26 ms·

Not even that subtle. For instance, declaring that Taiwan is a country despite the fact that it isn’t recognized as such by most of the world. That was such a b

by teloli 6y ago

Not even that subtle. For instance, declaring that Taiwan is a country despite the fact that it isn’t recognized as such by most of the world. That was such a big deal that it was met with triumph by Taiwanese media: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3948149 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3948149 Don’t get me wrong, I support the cause of Taiwanese independence, but facts are facts. I also think that the Basque Country should be independent, and yet it would be factually incorrect to claim that it’s a country.

matkoniecz 6y ago
The clear difference is that (for now) Taiwan acts as a separate country while Basque is not doing this.
ant6n 6y ago
The „cause of Taiwanese independence“. That’s a bit silly, since it’s really the PRC that split off from China and Taiwan is the continuation of the old republic. Did Taiwan in the 70s, when other countries changed their ties to China to recognize the PRC but not Taiwan, on the pressure of the more powerful PRC, suddenly lose its Independence? All the complicated history and political issues you can read about on Wikipedia btw.
- teloli 6y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement
sellyme 6y ago
Surely if anyone's pushing an agenda of the Taiwan issue it's the geopolitical entities that have extremely strong financial incentives to do so. If you define "country" as being an entity recognised as a country by some percentage of other countries, then sure, you'd exclude Taiwan. But Wikipedia worked out pretty quickly that this is a terrible definition when a thousand microstates all recognised each other but didn't recognise any "actual countries", and then claimed that Belgium no longer existed. So instead they use a policy of "does this geopolitical entity operate in the way that humans typically understand countries to operate". Taiwan passes that check.
- teloli 6y ago
  Either the entities themselves, or good faith individuals that are so exposed to the storytelling of one of the two parties as to consider it factual truth instead of just one of the possible ways to look at the world. That being said, I imagine that if for the US the issue is so important as to repeatedly send their warships all the way to the South China Sea for it, trying to exercise some influence over the content of a wiki page would be quite a low-hanging fruit in comparison.

by teloli 6y ago

matkoniecz 6y ago

The clear difference is that (for now) Taiwan acts as a separate country while Basque is not doing this.

ant6n 6y ago

The „cause of Taiwanese independence“. That’s a bit silly, since it’s really the PRC that split off from China and Taiwan is the continuation of the old republic. Did Taiwan in the 70s, when other countries changed their ties to China to recognize the PRC but not Taiwan, on the pressure of the more powerful PRC, suddenly lose its Independence? All the complicated history and political issues you can read about on Wikipedia btw.

teloli 6y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence_movement

sellyme 6y ago

Surely if anyone's pushing an agenda of the Taiwan issue it's the geopolitical entities that have extremely strong financial incentives to do so. If you define "country" as being an entity recognised as a country by some percentage of other countries, then sure, you'd exclude Taiwan. But Wikipedia worked out pretty quickly that this is a terrible definition when a thousand microstates all recognised each other but didn't recognise any "actual countries", and then claimed that Belgium no longer existed. So instead they use a policy of "does this geopolitical entity operate in the way that humans typically understand countries to operate". Taiwan passes that check.

teloli 6y ago
Either the entities themselves, or good faith individuals that are so exposed to the storytelling of one of the two parties as to consider it factual truth instead of just one of the possible ways to look at the world. That being said, I imagine that if for the US the issue is so important as to repeatedly send their warships all the way to the South China Sea for it, trying to exercise some influence over the content of a wiki page would be quite a low-hanging fruit in comparison.