Talk:Taiwan/Archive 8

Taiwanese people

Hi, there's a dispute here involving an anon who is trying to push the POV that the Han Chinese ethnicity does not include speakers of Wu (吳語), Min (閩語), Hakka (客家話) or Cantonese (粵語), with the conclusion being that the Hoklo and Hakka are not Han Chinese. The basis of his definition is genetic: in short, southerners with Baiyue (百越) admixture are not true Han Chinese.

In fact, the entire Taiwanese people article is extremely messy. After several POV-pushing attempts, it now appears to say the same thing three or four times from different angles. The article needs to be cleaned up or merged into Demographics of Taiwan.

Please come take a look if you're interested.

-- ran (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC) 操你老母，汉语七大方言，你他妈没学过别乱说！

WTO nomenclature

I appreciate that the status of Taiwan relative to China is a deeply controversial and divisive point, but hope all concerned will have patience with me on this question: The "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu's (Chinese Taipei)" paragraph (currently residing in the Economy section) seems to me to be oddly situated. I came to the article looking for that WTO nomenclature, and found no mention of it under "foreign relations", which is surely where it ought to be? (Adhib) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

GA Failed

Unfortunately, I have had to fail this article for GA. Please consider GA criteria:

1. Well Written Structure is a minor issue. I would move the current political situation until after the history section. Seems more appropriate.
2. Factually Accurate and Verifiable This is THE MAJOR issue. Several sections are unreferenced. Please add references for ALL assetions of fact or criticism. Someone has added {{fact}} tags for a few statements, but there are MANY other problems. Almost every section is in need of referencing at some point.
3. broad in its coverage All good here!
4. NPOV Good job on providing a neutral and fair assessment for an article that has a HIGH danger of becoming POV.
5. Stable It is stable
6. Images Also some problems. Several images have copyright issues raised on the image pages. For example: ROC calendar.jpg is just one. There are others.

Please make corrections and feel free to renominate when these corrections are made! --Jayron32 21:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Map of ROC != Taiwan != ROC ?

Someone keeps removing the map of Taiwan i.e.,

General map of Taiwan.

with some edit summary about ROC not being Taiwan. Please provide a map of what you think comprises of the territories of Republic of China or stop removing it. The article clearly states that "Today the Republic of China is often known as "Chinese Taipei" or "Taiwan"." so I do not see the problem with using this map. Ideally explain this nuance here before removing the map again. Ttiotsw 09:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have once again inserted the map of Taiwan (image) that was deleted from the article. I am NOT arguing with you regarding ROC's claims to all of China - that is a fact. But, in turn, I ask that other editors you acknowledge the FACT that ROC is currently PHYSICALLY located on Taiwan, and the FACT that such a map IS useful to readers.

I have moved the map to a different section, and removed all wording in the caption of the map that might be misunderstood. If an editor feels that the caption of the map is wrong, please CHANGE THE CAPTION. The caption CAN be edited. Please do NOT remove the entire map if you disagree with the caption. (Hopefully, the caption, and the location of the map, are about as neutrally placed as possible.)

If any editor still feels that the map does not belong in the article, it is important that to explain HERE (not simply in an edit summary) why this is so, so that other editors can respond to such concerns, and there can be a dialog about this. John Broughton | Talk 00:15, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have changed my mind, based on a very reasonable comment posted on my talk page, which I'm copying to here:

I felt that the geography map of Taiwan is not necessary in the Republic of China article because the article already included a political division map of Taiwan in the "Political Division" section. The article is talking about the government of the Republic of China, not Taiwan. However, the map is appropriate if you add a geography section into the article, which it is currently lacking, with appropriate link to Geography of Taiwan article. --Will74205 02:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with Will74205 about the need for a geography section in this article - there is one in the article named Taiwan, about the island, and that's exactly the right place. Oddly, that article didn't have the map being discussed here, so I've added it to that article. In any case, I hope this concludes the discussion of the map, and I apologize for blundering around on this. John Broughton | Talk 02:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

While every other place contains the geographical section, it seems like an appropriate map to put. Unless you want to take out every geographical section for every place as well. " Eric Shih | Talk 03:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article_size

• I noticed over-detailed information in Political status section. WP:NOT#PAPER. Please don't put too much detail in this page. Feel free to put it in Political status of Taiwan. Please benefit the general public of wikipedia readers. Tonytypoon 23:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree. The section of Taiwan's political status in the Republic of China article should be shortened to two paragraphs. The article Political status of Taiwan has everything one possibly wants to know. (Sarcastic remark on my part: Of course, we could add flash or java based games as well as a YouTube video in the Political status of Taiwan article to attract school kids. We could say, for more information about Taiwan's political status, go to the Political Status of Taiwan article, where you can play video games about this topic, sing Karaoke songs about this topic, and watch a Gone With the Wind movie trailer about this topic.) Allentchang 01:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

About the Taiwanese economy through the 50's, 60's 70's and 80's.

Hello... I have recently updated (again) that article, the taiwan miracle. It now reads as follows:

If any member erases any paragraph, I's like to know why... Thx

The Taiwan Miracle

Note: I have removed the text in this section, which was simply a copy of the (lengthy) text inserted into the article. Talk pages are NOT the place to duplicate what is in the article. Any text added to the article is always available via a prior version of the page (accessible via the History tab). Talk pages should contain article text ONLY (a) if the article is locked, preventing edits, or (b) when arguments over what goes in the article are so strong that editors agree to discuss changes outside of the article first, to prevent edit/revert wars. Neither is the case here. John Broughton | Talk 00:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The Official name of the Republic of China....

... is the name given in the Constitution of the Republic of China. Government websites do not legal authority over the constitution of the country.

Also, PRC propaganda uses "Taiwan", not the "Republic of China", to refer to the ROC. -- ran (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, technically the PRC uses "Taiwan" to refer to Taiwan, the island; "Taiwan Area" to refer to the areas administered by the ROC, and "the Taiwan authorities" to refer to the ROC. --Sumple (Talk) 10:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

actually i don't see the point as to how it is refered to being a factor to the official name, i can call USA -> america, but that doesn't mean i think or has changed it's official name to America, i just use it because it is easier to indentify, no? -_-" Akinkhoo 14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

But in chinese, shouldn't it be Taiwan Mínguó, not Jhonghuá Mínguó? If it's Republic of Taiwan, then its chinese is Taiwan Mínguó. Plus the flag is ROC's flag, not the proposed Taiwan Republic flag.141.212.51.24 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons?

