinjiang and doesn't claim responsibility for any terrorist attacks or operations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That's very interesting. I doubt any reliable sources would give credence to the idea that the World Uyghur Congress specifically are involved with terrorist activities, but certainly terrorism has been a noteworthy part of the conflict in the 21st century. Also, in case it was unclear, I didn't mean to suggest that you'd be cherry picking – you seem to be taking a good approach. Not sure how new you are but have you figured out the RefToolbar yet? ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 18:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

In terms of how long I've been editing Wikipedia, I'm relatively new. I'm still trying to refine my writing style and remain as neutral as possible on most topics. I have edited Wikia articles for a while now, so I'm used to the formatting of that website, which is like a beginner's version of Wikipedia. I think I can figure out these formatting tricks on my own eventually. I'm aware that Wikipedia has help pages for formatting. Regarding "references", I think the main article for "Xinjiang" is quite a good resource for me to imitate. I have copied the formatting from that article thus far for the references. The "Xinjiang" article seems to be much more thoroughly monitored than the "East Turkestan independence movement" article, which was previously named "Uyghur nationalism" for some bizarre reason. By the way, regarding the actual references which I'm supposed to be adding to the article, I'm not a researcher or anything. I don't really have access to too many obscure books, which would probably cost money to read. So far, I've been pulling information from other pages about Xinjiang and the Uyghurs, and I've been compiling references from there into the article. I'm also shortening segments of the ETIM article and I'm trying to separate distinct concepts (which are currently being muddied up). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good. I think most of the sources are available online – the ones from Google Books should give you two or three pages of preview for any topic. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 20:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Taiwanese Australians

Hello. A few weeks ago I reverted an edit you made deleting 30 kilobytes of text from the Taiwanese Australians article [1]. For what its worth I think you were right to make the edit since the content is a little off topic so feel free to revert me - but an edit that large is not a minor edit and requires an edit summary of some sort. Woscafrench (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Phrasing

Thanks for your contribution in the Chinese unification article. But in my opinion, the phrasing of the two new paragraphs you added don't go well with encyclopedia's style and look more like personal commentary. Kindly re-phrase them. Thanks. --Matt Smith (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Something which is quite frustrating about the political situation in Taiwan is that there are barely any agreed-upon facts. The Kuomintang does, for the most part, claim that Taiwan was still part of China even during 50 years of Japanese "occupation". This is quite easy to gouge from observing daily KMT rhetoric. However, the KMT seems to struggle to pinpoint an exact date when the treaty was actually nullified and struggles further to identify the specific legal mechanism (or prove the legitimacy of such a mechanism) through which the treaty was nullified.

I have found one article from The Diplomat demonstrating one KMT-supporter's opinion, which seems to be main-stream opinion of the KMT these days. I suppose it would be a good idea to try to locate the "official statement" from the KMT's own official website.

Pan-Green Sources claim that Taiwan was part of China from 1895 until 1945, but disagree on whether Taiwan remained part of Japan after 1945 (I know this notion sounds racist, but it isn't too unreasonable given the fact that Taiwan actually was part of Japan between 1895 until 1945, at least according to what I know), became part of China after 1945 (this is a commonly accepted "fact" in Taiwan, though the veracity of this fact is highly questionable), or was sent into a "limbo" after 1945 (or 1949).

At least according to whoever writes these webpages for the official Taiwan Tourism website, Taiwanese people seem to agree that Taiwan first became part of China in 1683. They disagree on later changes of sovereignty. Very few Taiwanese seem to trace Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan back to 230 CE, as the PRC officially does. There seems to be an agreement in Taiwan that this claim made by the PRC is a complete fabrication or is rather true but very weak evidence of a non-existent past claim.

Edit: I have had a read of the KMT's "Brief History of the Party" page. I can't read Chinese so I had to Google Translate the article into English. The article, of course, describes Kuomintang history all the way from 1894 until the present, emphasising the KMT's more than a century of history and the revolutionary ideas of Sun Yat-sen, i.e. "the Three Principles of the People". There is some mention of Taiwan, but it is very limited. First, the article says that the KMT "relocated to Taiwan" without mentioning the exact nature of this relocation, and then the article says that the KMT "protected and built Taiwan" and basically doesn't mention the so-called "Retrocession Day" at all. The article omits much of Taiwan's modern history from 1945 until 2008, making a note of Ma Ying-jeou's election to the presidency in that year. I will have to look elsewhere for official KMT statements regarding the political status of Taiwan.