This article doesn't touch one question I had about this nation ... does Taiwan have nuclear weapon capability? More specifically, do they have the ability to strike at the PRC with any kind of tactical or strategic nuclear weapon? --pagemillroad 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

see Republic of China and weapons of mass destruction.BlueShirts 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

okay, can somebody edit the article to add this information and link to the other article? --pagemillroad 18:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

How many countries recognise this country?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4190295.stm

Says that there are now 26 countries that recognise Taiwan. The article is dated though. Is it out of date? Balfron 14:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The State Department Web site also carries the figure of 26 ("diplomatic" recognition): http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm

It is worth noting that while there is only one authority for recognition in a formal de jure sense -- the foreign ministry -- states effectively "recognize" (de facto) territories and/or governments for different purposes (commerce, public health, military interests...). A government which has stable and effective control over a territory needs to be dealt with, and if (as is the case with Taiwan/ROC it is on a synthetic "private" basis (and as regards AIT Taiwan everybody knows the staffmembers are career Foreign Service Officers)) that is, for all practical purposes except propaganda and international law, "recognition".

One step down are commercially significant, even democratic, territories like the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (its passports, unlike Taiwanese ones, are not "recognized" (i.e., directly visaed) by most, perhaps any, countries. But unlike, say, Sudanese or Somali passports they are at least accepted for identification purposes.

Another issue is recognition and perhaps enforcement of the administrative and judicial acts of an unrecognized government. To refuse recognition to a divorce (marriages valid where made are virtually never unrecognized unless they are a violation of public policy -- usually because they are incestuous or polygamous) as happened in the Adams case (holding abrogated by statute): see the two English cases regarding Rhodesia: http://uniset.ca/other/cs6/1971P188.html (Adams, divorce) http://uniset.ca/microstates/james.html (James, bankruptcy). Personal status and property rights (adoption, probate ...) are usually recognized as a matter of "comity". But, as with Adams, there may be a domestic impediment.

Foreign ministries sometimes say that they recognize "states" and not "governments". "State succession" is a particular element of international law, and it comes to bear whenever there is decolonization or otherwise a separation of, or merger of, states. Pragmatism enters into this; and consensus and regional attitudes. And, most especially, the views of predecessor governments and allies: think of Ethiopia/Eritrea (and African territories generally).

Andygx 18:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Countries navigation menus at bottom

I hate these. They are huge and contain links of limited relevance. Would anyone object if I simply deleted them? --Ideogram 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed. If you want them back, please discuss. --Ideogram 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Difference?

What is the main difference between the Peoples republic of china and the Republic of China. I see these as two different articles. Could someone please clarify what the differentiation is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.225.94.75 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Perhaps you might consider reading the article in question? -Changlc 05:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Political Status

Ideogram, I think the phrase "Whereas the Republic of China administers themselves as an independent sovereign country with a democratically elected President and government" does have a place in the article. I think it is one point both the green and blue camps agree upon. I think it should be left in to balance the argument from the PRC. Wenzi 04:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on this. Whatever consensus is is fine with me. --Ideogram 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No objection here, though I'm betting that line is likely to become a future flashpoint. -Loren 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah go ahead and add it, as it's one major difference between us and the commies. BlueShirts 08:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV: Taiwan/Republic of China

PLEASE RESOLVE BEFORE REMOVING NPOV

The Taiwan and Republic of China articles need to be reorganized. There has been a consistent effort to try to define a Republic of China government that is not really a part of Taiwan in order for it to seem to be a controversy between an ROC that is either an illegitimate government in exile on Taiwan or a legitimate government in exile on Taiwan but whose real territory is all of China. This is a Chinese nationalist position because as you can see, the result either way is to try to portray the government of Taiwan as related to China and thus Taiwan as being a part of China. The reason we have the articles we have is to force a history on Taiwan that says it is a Chinese (politically) government. Taiwan? Why it's just an island, and has no political history. Only the ROC has a history and its history is Chinese. This is what Wikipedia is trying to force down people's throats.

Well, 90% of Taiwan does not take this view and strongly disagrees that the ROC is either an illegitimate government (Taiwan is a democracy) or that the ROC is the "true" government of all of China. People may take different views about whether in the future to declare indepedence or unify with China. Citizens can be very unhappy with the government here. But they do not take to armed uprisings and generally work through elections, peaceful protests, and other democratic means to make their views heard. Nothing about politics in Taiwan would indicate that there is a normal view that the ROC is some kind of foreign entity currently residing in Taiwan. Why does Wikipedia try to do this?--DownUnder555 12:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course Taiwan has a political history. It was governed by the Qing, contested by the European colonials, then Japan, then the ROC. Whad do you mean it hasn't a political history, just an island? And where does the article imply that ROC is a foregin government? I'm sorry but your writing is very unclear. BlueShirts 00:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

By using the wording "Taiwan is currently administered by the ROC" throughout Taiwan/ROC articles, Wikipedia is implying that Taiwan is just some kind of geographic entity and that the ROC is the political entity and that Taiwan and the ROC are separable. Wikipedia further makes the claim that THE POLITICAL ENTITY CURRENTLY RESIDING ON TAIWAN HAS ITS HISTORY THAT OF A POLITICAL ENTITY THAT RULED CHINA. This is a very minority point of view in Taiwan. If you don't believe me, read the papers. Everyone here views the government as Taiwan whose formal name is the ROC. Its political history is intertwined with the Republic of China 1911-1940s but it is not identical with it. Most members of the democracy on Taiwan today, the one called ROC, but not identical to the entity that ruled China (and did not rule Taiwan until after World War 2), see themselves as Taiwanese. Ask anyone here what country they live in. 90% of people will tell you Taiwan, not ROC, and never China. Why does Wikipedia think they are smarter than the people who live here? BlueShirts, by his own admission, is political partisan. How many people do you think have your political views in Taiwan Blueshirts? Give a percentage. I won't bias it. You give a number. Taiwan and ROC articles need to be merged.--DownUnder555 20:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Merriam Webster Dictionary. They link Republic of China right over to Taiwan: [1]

Republic of China is different from People's Republic of China, what's so hard to understand? I think the majority of people on Taiwan know their state's name is Jhonghuaminguo, not Jhonghuaremingonheguo. Everyone's partisan on some issues, and you're obviusly very pan-green on this one. At least I have the guts to admit I'm partisan on this instead of hiding behind "NPOV". And you still haven't answered why you say Taiwan hasn't a political history. BlueShirts 05:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

By your definition, the United States today is not the same as one that formed in 1776 and people shouldn't claim that they are the same government. The ROC has one continuous history from 1911 to present. I have no problem with the claim and "fact" that "the ROC is the government that currently administrates Taiwan and some outlying islands", and its history goes way back to its time at the mainland between 1911 and 1949. --Will74205 21:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

If you look into the archives, a poll to have the article split was thoroughly defeated last September. There's nothing new that you have offered here. I disagree with your blanket statements. "Taiwan is currently administered by the ROC" is a statement of fact, reflecting the de facto arrangement, whose de jure status is disputed by the PRC and extreme independence elements. The vast majority of people in Taiwan support the ROC for the time being, but popular support in itself does not dictate what goes into article.

Please back up your blanket statements with newspaper article implying the contrary "Taiwan is not administered by the ROC" call into account factual accuracy of statements in the article.--Jiang 02:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Navigation templates

I hate these. They take up a huge amount of room and display tons of links in the hope that they will interest the reader. They are just like spam.

You know, Wikipedia already has a solution to the navigation problem. They are called Categories. Down at the bottom there is a nice neat list of category links that the user can click on to go to lists of articles related by category.

I have no idea why Categories aren't used. Everything you want to do with a navigation template can be done by creating a Category with the contents of the template and placing the article in that Category, or placing "see also" links to those Categories in the article. If the Category you want to use is poorly maintained and has a lot of junk, clean it up. --Ideogram 06:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Simple, with a navigational template, you don't have to navigate away from the article itself to see what other article are related. The templates provide quick information that's already displayed on the article on how an article is related to other articles. Plus, can you navigate to multiple categories on the same browser window? No. Well, you can see multiple navigational templates on the same article. They basically act as menus. And a category can't nearly compensate for the information that a template like Template:Buddhism might provide without ever browsing away from the article itself. Let's say you're reading about Buddha, the template actually shows you that there are some articles about notable Buddhist texts, and you can just click right on it to go read it. With categories, you'd be blind-clicking on one of the categories, not knowing what's actually contained in the categories, hoping that it might suggest somethign you're actually interested in, and you won't even be able to do that unless you keep clicking around on sub-categories. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't bother me if the nav templates didn't take up so much space. But if you aren't interested in Buddhist texts then all that space is wasted. And it gets much worse in this case where we have nav templates for all the countries that could possibily be connected to ROC. You need to seriously consider the fact that these things take up too much space and usually are not interesting to the reader. --Ideogram 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it can be a space issue. But in the context of this article, all those nav templates are stuck at the bottom, and they are all shrunk in size unless the reader presses "show" (at least that's how it shows up on my screen). How much of an inconvenience can that be? You don't want to read it, then don't press "show". You need more space at the bottom? Just insert more text there. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Even a full horizontal line per template is too much space. And look at some of those templates: who is going to be interested in other "Sino-Tibetan-speaking countries and territories"? Most of this information can be easily seen by anyone looking at a map. Somebody has gone too far. --Ideogram 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, if you're not interested in any of it, don't press "show" on them, and don't click on any of them. But there are readers that might be interested and could use them. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the claim is not that I am not interested in them. The claim is that most readers won't be interested in them. Throwing up junk that most readers won't be interested in to reach the ones who will be interested is called spam. --Ideogram 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me make this clear. You have to balance the likelyhood that information will be interesting to the reader against the space it takes up. You clearly cannot just throw everything that some readers "might" be interested in in the article. If there was a single button or link (like the category list at the bottom) that readers could click on to show this information, that would be fine. --Ideogram 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You know, we have links in the text. Those are in context and directly related. If a reader is interested in "Countries of Asia" they are much better off looking at the category. --Ideogram 23:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Templates are often useful, but many new WP editors seem to think creating new templates is a way to get recognized and we get lots of useless ones. It's an interesting navigational/organizational method but it isn't how WP is designed. SchmuckyTheCat 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Be sure to check out the solution I implemented and let me know what you think. --Ideogram 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I like what you've done. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, nice solution. But I would vote to remove the Sino-Tibetan template, after reading this. mceder (u t c) 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

ROC as a state?

The PRC, by being a permanent UN security council member, is by definition a founding member of UN. Therefore either ROC is not a founding member of the UN, or else the PRC and ROC are just different governments representing the same state. We know the later is true because UN resolution No. 2758 said so explicitly. Furthermore if ROC was ever recognized as a state, no nation could "de-recognized" it --which many nations did, especially in the 70's-- because international law says that once state recognition is given, it can not be withdrawn, only governments could be "de-recognized". Hence it is obvious that ROC was never a state, only a government of China. Necessity 01:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is the citation that you can't "de-recognize" a state? Is this a legitimate question or just playing semantics? Blueshirts 07:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a wholly uncontroversial property of state recognition. See for example http://www.defac.ac.uk/colleges/csrc/document-listings/balkan/06(45)AW.pdf Once recognised a state can not and need not apply for recogition again. In other words, it can not be de-recognised if it fails to meet the conditions – as has been the case so far. It either has sovereignty or it has not. Here is another link that refers to this. http://www.uniset.ca/other/css/655FSupp1275.html Once the United States recognizes an entity as a sovereign state, however, a subsequent withdrawal of recognition of that state’s government does not effect a change in the underlying recognition of the state as an international juridical entity. See Restatement § 96 Comment b, at 310 (“Withdrawal of recognition of states>. No instance has been found where recognition of a state has been withdrawn except as an incident to its disappearance, as in the case of its absorption into another state.”); Oppenheim § 75g, at 151-52

There are other links, you can google them yourself. The fact of the matter is that ROC has never been recognized as a state in itself --distinct from China. So if you are saying China is a state in East Asia, fine. But if you are saying that ROC is a state in East Asia and China is a another state in East Asia (ie., Two Chinas) then that is extremely controversial and not only does it lead to historical paradoxes like those I mentioned above, but also violates the long standing consensus of the international community. And since Wikipedia is not to be used as a soapbox to advocate political positions, it makes most sense to regard ROC as a government instead of a state. Necessity 23:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

http://www.heritage.org/Research/AsiaandthePacific/BG1429.cfm says Taiwan meets all the definition of statehood and the 1979 diplomatic switch nothing happened on Taiwan itself to change its status from one thing to another. If it gets confusing we can just say that it's a "de facto state". Blueshirts 05:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan may meet all the definition of statehood, but the Republic of China and Taiwan are not one and the same. For example, the Republic of China fought with the Allies in WWII, but Taiwan did not fight with the Allies in WWII; the Republic of China was established in 1911, but Taiwan was not established in 1911; Sun Yat-Sen was the first president of the Republic of China, but Sun Yat-Sheng was not the first president of Taiwan, etc. This is a article about the Republic of China, not about Taiwan.Necessity 1:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Replace "Taiwan" with "Republic of China" in Blueshirts comment and you are in full agreement.--Jiang 07:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No I think there is a deeper problem here. See my suggestion below on disambiguating ROC . --Necessity 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

1) "Republic of China" is the name of a political entity ("conventional long form"), ie, a state that was once (or is) unofficially known as China, Formosa, or Taiwan ("conventional short form"). A state is not a government. A state must include a government, but it extends beyond that (e.g. territory, population). For example, 1970s and 1980s manufacturing labels carried "Made in the Republic of China" or "Made in Taiwan, ROC". The worthless plastic toy that carried such a label was not made inside a government, but within the territory controlled by that government. Calling the Republic of China a "government" is inaccurate.