Edit: The KMT's English website says simply that Taiwan was "returned" to China in 1945. It also mentions several dates throughout the years of Japanese Taiwan when representatives of the KMT allegedly came to Taiwan in order to summon Chinese nationalism within the Taiwanese people. If these historical facts are true, then this means that the ROC did claim Taiwan as its own in the decades prior to WWII. However, elsewhere, in an opinion piece on the website I think, it is said that the ROC claimed Taiwan as part of its territory as proven by a constitution which was created by the ROC in 1946. Clearly, this constitution cannot actually be used to prove the ROC's earlier claims. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The ROC's claim over the sovereignty of Taiwan is problematic and untenable, as far as I can see. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

In one of my sources, from the Taiwan Civil Government (a Pan-Green organization advocating Taiwan independence), I have acquired an insightful tidbit of information. Apparently, the Republic of China declared that all treaties signed between China and Japan, including the Treaty of Shimonoseki, had been abrogated as a result of recent Japanese aggression against China, in the ROC's 1941 Declaration of War against Japan (which is a pretty notable document). However, most Pan-Green sources agree that this declaration was unilateral and that the treaty could only be abrogated through the creation of another treaty. Hence, most Pan-Green sources believe that the Treaty of San Francisco (1951) was the true date when Japan lost sovereignty over Taiwan, but claim also that this date left Taiwan with no official sovereign, and did not return Taiwan to China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the Treaty of San Francisco did not solve the issue of the sovereignty of Taiwan.

As for Taiwan Civil Government, some of the sources it cites to rationalize its own claims might be reliable, but it itself is a controversial organization and is said to be involved in fraud. And it does not advocate Taiwan independence; instead, it advocates that the sovereignty of Taiwan belongs to Japan and that Taiwan unifies with Japan. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

I've just had a closer look at the TCG's website, and yes, you're correct in that they advocate for (re)unification with Japan; I was not aware of this previously since they say virtually nothing of this in their "about" page and their main page. However, I do believe that the TCG has several valid points. One of their arguments is that, according to whichever law they cited, which I'm inclined to believe is probably a law which was actually in place at the time (and is certainly in place now), is that a person cannot be stripped of their citizenship if doing so would leave them stateless. In Taiwan, everyone was stripped of their Japanese citizenship at some point during the 1940s–1950s. To be completely honest, I really have no idea when and how the Taiwanese people exactly lost their Japanese citizenship. I do know that some individuals, such as Momofuku Ando, voluntarily gave up their citizenship, though in his case, this was largely because he did not want to lose all of his possessions in Taiwan after the ROC took over (and I don't think every individual in Taiwan manually chose to relinquish their Japanese citizenship and to adopt ROC citizenship). So, everyone in Taiwan lost their citizenship, which is fairly obvious nowadays (though it is difficult to discern when and how this happened), and the TCG claims that this occurred due to a unilateral declaration from the ROC after they took over Taiwan. However, with no legal means by which to grant Taiwanese people with Chinese citizenship (and, as you yourself have stated, the Taiwanese people never really were granted with Chinese citizenship), the Taiwanese people were essentially just stripped of their Japanese citizenship and received no other citizenship in exchange for this. Although the ROC's removal of the Taiwanese people's Japanese citizenship might be viewed as having been a unilateral act, the Japanese government was quick to agree with this act and abandoned Taiwan completely after the Treaty of Taipei was signed, normalising relations between Japan and the ROC. So, to this day, the Taiwanese people don't really have Chinese citizenship, yet Japan obviously doesn't believe that the Taiwanese people still have Japanese citizenship either. Since there is no such thing as Taiwanese citizenship, at least not officially, then this leaves the Taiwanese people "stateless" unless you consider the ROC to be a state; even then, the ROC is not sovereign over Taiwan but is instead an occupier of Taiwan. Since Taiwanese people are stateless, although many countries deny this and identify Taiwanese people as ROC (Chinese) nationals, then this means that the removal of the Taiwanese people's Japanese citizenship was, effectively, illegal. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I had learned TCG's reasoning regarding citizenship. But I haven't seen an authoritative source sharing the same opinion with TCG. On the contrary, Oppenheim's International Law says it is up to all states to decide who their citizens are. In other words, Japan's removal of Taiwanese people's Japanese citizenship is actually legal.