2) For the reason given above, we cannot say the Republic of China "ruled China." But even if we accept the notion that state=government, then this is still not necessarily true because even during the Nanjing decade, vast pockets of territory were in the control of warlords, communists, and Russians (some of whom did not have official government sanction). Therefore, the government never ruled all of China, even though it was recognized as the sole legitimate authority by much of the world to do so.

3) The constitutive theory of statehood does not require diplomatic relations to be "recognized" as a state in international law. To be recognized as a state is to be recognized as the governing authority over a certain territory. To say that the ROC lacks "recognition as a state in the international community" is potentially misleading or inaccurate without qualifiers. What is lacks is diplomatic relations, not recognition as a state. The United States recognizes the existence of Cuba as a state, but it does not have diplomatic relations with it. The "unofficial" relations the ROC has with most countries in the world is evidence of widespread recognition of the soverignty of the ROC government over its territory.--Jiang 05:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The state denoted by the "Republic of China" is one and the same as the state denoted by the "People's Republic of China". That is why both the Republic of China is a founding member of the United nations and the "People's Republic of China" is also a founding member of the United Nations. Therefore as a state, the "Republic of China" is not unique and does not deserve a separate entry. It is the "Republic of China" in the sense of a government that is unique and deserves a seperate entry. .Necessity 1:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confusing the state with the nation. By your definition there is no difference between South Korea and North Korea since both claim to exist on the historical region of Korea or East Germany and West Germany since both claimed to represent Germany. -Loren 06:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"China" is a founding member of the UN. The UN considers the PRC to be the sucessor state of the ROC. This is reflected in the List of UN members. This official interpretation is not the ultimate truth. Even if we are to accept it, we cannot say "the Republic of China does not exist". We have to say "the Republic of China does not legitimately exist"--Jiang 07:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think we are talking about different things all at once. --Necessity 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

According to the definition of a state:

By modern practice and law of international relations, a state's sovereignty is not conditional upon the diplomatic recognition of the state's claim to \relations and treaties is conditional upon such recognition. Degrees of recognition and sovereignty may vary. However any degree of recognition, even the majority recognition, is not binding on third-party states.

"The legal criteria for statehood are not obvious. Often, the laws are surpassed by political circumstances. However, one of the documents often quoted on the matter is the Montevideo Convention from 1933, the first article of which states:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

A body satisfying those requirements (recognised or unrecognised) is a state... period. We can argue about the semantics all day but a state is a state, irrespective of whether others recognise it as such. The Earth didn't suddenly start orbiting the Sun when Galileo came around, the PRC didn't suddenly come into existence in 1972, and the ROC didn't suddenly cease to be a state. Like it or not there are currently two states in the world which call themselves "China", at least in their official titles. -Loren 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not true, but I don't want to get into that argument here. In any case, Wikipedia does not refer to Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, or Abkhazia as states, even though they all fulfill Montevideo criteria, so why should Taiwan be an exception?.Necessity 1:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not farmiliar with those cases, and so cannot comment on them, however I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that the ROC is the most significant of the mostly unrecognised states in the world today, as well as being unique in that it was at one time, widely recognised. Even though most relations are unofficial the ROC is significant enough that while most other states pay lip service to Beijing's interpretation of "One China which is the PRC of which Taiwan is a part", for all practical purposes they do treat the ROC as a sovereign state in their dealings. When was the last time France sold Mirage 2000s to Northern Cyprus or Somaliland? Is Abkhazia (or any of the other two you mentioned) listed in the CIA World Factbook? Are they seperate members of the WTO or other multinational organisations or international protocols? The fact is the ROC recieves treatment which far surpasses those other cases you brought up, and is, like it or not, a de facto state. -Loren 07:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

None of those states have de facto recognition. Their passports are not accepted all over the world and they do not have widespread diplomatic representation abroad. Recognition of sovereignty and diplomatic relations are not the same thing.--Jiang 07:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

France may not have supplied arms to Northern Cyprus, but US did supply arms to Tibetans, the Contras (Nigaraguan rebels) and Afgan insurgents (during Soviet occupation). Abkahazia may not be on CIA's World Factbook, but the European Union is. Neither Northern Cyprus, Somaliland or Abkahazia is a separate member of the WTO but Hong Kong, Macao, and the European Communities are. Hong Kong's passport, which is different from China's, is accepted worldwide. Turkey recognizes Northern Cyprus. Manchuria (Manchukuo) was diplomatically recognized by Japan, the Soviet Union, Vichy France, Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain and Nazi Germany. Japan even reocognized it as a state. But most people don't consider these to be states, therefore it is clear that none of these things entail statehood.--Necessity 12:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are their passports widely recognised? If I am to go to Tibet, do I apply for a visa at my nearest Tibetan embassy? And if I get one, is it honored once I get there? Despite issuing its own passports, does the government of Hong Kong consider itself to be independent of the People's Republic of China? Again, all those cases you bring up are different from the case of the ROC. -Loren 17:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Before the end of WWII, you could not enter Manchuria (Manchuquo) on a Chinese visa and the passports Manchuquo issued was accepted in at least Japan, the Soviet Union, Vichy France, Fascist Italy, Francoist Spain and Nazi Germany. The situation of other unrecognized states may not be identical with Taiwan's but what I want to show is simply that none of the facts you and others brought up in themselves imply statehood. But anyways this debate belongs in the article legal status of Taiwan. Its relevant only to the sense of ROC as a independent Taiwan state, and it is not an issue of ROC in the sense of China or ROC in the sense of a government. --Necessity 00:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The authority of the Hong Kong Immigration Department to control borders and issue passports has been explicitly delegated by the National People's Congress. The American Consulate-General in Hong Kong is subordinate to the U.S. Embassy in Beijing; the American Institute in Taiwan reports directly to the State Department. The internet TLD and calling code of TRNC are that of Turkey's. This is to counter your claim that the ROC is not recognized as sovereign, since a distinction must be made between recognition as a state and diplomatic relations.--Jiang 05:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, these things in themselves do not imply sovereignty. Hong Kong has its own TLD (.hk) and calling code (852). The United States has on numerous occasions expressed in that it does not recognize either ROC or Taiwan as sovereign. For example, on October 25, 2004, US Secretary of State Colin Powell stated: "Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation". And in US reply brief in the Court of Appeals in Gold~vater~C,.a rter 444 US 996 (1979) it is said that 'so far as the formal foreign relations of the United States are concerned, a government does not exist in Taiwan any longer' (See see pg 388 of MALCOLM N. SHAW's International Law 5th ed.) --Necessity

The U.S. stamps ROC passports. That is implicit recognition of sovereignty. Separate formal rhetoric from informal actions. Constitutive theory does not require official recognition. --Jiang 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The U.S. stamps Taiwan passports because Taiwan Relations Action mandates it in section 4(2), just as the U.S. stamps Hong Kong passports because the Hong Kong Policy Act of 1992 said "The United States should recognize passports and travel documents issued after June 30, 1997, by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." It does not imply recognition of sovereignty.

I think we've been through the constitutive theory already. Neither Wikipedia or international practice treat Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, or Abkhazia, Manchuguo as full-fledged states, even though under the constitutive theory they would be. Anyhow, if you think the constitutive theory makes Taiwan or ROC a state, then you should say ROC is a state according to the constitutive theory —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Necessity (talk • contribs) 08:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

None of the other countries that stamp ROC passports have passed the Taiwan Relations Act. This debate is off topic and has little relevance to the article itself.--Jiang 23:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking the stampping of pasports does not entail recognition. For example Malcolm N. Shaw writes in "International Law" (Cambridge 2003)

The issuing of a consular exeqtiatur, the accepted authorisation permitting the performance of consular functions, to a representative of an unrecognised state will usually amount to a recognition of that state, though not in all cases. A British Consul has operated in Taiwan, but the UK does not recognise the Taiwan government.

It goes on to quote:

The establishment of an office in the UK, for example, of an unrecognized entity is not as such prohibited nor does it constitute recognition: see e.g, with regard to the PLO, 483 HL Debs., cols. 1248-52, 27 ranuarp 1987 and UKMIL, 58 BYIL, 1987, p. 531. —The preceding --Necessity 12:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)unsigned comment was added by Necessity (talk • contribs) 12:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

- Of course ROC is state/country. I believe everyone knows the simple fact that since 1949 the reason why ROC has little diplomatic recognition is because any state that intends to have diplomatic relation with PRC must cut tie to ROC. It is a requirement to have no official diplomatic relation with ROC because of PRC's coercion to isolate ROC internationally and finally destroy ROC with all means necessary in exchange of PRC rule and that's why PRC insists on the One China policy (which means "ONLY" PRC, not China as a whole nor ROC).

Both Taipei and Beijing agree that there is only ONE CHINA. They do not agree on the issue of which is official government of China, but they do agree that there is only one China. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should not be for us to decide whether Taiwan should be recognized or not. We should simply state the fact that there are disputes over the subject. This debate, therefore, is completely irrelevant.

Republic of China needs disambiguation

A significant proportion of the controversies surrounding this topic arises from the fact that “Republic of China” really has three different meanings, and thus needs disambiguation. One is the Republic of China qua(as in) China, which was not only a recognized state but a founding member of UN and a victorious power in WWII. It was succeeded by the Peoples Republic of China. Then, there is the Republic of China qua government, which arguably continued to exist after the Chinese succession. It maintained de facto control of the islands of Taiwan, Kimen, Matzu, etc, but was derecognized en masse as a legitimate government of China beginning in the 70s. Finally, there is the Republic of China qua euphemism for an independent Taiwan state. Under this third meaning, the Republic of China is another name for Taiwan, and is wholly distinct from China, but is unrecognized and seeks membership in the UN.

In my view these three different meanings of the Republic of China belong to different pages. One possible way of doing this is that since ROC qua China is just another name for China, it should be merged with the page on China. ROC qua independent Taiwan state, is merely another name for Taiwan and therefore should be merged with the page on Taiwan or the page on the legal status of Taiwan. ROC qua government is unique in the sense that it continued to control parts of China after they ceased to be recognized as legitimate government of China, and yet until very recently, still strived for China’s unity. Therefore it deserves a separate page. Necessity 11:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As these meanings are very intimately connected and there is no completely clear division between them, your proposal would only obscure the presentation of the issue, which is already complicated enough for people to understand. Kusma ^t 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Half the problem is that even in Taiwan there is no consensus on what the ROC is. -Loren 17:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the distinctions are subtle but it is nontheless real, and it is the only way out of outright contradictions like:

1. The Republic of China is a member of UN's permanent security council (as is still written in Article 23.1 of UN's Charter), but the Republic of China still seeking UN membership.

2. The Republic of China is also known as Taiwan and should not be confused with China. However, Sun Yat-sen was the first president of ROC and the first president of China but he was not a president of Taiwan.

3. States can not be derecognized, but many nations derecognized ROC in the 70s.

There are plenty of separate articles on Wikipedia that are intemately connected. Lawrence of Arabia the person and Lawrence of Arabia the movie are intemately connected, and both pages say something about the other, but should Wikipedia make no distinction between the two we can expect editing wars on whether Lawrence of Arabia won the Oscars or Damascus. There are separate Wikipedia articles on the political status of Taiwan and legal status of Taiwan; the president of Taiwan and the president of ROC, etc. And one advantage we get by distinguishing the different meanings of ROC, the way I proposed, is that we can eliminate many of these essensially duplicate articles. So for example, President of Taiwan would be just the President of ROC qua Taiwan state.--Necessity 23:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Your three sentences do not exist in the article. 1) The Republic of China is not a member of the UN Security Council. 2) These two sentences do not belong in succession. The second sentence should be put in context and it is completely pointless to say he was not "president of Taiwan" as the title does not exist. 3) Many state severed diplomatic relations in the 1970s. It is not the same as being "derecognized".