Taiwanese people lost their Japanese citizenship soon after the San Francisco Peace Treaty came into effect. A Japanese institute published a formal document declaring that. --Matt Smith (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

How did they decide who was Taiwanese and who wasn't? Was it based on home-ownership or ethnicity? Many ethnic Japanese were living in Taiwan, and presumably, some were living permanently there and did not own property back in the home islands. Further, some ethnic Taiwanese were living in Japan. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

In a historical Japanese parliament document, Taiwanese was defined as people who were born in Taiwan. --Matt Smith (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

A few thoughts-

@Jargo Nautilus: Thanks for your comment on my page. You may be right, but I would like to present a potential counterargument to what you were saying there. Again, you may be 100% right, but I have a potentially meaningful thought that you may be interested in. It may or may not be persuasive- just let me know what you think. It may be that adding the quotation marks is not neutral. The basis for this potential claim would be rooted in the way that local government websites in the area use the word 'Taiwan'- see the Lieyu Township government website, which reads "Address： 3F., No.40, Houjing, Lieyu Township, Kinmen County 894, Taiwan (R.O.C.)", Jinning Township government website, which reads "Address： No.1, Ren-ai Village, Jinning Township, Kinmen County 892, Taiwan (R.O.C.) ", and the Dongyin Township government office website, which reads "No.121, Zhongliu Vil., Dongyin Township, Lienchiang County 212, Taiwan (R.O.C.) ". They feel that they are part of Taiwan. If they wanted to add quotation marks, they would do so. In the absence of quotation marks, I just thought it was appropriate to follow the standard practice of the government offices of those islands. Let me know if this is making any sense. I am glad you are watching out for things like this. Thanks for your time and effort. It's a sensitive topic, but I think I could be persuaded to accept your viewpoint.

I do not believe that it is technically accurate to say that referring to the Republic of China as Taiwan is erroneous. For example, in the period 2013-2019, I have been given three visas from the government in Taipei. All of these three visas have the words "REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN)" written on them at the top. Food for thought. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Yeah, sorry, I removed my previous comment because I haven't done that much research into the topic and I could very well be wrong in a number of ways.

On the topic of "is it correct to refer to the ROC as 'Taiwan'?", I have noticed that the ROC has officially used the name "Taiwan" on several occasions. Many government websites of the ROC are labeled "Republic of China (Taiwan)", the official currency of the ROC is named the "New Taiwan Dollar", and the official passport of the ROC features, in English, "Republic of China (Taiwan)". However, a counterargument against this is that the term "Taiwan" is simply placed there for ignorant foreigners, and that the native Chinese text indicates the true official name of the country; the Chinese only says "Zhonghua Minguo", which means "Republic of China", and there is no mention of "Taiwan".

--> Edit: I have just had a look at those links you've provided me. You're right, they refer to the country as "Taiwan (ROC)". However, I believe that these local governments might not reflect the views of the national government. Furthermore, the views of the national government are very "wonky" since Taiwan/ROC is constantly shifting between KMT rule and DPP rule; as you probably know, the KMT identifies with Chinese nationalism and the DPP identifies with Taiwanese nationalism. The KMT often purports that the DPP is violating national laws/customs and that its own laws/customs are correct. Though, of course it would do this. And how can the Kuomintang say that it is correct when half the population disagrees with it and has enough power to take control of the national government?

Regarding the opinions of the peoples of Kinmen and Matsu, there are actually many people living there who refer to themselves as "Taiwanese", yet they display some degree of Chinese nationalism (aligned with the ROC, rather than the PRC). I've conversed with some well-known KMT-supporters from Taiwan/ROC (not specifically from Kinmen/Matsu) on the website "Quora" who, without thinking twice, will chastise anybody who supports Tsai Ing-wen and the DPP, and yet, they seem to be fiercely anti-PRC and will strongly identify as "Taiwanese" in the face of any hostility from mainlanders and Communist-sympathizers.

On another note, I once asked on the China SubReddit "does Kinmen use the New Taiwan Dollar?" since I wasn't 100% sure (since I've never been there before). The person who replied to me, presumably a Taiwanese person, said "yeah, of course! they are Taiwanese".

So, I am very confused as to who is Taiwanese and who isn't. One of those KMT-supporting-Taiwanese from Quora whom I mentioned above, (his name is Kang-lin Cheng on Quora), identifies himself as "100% Chinese" and "100% Taiwanese", with "Chinese" seemingly being his national identity and "Taiwanese" seemingly being his provincial identity. However, he rarely visits mainland China, presumably because it has been "taken over by Communists", so whenever he visits his home country (he lives in the US), he always goes specifically to Taiwan and never to any other part of China (that is, if you consider Taiwan to be part of China); in my opinion, this means he identifies as Taiwanese but is simply in denial about this.

--> On that note, my own maternal grandmother is Taiwanese by ancestry (Australian by birth) and she regularly visits both Taiwan and mainland China. This indicates to me that she strongly identifies as Chinese.

I have also seen some Kinmenese and Matusenese people, online, identifying themselves as "Kinmenese" and "Matsunese" respectively. Some also identify as "Fujianese", others as "Hoklo", and others as simply "Chinese", though most of them do not identify as "mainland Chinese" even though Kinmen is technically part of mainland China. Of course, Kinmen is an island, so it is not physically connected to mainland China; however, people seem to agree that Kinmen is an island "in association with" mainland China, just like how Tasmania is an island "in association with" Australia.

Something which I have mentioned at the very end of this section of the article is that Kinmen and Matsu have had a unique history. Not just unique in that they haven't shared much of their history with Taiwan up until 1945, but also unique in that they served as military outposts of the ROC for a few decades. The islands of Kinmen and Matsu were under Martial Law for significantly longer than Taiwan proper and the Pescadores. Of course, Martial Law would have had a significant impact on the culture and identity of the peoples of those islands.

Intriguingly, Matsunese is an official language in the Republic of China (Taiwan). According to Chinese linguists, Matsunese is a dialect of Chinese. According to Western linguists, Matsunese is a dialect of Hokkien, which is itself a variant (though not dialect) of Chinese, itself a member of the Sino-Tibetan language family. This indicates that Matsu probably does have a distinct Matsunese identity; however, thousands (if not millions) of regions in China also have similar distinct local identities, which the PRC government has been eroding away for the past 70 years. So maybe this just indicates that the ROC intends to preserve this local identity in Matsu, presumably to give itself a more positive image in the West than that of the PRC. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:22, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yellow fever (disambiguation); that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TJRC (talk) 20:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I have already resolved the dispute. I am now instead disputing the entire article which the disambiguation entry redirects to. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello (message to unregistered user)

You are an unregistered user. I am making a talk page for you so we can discuss your contentious edits. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Recognition of Uyghurs as native to Xinjiang (message to unregistered user)

I've stated that the Uyghurs are recognised as native to Xinjiang because the official name of Xinjiang is "Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region". If the Uyghurs weren't recognised as native to Xinjiang, then Xinjiang would not be deemed an "Uyghur Autonomous Region" by the Chinese government. Furthermore, I have already clarified in the next sentence that the Uyghurs are not considered to be indigenous by the Chinese government. They are considered to be a "constituent native people" alongside the other 55 officially-recognised ethnic groups in China. Specifically, they are considered to be native to Xinjiang. "Native" just means that they a part of the Chinese nation, as opposed to foreigners in China such as Americans in China. "Native" does not mean "Indigenous". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

The meaning is that the Uyghurs are recognised as inhabitants of Xinjiang only, and are not recognised as native inhabitants of any other parts of China. Some other minorities in China are recognised as native inhabitants at county levels, especially designated for them, across several provinces. The term Xinjiang in Chinese has similar status in meaning to say the US states of "New Mexico" or "New York". The term "Autonomous Region" means the region is autonomous, not that its peoples are autonomous. 109.156.176.232 (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Uyghurs: "Originating from and affiliated with the Near East." (message to unregistered user)

The term "Near East" is non-standard. Conversely, on Wikipedia, the following terms for subregions of Asia are standard:

• Asia (55 countries {4 transcontinental; 15 whose legitimacy is disputed}, 4 territories)
  • East Asia (6 countries {4 whose legitimacy is disputed} and 2 territories)
    • East Asia includes China {legitimacy disputed}, Japan, Hong Kong {China; slightly disputed}, Macau {China; slightly disputed}, Mongolia {slightly disputed}, North Korea {legitimacy disputed}, South Korea {legitimacy disputed}, and Taiwan {legitimacy disputed; claimed by China}. An alternative name for East Asia is "Northeast Asia". Non-national regions of interest in East Asia include Chinese Manchuria (China), Hokkaido Island (Japan), the Ryukyu Islands (Japan), Tibet (China), and Xinjiang (China; also known as "East Turkestan").
  • Central Asia (5 countries)
    • Central Asia includes Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
  • North Asia (1 country {transcontinental})
    • North Asia includes Siberia and the Russian Far East, both parts of Russia. Non-national regions of interest in North Asia include the Jewish Autonomous Oblast (Russia), the Kuril Islands (administered by Russia; parts claimed by Japan), Russian Manchuria (Russia), Sakhalin Island (Russia), and Tannu Tuva (Russia).
  • South Asia (8 countries)
    • South Asia includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka. Non-national regions of interest in South Asia include Balochistan (Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan), Goa (India), Kashmir (China, India, Pakistan), Northeast India (India), and Punjab (India, Pakistan).
  • Southeast Asia (11 countries {1 transcontinental} and 2 Australian territories, plus some islands administered by India)
    • Mainland Southeast Asia (Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Peninsular Malaysia {Malaysia}, Thailand, Vietnam) and Maritime Southeast Asia (the Andaman and Nicobar Islands {India}, Brunei, Christmas Island {Australia}, the Cocos (Keeling) Islands {Australia}, East Timor, Indonesia {excluding Papua and West Papua}, Malaysian Borneo {Malaysia}, the Philippines, Singapore). Non-national regions of interest in Southeast Asia include Champa (located within Mainland Southeast Asia).
  • West Asia (24 countries {2 transcontinental; 8 whose legitimacy is disputed})
    • West Asia includes the Arabian Peninsula (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen), Iran, the Levant (Cyprus {disputed}, Hatay Province {Turkey}, Iraq, Israel {disputed}, Jordan, Lebanon, Northern Cyprus {disputed}, Palestine {disputed}, the Sinai Peninsula {Egypt}, Syria), the South Caucasus (Abkhazia {claimed by Georgia}, Armenia {slightly disputed}, Artsakh {claimed by Azerbaijan}, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Nakhchivan {Azerbaijan}, South Ossetia {claimed by Georgia}), and Turkey (excluding Turkish Thrace). Non-national regions of interest in Asia include Assyria, Mesopotamia, and Phoenicia (located vaguely within the Levant); the proposed region of Kurdistan (located vaguely at the intersection of Turkey, the Levant, Iran, and the Arabian Peninsula); and Khuzestan Province (Iran).