While there is a clear line between the movie Lawrence and the historical Lawrence, the distinction among your purported three ROCs do not stand separately. On the other hand, this is not the case of a Republic of China being founded in one point in history, being destroyed completely, and then being reestablished in another - that would warrant separate articles. Here, there is some semblance of historical continuity - the dispute lies over the extent of this continuity. Are to create separate articles for Sun Yat-sen provision govt era, Yuan Shikai era, warlord era, Nationalist party on mainland era, Wang Jingwei government era, Nationalist party restored after Japanese surrender era, Nationalist party on Taiwan era, and Democratic Progressive Party era with all these articles named "Republic of China"? Are we going to create a new United States article for each time a state was added to the Union, or in the very least, separate the Articles of Confederation (confederacy era) from the Constitution (republic era)? The premise being floated here is ridiculous. In the case of the ROC, there are so many different interpretations, with each a subject of political controversy, that they have to be all discussed on the same page. These definitions are competing and deemed mutually exclusive by their proponents. Wikipedia:Content forking is not allowed here.--Jiang 06:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia already has separate articles on the Provisional Government of the Republic of China, the Reformed Government of the Republic of China, Republic of China-Nanjing, and the Republic of China (Taiwan), despite your sentiment on what constitutes a "clear distinction". The fact of the matter is that the term the Republic of China is too vague. Like the term “the set of all sets”, it encompasses too many things, even contradictions. If some assertion in the three contradictory sentences I provided is not in the article, there is no reason why it couldn’t be. They are all true statements that can be said about the ROC.

UN Charter Article 23 still says

The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America shall be permanent members of the Security Council.

And one only need to look at UN records to see that until last year the Republic of China was still seeking UN membership, now as a new member. Everyone can agree that Sun Yat-Sen was a president of ROC and therefore a president of China. However many of the same people would consider Chen Shui-bien to be a president of ROC but not president of China. To say that these assertions need to be put into context is just to say that ROC in these two sentences has different meanings. It is a fact in international law that state recognition can not be withdrawn. On the other hand, it is also a fact in international law that many states did derecognize ROC. For a citation, see pg 388 of MALCOLM N. SHAW's International Law 5th ed.:

It is to be noted that the 1979 recognition of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China entailed the withdrawal of recognition or 'derecognition' of the Republic of China (Taiwan). This was explained to mean that, 'so far as the formal foreign relations of the United States are concerned, a government does not exist in Taiwan any longer'[US reply brief in the Court of Appeals in Gold~vater~C,.a rter 444 US 996 (1979)].

--Necessity 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Republic of China is not vague at all. Three of your examples were puppet governments from WWII and the other is a disambiguate page. I don't think anybody would confuse those with the state dating from 1911, and they probably haven't even heard of those at all. Blueshirts 18:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Few people would confuse Lawrence of Arabia the movie with Lawrence of Arabia the person either. But if we were to keep the two in one single article and not qualify about our meaning when we refer to Lawrence of Arabia, it would be very confusing indeed. Of course, nowadays many people probably haven't even heard of Lawrence of Arabia the person at all, but we still must mention it and disambiguate its uses. That is the function of an encyclopedia.--Necessity 10:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Those articles are on specific governments, not the state polity as a whole (think economy, culture, demographics, and other topics not directly related to the government). This article aims to be comprehensive. And as far as I know, the USSR is not a member of the UN. The UN Charter is not amended to reflect changes in membership. Both the ROC and USSR have been replaced by what the UN deems to be successor states. Note the term "formal" in your quote. Formal recognition is never a requirement for statehood in either political science definition.

As with anything controversial, there is nothing wrong with inherent contradictions among definitions. This is what this article should attempt to clarify. POV forks violate Wikipedia policy and cannot be tolerated.--Jiang 02:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is more important to be clear than comprehensive. An article on both plants as in factories and plants as in vegetation would be very comprehensive, but not very clear. Being connected in some way is not a sufficient reason for a mammoth encyclopedic article that encompasses all different uses of a term. 清華大學 in Beijing and 清華大學 in Taiwan bare the same name and are connected by a shared history. However, that is no enough reason to have only one article on the 清華大學.

The question on political or legal status of Taiwan is an interesting debate in itself. But this is not a place to deal with it and it is besides the point. I am perfectly willing to accept an article on the ROC (Taiwan) as an entity separate of China. But that is exactly why we must have another article on the (now historic) use of Republic of China which referred to China. These two concepts are irreducible to one another. In legal vernacular, they constitute two separate legal personalities, which entails different rights and responsabilities in the international community. Having been recognized internationally as the sole legitimate government of China, PRC has acquired the legal personality of the original ROC, and along with it, the right to seat in UN's permanent security council, to repatriate Hong Kong and Macao, commemorate 60th anniversary of WWII with other Allied victors in Moscow, for example. Whereas ROC (Taiwan), whom now exists as a separate international person, doesn't have these rights. It is misleading to write both that ROC is a state distinct from China, and that also a victorious power in WWII. Readers, after finish reading this article should not get the impression that China was not a victorious power in WWII and Taiwan, which in actuality fought with the Axis, is a victorious power in WWII.

We already have separate articles: China, People's Republic of China, Republic of China, and Taiwan. This is a controversial issue and to be clear you also have to be comprehensive. How many times do I have to say that POV forks are not allowed? National Tsinghua University and Tsinghua University are currently separate institutions, just like People's Republic of China and Republic of China are today separate polities. The disambiguation you would want to look for is at China.

The use of either "China" or "Taiwan" to refer to the Republic of China are a matter of semantics and propaganda and should not dictate whether we have one article or two. It is like saying United Kingdom should be a disambiguation page because people called it Great Britain before the end of WWII while they call it "the UK" in the present day. The two uses are not separate and are not mutually exclusive. The President of "China" attended the funeral of Pope John Paul II. He sat next to the president and first lady of Brazil.--Jiang 20:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A fork is the creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject. Creating one article for Great Britain and one for UK would be a fork, because, in spite of the name change, it continued to have the same legal personality. But ROC before the end of WWII referred to China, and ROC now commonly refers to Taiwan, an entity separate from China. So they are not the same entity by definition. Therefore it is not a even a fork, not to say a POV fork.

When Cheng Sui-bien was invited to Pope JPII's funeral, he was not invited because the Vatican thinks there is some kind of continuation from ROC(China) to ROC(Taiwan), an entity separate from China. He was invited as the representative of ROC meaning China period. The Vatican currently still regards ROC as the sole legitimate government of China and does not recognize the PRC. This kind of equivocation is why we need to disambiguate this term. --Necessity 06:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You may call something by different names during different periods of time, as you point out, but there is arguably legal and political continuity between the current regime in Taipei and the one formerly in Nanjing. To say that we should split articles simply because the conventional short form has changed is the create two out of one. The basis of your argument is on conventional names (an extension of international politics) and nothing else (domestic circumstances).