The Uyghurs are native to the Central Asian portion of China (i.e. "West China"), which is an East Asian country. Hence, they are both Central Asian and East Asian. They have West Asian ancestry but they are not really native to this region. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

In China,the Uyghurs are native to Xinjiang. In human sociology, the Uyghurs are aboriginals of Anatolia and the trans-Caucasus. It is one of the querks of human societies, in which the race of a person is designated by his appearance, and not by his genetics. In genetics term there is only one human race, but not so in human sociology. Take for example Barack Obama. He is nearly always called a Black man or an African-American, and never a White man, even though he is roughly 50/50 split between Black and White. Modern Uyghurs may well have a significant amount of East Asian genetics in them, but in appearance they still resemble Anatolians and trans-Caucasians more than East Asians; therefore sociologically Anatolia and trans-Caucasus are where they belong. 109.156.176.232 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yuyencian separatism?

There is a movement advocating for the so called 'Yuyencia'(n) independence movement, according to that website. It is known as Yuyencianists. They claim the entirety of the city of Beijing, parts of Hebei province and parts of Liaoning Province.

Source: https://yuyencia.org/

If you have any response, questions or reply’s to this proposed addition, please respond me back. Thanks. ExplodingPoPUps 21:16, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This movement sounds totally whack, like the majority of the Chinese secessionist movements that do not pertain to Chinese autonomous regions and SARs or to Taiwan. The Cantonia movement, which is highly unpopular, at least has some truth to it since Cantonese people do have a somewhat distinct identity. But I have never heard of such a region as "Yuyencia", and I don't think Roman Catholocism can be considered the "mainstream religion" of what is currently Beijing, Hebei, and Liaoning. It sounds like this is a conspiracy movement that was recently created by some random individual who either wants to delegitimise other secessionist movements in China or is actually crazy enough to believe that they can convince the people of Beijing to secede from China. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The Yuyencian separatism is only added due to a request if it should be added. It isn't here due to religious reasons. Perhaps either it was both a mistake or an error from a separatist organization. I think they are trying to revitalize the Yan Kingdom but both under a greater territory and a Republican system. Another info, that separatists movement isn't conspiracy at all to me just because they mistakenly added Roman Catholicism. Despite you claim that this is a 'conspiracy movement', I simply couldn't find any sources admitting or backing this claim saying that they are a conspiracy movement. Perhaps the leader of the movement didn't know what the Yan Kingdom's religion were. Since I'm pretty sure that the Yan Kingdom's religion was Chinese folk religion, which is still used by the Chinese today. ExplodingPoPUps 00:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it's fine to include secessionist (autonomist, independence, irredentist) movements such as this one, but bear in mind that you can find conspiracy theories for anything on the internet if you search thoroughly enough. I think conspiracy theories such as this one need to be classified under a "fringe movements" category in order to distinguish them from the more legitimate independence movements and other sovereignty-related movements. For example, the Scotland, Taiwan, Bougainville, and New Caledonia independence movements are all completely legitimate. Meanwhile, the Tibetan, Catalan, Kurdish, and Somaliland independence movements are all semi-legitimate. However, in my opinion, this so-called "Yuyencian" independence movement is completely illegitimate and falls under the category of "conspiracy theories" or "fringe movements". The Yuyencian and Scottish independence movements, for example, should not be presented as having an equal level of legitimacy and support. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the "legitimacy" of the independence movements that I've listed... Firstly, Scotland has already had one independence referendum recently (that was totally legal, but ultimately failed) and Scotland was a historically independent country (though, Scotland willingly joined England to form the United Kingdom, several centuries ago, after its economy virtually collapsed). In modern times, Scotland is classified as a "constituent country" by the British government; as an Australian myself, I know that the Australian government lists "England" and "Scotland" as two distinct countries in the Australian Census. Secondly, Taiwan, although historically never having been an independent country, has also never truly been part of China, and certainly isn't part of China now. Hence, China doesn't have the right to prevent Taiwan independence. Taiwan has the right to either choose to secure its de jure independence of its own accord or willingly unify with China. Chinese unification is not "inevitable", and Taiwan is not an "inalienable" territory of China. Support for Taiwan independence is widespread and has developed out of a legitimate historical struggle against colonialism, imperialism, fascism, communism, and authoritarianism. Thirdly, although I don't know much about Bougainville, I do know that it was once a colony of Australia, my own country and that my own country's government ignorantly and lazily merged Bougainville together with Papua New Guinea when it granted independence to Papua New Guinea in 1975. Following this irresponsible merger, Papua New Guinea and Bougainville became engaged in endless civil wars, mostly fought over natural resources located in Bougainville that Papua New Guinea was exploiting, which only really stopped as a result of intervention from New Zealand, Australia's culturally-similar neighbour. Only a few weeks ago, Bougainville held an independence referendum, supervised by New Zealand and acknowledged by the government of Papua New Guinea, which resulted in a 98% vote for independence. Fourthly, again, although I don't know much about New Caledonia, I do know that it is not considered to be a core region of France by the French government, but is rather considered to be some kind of "overseas territory". The indigenous population of New Caledonia is Polynesian or Melanesian, I think, but there are also many French (European) people living there as a result of colonialism. France has permitted New Caledonia to hold a series of independence referendums. New Caledonia already held one in 2018 but it failed; however, New Caledonia is holding its second one in 2020 and will be holding its third one within the next decade (that is; if the second one is also unsuccessful).

Fifthly, the Tibetan independence movement is difficult to comment on because the details are shady. I don't really trust Free Tibet but I also don't trust the Chinese government. When I was a young boy, I actually witnessed the 14th Dalai Lama giving a speech at an auditorium in Sydney, and his words were quite compelling. But it is difficult to know what is really going on in this man's mind, and it's also difficult to know what sorts of people are working from behind the scenes. I think Tibet probably does have the right to be independent, but China also has a reasonably strong claim to the territory of Tibet, so these two peoples are going to have to go to the negotiating table in order to determine Tibet's future. Sixthly, the Catalan independence movement, which I haven't really been following that closely, seems to be somewhat legitimate, though it does also seem that Catalan independence leaders have been performing illegal acts (according to Spanish law, the country that currently has sovereignty over Catalonia) in order to get their way. Independent regimes did exist in the historical territory of Catalonia, but whether Catalonia can truly claim continuity from these regimes remains to be seen. Seventhly, the Kurdish independence movement seems to be legitimate when comparing the nature of Kurdish people to the natures of the neighbouring states of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Azerbaijan, all of which are authoritarian and have committed numerous violations of human rights. If I were Kurdistani myself, I probably wouldn't want to live in these countries. And, I guess, Tibet can make a similar argument to this, though it's a lot harder to challenge China than it is to challenge Turkey and Iran. Eighthly, the Somaliland independence movement seems to be legitimate when comparing the nature of Somaliland to the nature of Somalia, which claims Somaliland as part of its territory. Granted, Somaliland has many issues that are still far from being solved, but Somalia is literally more famous for "Somalian pirates" than anything else, and I think that says a lot about the nature of that country. Interestingly enough, an American vessel once assisted a North Korean vessel in fending off Somalian pirates in 2007, marking the first and, as of yet, only time in history that North Korean and American forces have worked together. Apparently, North Koreans and Americans, who usually hate each other intensely, can unite against a common enemy that originates from the turbulent country of Somalia, which, mind you, has been engaged in endless civil wars from the day that it was established (give or take). The de facto independence of Somaliland from Somalia is legitimised alone by the fact that Somaliland's crime rates, murder rates, and terrorism rates are all lower than those of Somalia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't really respond properly to your comment, did I? I think, you should not be looking for evidence that the Yuyencian independence movement is a conspiracy, but rather that it is legitimate. In my opinion, though I haven't really looked into this, the Yuyencian independence movement is probably so obscure that there are only fewer than 10 independent articles on the internet that actually make a commentary on the legitimacy of the movement. So, you are probably more likely to find resources supporting the legitimacy of the movement than the illegitimacy of the movement since only those people who have manufactured this movement and thus care about this movement, who could probably all live together in a single apartment unit, have actually bothered to write articles and books and theses about this movement. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, however in my perspective, Yuyencian movement is legitimate. I realized that the leader of the movement was a Catholic extremist, but it does not mean the entire movement is. It is indeed obscure. Of course the final result is in an conspiracy manner rejected. Opinions respected also. Now moving on to the next topic, 'Jinland', the one which advocates for the total independence of the Jin Chinese speakers, which will be on a different section either later, we shall discuss about Jinland separatism in the future. There is allegedly 2 organizations advocating for such a movement Parliament of Jinland Confederation and Liberty League of Jinland, according to them. The Liberty League of Jinland is a political organization in exile whose aim is to awaken the national identity of the people speaking Jin language or living in the region of Jin culture, to establish the sovereign state of Jin, to protect and promote independence, liberty, equality, and human rights of the Jin people. ExplodingPoPUps 06:51, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