You mean to say A-bian is President of three different states under your disambiguation scheme? He is the president of the Republic of China, as recognized by the Vatican to be China, the president of the Republic of China, as in the independent Taiwan as he he claims himself, and the president of the Republic of China, as in the government controlling the territories of Taiwan etc. as he is constitutionally vested? Today, there is only one Republic of China, not three, and this Republic of China continues to hold characteristics of all three Republic of Chinas you claim to have existed.--Jiang 23:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The view that there is a continuity between the current regime in Taipei and the one formally in Nanjin was a myth touted by the Nationalist to justify its continual rule of Taiwan and other islands. The international community's recognition of PRC as the sole legitemate of China meant that there is no continuation between Taipei and Nanjin. Today it’s a minority view even in Taiwan, and it’s a view that even the Taipei authorities no longer pretends to hold.{{Clarify|date=March 2007}}

Your first sentence is highly debatable. Your second sentence presents a view promoted by no one. Your third sentence is just not true. If you find something problematic in the article, cite the specific statements and provide outside sources to make your point. See WP:NOR.--Jiang 22:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

No matter you agree or not, the current Republic of China in Taipei is still the same entity as the one proclaimed in 1911. It is true its international recognition, as well as the majority of its territories, are taken over by the People's Republic of China. Yet the government in Taipei is still inheriting what was brought from Nanking. Chen Shui Bian is currently serving the 11th term, counting from 1947 before the relocation. Nobody considered Chiang Kai Shek Taiwanese president during his life. It is more correct to describe the changes as a continuum than several discrete entities. - Privacy 20:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Reorganize archived discussion by topics

It seems that once in a while, some people just keep raising the same question about the ROC over and over again, so I think we should reorganize the archived discussion by topics so people can see that the question they raised had been asked before numerous times. --Will74205 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation of Republic of China

Please note that zh:中華共和國 is also translated as "Republic of China" in English. Therefore, please do not remove the notice "For the short-lived anti-Kuomintang state also known as Republic of China (中華共和國), see Fujian People's Government." before a thorough discussion. --GnuDoyng 05:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It introduces unnnecessary confusion. I have read about this in several English language books about Chinese history and none of them call the government as "Republic of China", even though that's what it is in Chinese. Most often the whole thing is called "Fukien (Fujian) rebellion," Fujian government, or stuff like that. This is English wikipedia and I don't think it is appropriate for us to make obscure translations ourselves, even though they are correct. Blueshirts 08:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The following is not a disambiguation and is written in poor English: "From 1912 until the People's Republic of China (PRC) was widely recognized as the sole legitemate government of China, the Republic of China was the long form name of China." What kind of reader is the notice meant to redirect? It just presents a half-truth without pointing the reader anywhere. For information on how and when to add disambiguations to articles, see Wikipedia:Disambiguation.--Jiang 20:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It is meant to redirect readers whom, for example, come here because they read the first sentence of the article Second Sino-Japanese War and decide to click on the Republic of China link, and is immediately warned that the Republic of China stands for Taiwan. This disambiguation link would redirect them to the appropriate page which is China. You are welcome to improve on the language if you find it hard to understand. --Necessity 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Those readers don't need to be warned. This article aims to be all inclusive. What we need is an article on the Nationalist Government (1927-1948). The lead section clearly states, "It encompassed all of China before the Kuomintang (KMT) lost control of the mainland to the Chinese Communists at the temporary cessation of major hostilities of the Chinese Civil War in 1950...The Republic was established in 1912, replacing the Qing Dynasty and ending over two thousand years of imperial rule in China..."

I don't see grounds for a neutrality dispute. Can you elaborate? What view is being misrepresented or underrepresented in the article? --Jiang 23:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

The question should be what view does this article represent? It certainly does not represent the Taiwanese view. To the Taiwanese, their country's history does not involve being a WWII victorious power, Sun Yat-sen, or the Northern Expedition. It rather ran through a completely different course: first as a Dutch colony followed by pirate occupation, followed by Qing annexation, followed by Japanese annexation, followed by defeat in WWII. In their eyes, ROC colonized Taiwan illegally after WWII and started to force its own history on the island. To the pro-independent Taiwanese, there is no connection between pre-1949 ROC and their present country. “ROC” is only a name imposed on them by foreign occupiers. They live with it solely because international pressure keeps them from dropping it. They would be offended to see reference to Sun Yat-sen in an article about their country. Their textbooks now mention Sun Yat-sen only under international history. Their government does not commemorate 918, Nanjing Massacre, or Huanggang Uprising. In fact, it is trying to cut all associations with pre-1949 ROC, by for example ordering all governmental institutions to adopt a non-China name (正名).

Neither does this article represent the Chinese view. To the Chinese, ROC ended with PRC’s succession on October 1st 1949, after which Chang Kai-Shek’s regime illegally occupied Taiwan for sixty years. The Chinese would be offended to see an article on ROC that talks about Taiwan being a state, having presidents, a constitution etc.

The international view is the same as the Chinese except on the date of succession, and in a minority of cases, whether the succession happened at all (note however, that in these cases, they would still take exception to the claim that ROC is a state outside of China). Some countries do treat Taiwan as a de facto state, but not as a continuation of the pre-1949 ROC.

So neither the Taiwanese, nor the Chinese, nor the international community see a continuation from pre-1949 ROC to ROC(Taiwan). Why is this interpretation of history not a POV?--Necessity 11:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I think you're making making a big deal out of such a nonissue when it should be in the political/legal status of Taiwan. About the Taiwanese view, half of the electorate voted for the pan-blue candidates in 2004, and pan-blue scored a major victory in the 3-in-1 elections last year. To present your blanket version of "taiwanese view" of their history and about "illegal occupation" is really nothing more than playing identity politics. And who cares about the Chinese being "offended"? They're the ones shutting down wikipedia, so who gives a crap about comforming to their views? As for the continuation of pre-1949 ROC, I don't know where you get off the idea about intenational treatment, or even if entails any importance. The fact is that the ROC state apparatus moved from mainland to Taiwan, carrying with it the 1947 constitution, the entire government with all its branches and department, and therefore there is absolutely no ambiguity to its lineage to the pre-1949 ROC. Blueshirts 19:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

This article does not conform to the pan-blue view either. The “pan-blues” also would take exception to claim that there is some kind of continuation between ROC(China) and ROC(Taiwan), defined as a state outside of China. This is because the pan-blues do not have a place outside of China. If Taiwan is not China, then the question would immediately be: what are the remnants of a Chinese government doing in Taiwan? What is KMT, a Chinese party (with the name of 中國國民黨), doing in a country which is not China? The views “pan-blues” promote are ideas like “one state, two governments” (一國兩府), or “Chinese federation” (中華聯邦), all one state views of China. The only "pan-blue” to ever have touted a two-state view of China is “Lee Teng-hui”. He forwarded a “Two-state Theory” (兩國論) just before leaving office, but abandoned it not long afterwards --and he turned out not to be a “pan-blue” after all. --Necessity 10:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The blanket statements being made about Taiwanese and the international community arent really true. The DPP has promoted the notion of popular sovereignty in embracing the Republic of China as Taiwan (and there are different factions within the DPP giving different levels of support with Chen Shui-bian recently moving away from the moderate faction). These views are held by a sizeable minority and should be represented in the article (add them in if you feel this article doesnt adequately do so), but I fail to see how this has anything to do with the claim that there exists three Republic of Chinas.