For an independence movement to be even remotely legitimate, it needs to have an actual group of people who actually support it (such as an ethnic group or a political party). I hadn't ever heard of the Yuyencian independence movement until you brought it up and I doubt that many people support it. However, I will give it the benefit of the doubt, for now, and presume that some people do support it (even if this might only amount to a small cult). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding "Jinland", a territory roughly analogous with Jinland was briefly quasi-independent during the Chinese Warlord Era and World War II (the Second Sino-Japanese War), if I'm remembering this correctly. The people of "Jin" speak a unique variant of Chinese (Jin Chinese) that seems to be related to Mandarin Chinese. The geography of Jinland is also somewhat distinct from that of the rest of China, with the territory being located largely in what is now Inner Mongolia and Shanxi. I honestly don't believe that there's much grassroots support for Jinland independence, but speakers of Jin Chinese do have a somewhat unique identity, similar to Cantonese people and Hoklo people. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

More separatists in mainland China allegedly.

There is more movements than anticipated, and I mentioned 'Jinland' in the last section. There are 12 or 11 missing separatist movements in China that you never added.

Gestneseland. Now for Gestneseland. In my perspective. It shouldn't be a separate entity and the Guangdong part of the claimed territory of Gestneseland should be part of Cantonia. I’m very unsure if the Gestneselish National Heroes exists, but it is mentioned here. https://medium.com/@LiuZhongjing/gestneselish-national-heroes不斷補充ing-ea832b2950f

And if it did exist. I think according to my research. It is the only mentioned organization trying to advocate for it.

The next is Diantnam. I think the Yi claims some of Yunnan or the so called 'Diantnam'. But Diantnam also claims most of the territory from Yunnan. There is an advocacy group like Free 'Diantnam'. I think just like Gestneseland, it is the only advocacy group supporting that.

The next is Yehetland. Which claims most of the territory of only Guizhou. Unfortunately, I couldn't discover any movements relating to Yehetlandish independence, moving on.

Next up, Fuhsiangria. As the majority of the territory and a province they claim is Hunan. Although there is no organization, unless it has only 1. One advocacy group is allegedly just named 'Fuhsiangria'. It has some supporters for that kind of independence movement.

Finally, to Komeseland. It has an advocacy group known as the 'Komland Independence Movement'. About the modern day the so-called Komland or Komeseland or simply Jiangxi, as said before. Known as komland to Kom regionalists. According to the modern day situation in Komland in the separatist view: Komland, or Komeseland/Jiangxi, is an independent nation now occupied by China. Fight Chinazi and win our freedom back! They also say K.I.M is an organization which aims at the independence of Komland, also known as KiangSi or Jiangxi, and to the end of China Occupation. K.I.M was founded on June 2017. And they say declared independence in March 1912/1913. Then the alleged historical state of the Kom state back around 107 years ago was the Yu clique.

Next is Hakkaland. The problem however is my attempted search on that movement ended up in some restaurant named Hakkaland, so moving on.

Next up, it is Goetland, mostly comprises and majorly claims the Zhejiang Province. There is 2 organizations relating to Goetland. One it is Goetland TV, another it is Free Goetland. And it is the sole advocacy group, advocating for Goetlander independence.

Now, time for Chaoshania, unfortunately. There is no English-search based evidence about the Chaoshania independence, since most I could find it is things relating to farming, moving on to Jinchuria. Not to be confused with Jinland. Since I also wish to request an addition of Jinland. Since explained, there is and advocacy group for that independence for the Jin Chinese speakers.

Continuing on Jinchuria, the claimed territory of Jinchurian regionalists/separatists is mostly on the Province of Hubei. What I found about Jinchurian separatists that there is a lot of advocates. An an organization named 'Dramaturg-Free Jinchuria'.

Moving on to Chianghuelia. The claimed territory of Chianghuelian regionalists is most of the Jiangsu Province and half of Anhui. Just like many or most of the introduced separatist/regionalists entities. There is one advocacy group, which is the Liberty of Chianghuelia.

Now, it is Yeavania, or partially now called Yvuania. Although that entity does not control any majority of the provinces of China. But it does claim control borderlands and subprefectures particularly in Northwest Hubei and Southwest Henan. And I’m not certain if it does have an advocacy group. But I think it has.

Next up, it's Kuanlungnia mostly composed of some of Ningxia and Shaanxi, sadly. I barely find any advocacy groups backing up the independence of Kuanlungnia.

So finally. The last one is Tshiechuria, mostly composed of Shandong Province. There is one advocate organizations supporting the independence of Tshiechuria. ExplodingPoPUps 21:44, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I cannot read Chinese nor am I very fluent in Chinese speech. As such, I am unable to use information from the Mandarin Wikipedia as well as various other Chinese Wikipedias (e.g. Cantonese Wikipedia). Regarding the distinction between significant and fringe secessionist movements in China, I do think it's telling that Tibet, Inner Mongolia, Hong Kong, Macau, Lhasa (Tibet), Urumqi (Xinjiang), and Hohhot (Inner Mongolia) are all better-known outside of China by their foreign names rather than their Mandarin Chinese names. Xinjiang is not very well known by the name "East Turkestan", though I'd say that both names are roughly equally as obscure. The region "Dongbei" is better known as "Manchuria", suggesting that there is a significant secessionist movement in the region, but the Manchurian independence movement is actually insignificant because most Manchus cannot speak the Manchu language and are loyal to Beijing. The current "Manchurian government in exile" is based on a Japanese puppet state that existed in Manchuria during the 1930s–1940s, so that automatically reduces its credibility by a great margin. Regarding the Guangdong and Shanghai (Wu/Goetsu) independence movements, I personally view both movements as fairly obscure since some of the most pro-Beijing people in all of China originate from Guangdong and Shanghai, by virtue of those two regions being exceedingly wealthy in comparison to the rest of China; hence, people from Guangdong and Shanghai tend to have much faith in the Chinese government, despite the fact that they speak Cantonese and Shanghainese as their native languages, rather than Mandarin Chinese. Regarding some of these other independence movements that you've listed here, most of them are either very unpopular or are outright fabrications. Often, it's very difficult to distinguish between these two things. Generally, I don't view religiously-driven independence movements with much sincerity since they obviously have ulterior motives, and are, therefore, not genuine. The Xinjiang independence movement is religiously-driven in some aspects, but I think there are also cultural and economic aspects at play, there. Whereas, with independence movements such as "Yuyencia", I don't think there is any real reason for this region to become independent, at least from an outsider's perspective. The purely religiously-driven nature of the Yuyencian independence movement renders it illegitimate. Not to mention that hardly anyone supports the Yuyencian independence movement... Existing support for the movement amounts to some kind of cult or conspiracy. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:25, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

That list addition or separatist movements isn't the same as Yuyencia. In fact, This is nothing to do with Yuyencia or Christian extremism. You might have to research about these proposed separatist movements before you reply, The number of more separatist movements listed is yet to be added on the List of active separatist movements in Asia. And about research, please take your time. And also, this is nothing to do with Manchuria or Manchukuo. ExplodingPoPUps 19:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Formosan

Please note that disambiguation pages like Formosan are meant to help readers find a specific existing article quickly and easily. For that reason, they have guidelines that are different from articles. From the Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
• Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry that mentions the title being disambiguated
• Do not include entries for topics that are not ambiguous
• Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
• Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
• Do not insert external links or references - Wikipedia is not a business directory

Discussions of the origin and Thank you. Leschnei (talk) 12:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a major problem with the page "Formosan" because all of the entries in the article only relate to Formosa, the island in East Asia, whereas there are several other regions called "Formosa", such as Formosa, Argentina. Note that the disambiguation article Formosa_(disambiguation) lists other regions that are also known as "Formosa". /// Another complaint that I have is that the term "Formosan" in reference to people groups refers not only to Taiwanese indigenous peoples but also to Taiwanese people as a whole. I understand that certain institutions designate Taiwanese indigenous peoples as "Formosans", most notably in regard to the Formosan languages. However, in reference to people, I've seen Taiwanese people being referred to as "Formosan" in history books from Australia, of all places. I'm not sure why the term "Formosan" has now come to refer specifically to Taiwanese indigenous peoples... surely, the term "Indigenous Formosan" would make more sense? "Formosan" is, essentially, a synonym of "Taiwanese", so you'd expect the two terms to have similar usages. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2020 (UTC)