The PRC view is already represented in the article. We can't go any further to say something does not exist when it does. Even the PRC does not make statements saying the ROC does not exist. see [2]. It usually just ignores the title. Likewise, countries that have recognized the PRC make no official mention of the ROC, neither affirming nor refuting its existence. --Jiang 22:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it disingenuous to say that the DDP “[embraces] the Republic of China as Taiwan“ when the DDP does not even accept Republic of China’s occupation of Taiwan to be legitimate. It claims that the Cairo declaration was nothing more than an unsigned news release, that the San Francisco Peace Treaty did not assign Taiwan to either PRC or ROC and therefore Taiwan was free to choose its own status, or at least its status was undetermined. This is the view advanced by ROC(Taiwan) textbooks and ROC(Taiwan) officials. No one in the current ROC(Taiwan) government will acknowledge that ROC(China) acquired Taiwan legally. In fact, they would rather drop the name ROC, write up a new constitution, adopt a new flag, etc if international pressure did not keep them from doing so. So who really thinks there is the continuation from ROC(China) to ROC(Taiwan) as advocated by this article?

The claim is not that there exist three Republic of Chinas, the claim is there exists three meanings for the term the Republic of China. If it did not -- if ROC stood for both the states of China and Taiwan, and the ROC government, like some kind of political Holy Trinity, then one would be unable to explain why the Ventican invited Cheng Sui-bien only as the representative of China --Necessity 11:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's preposterous, do you really think that everyone in the government holds the "illegal occupation" opinion? Even the pan-greens aren't unanimous in this opinion. You are missing the point entirely, either deliberately or out of ignorance. The fact that the entire state insitutions transferred from the mainland to Taiwan intact in 1949 is tantamount to the continuation of the state known as ROC. Now at which stage the ROC is in right now is moot, but the fact that the current ROC traces its lineage to the pre-1949 one is indisputable. None of your points hold up and read more like OR or blanket statements, so I don't know what your problem is? Blueshirts 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing the "state institutions" with the state itself. A state is an abstraction. It exists only in law, independent of its government, constitution, territory, population, etc. Somalia, for example, hasn’t had a government or constitution for the past fifteen years, but continues to be a state. Anthony Aust explains in ”Handbook of International Law” (Cambridge 2005):

“ Even though a state and its territory are often seen as synonymous, a state exists only in law. It must therefore act through its government. One must not confuse recognition of states with that of governments. In itself, a change of government does not affect the state. Even when the change has been brought about by unconstitutional or violent means, the legal personality of the state is unaffected (as are treaties to which the state is bound).”

"A state may change its name, constitution or government by revolution or constitutionally, but it will retain its international legal personality and remain bound by its international obligations.”,

So while the government and all the institutions of the Republic of China may have moved to Taiwan in 1949, Republic of China the state remained uneffected. It couldn't have been, sort of, 'taken along with the "state institutions" to Taiwan'. The only question was whether the ROC government in Taiwan represented this state or the PRC government did. And when PRC was recognized, it wasn’t recognized as the government of some new state called China, it was recognized as the sole legitimate government of the state formally called ROC. It assumed the legal personality of ROC, including, for example membership in the UN permanent security council . So ROC continues to exist today, only under the name of PRC. And ROC(Taiwan), insofar as it exists, exists as a separate legal personality. --Necessity 11:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

See Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China. http://www.president.gov.tw clearly prints "Republic of China (Taiwan)" as an endorsement of the fourth stage. This is nothing about occupation. The view is not being widely promoted now they are in control of the very government they claim to be illegal...

If there are three meanings for the same entity and not three different entities, then we can only allow one article. That's how disambiguation works.--Jiang 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

-The Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China obviously has no basis in international law. Please see my response to Blueshirts above.

-There are two meanings for the word plant (one refering to factories and one refering vegitation), but not "two plants" (the meaning of this phrase is ambiguous). Similarily, there are three meanings for the word the "Republic of China", each denoting a different entity, but not "three Republic of Chinas" (again, the meaning of this phrase would be ambiguous) --Necessity 12:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Necessity, please use the "Show preview" button to look at your changes instead of saving lots of little edits in the change history. --Ideogram 11:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Necessity: the idea that the legal personality of the ROC has been superseded by the PRC is not universal. Certainly the United Nations continued to view the ROC's legal personality as "China" as unbroken until 1971, and more than 20 states hold this view today. More importantly, the view of the ROC itself, at least from a de jure point of view, is that its legal personality as "China", before 1949 or after, has not been superseded by the PRC. The current DPP government may not like this particular fact, and may be changing the names of government-owned corporations, but it has not been able to change the constitutional status of the ROC, which is what really matters, from a legal point of view.

I also disagree with your representation of the "Taiwanese" and "Chinese" POVs, i.e. that the Taiwanese view their country as going through the phases of Dutch - Qing - Japanese - ROC occupation - Taiwan with "ROC" as "euphemism", while the Chinese view their country as going through Qing - ROC - PRC overthrowing the ROC completely. What you're representing here are the "deep-Green" and "deep-Red" points of view, so to speak, which are not universal at all, and certainly should not be equated with national labels like "Taiwanese" and "Chinese".

• There are Taiwanese, for example, whose views on this matter are significantly more ambiguous; people who mix together in some proportion, or hold dual loyalties to the "ROC" (as the Chinese state established in 1912) and "Taiwan" (the present territory of the ROC), as well as Taiwanese who are loyal exclusively to the ROC and view Taiwan as its territory (either as its only territory, or its only yet-unfree territory). This is why there are also light-Green, light-Blue, and dark-Blue parts of the political spectrum in Taiwan.
• Similarly, there are people in mainland China who do not buy in to the official line of things; people who view their country as having been divided by the Cold War just as Korea or Germany were, with two Chinese states, the PRC and ROC, neither one being intrinsically more legitimate than the other; there are also people who view their own government, the PRC, as the mutinous one that has overthrown the ROC government. Mainland Chinese dissidents have formed organizations like the China Pan-Blue Coalition, they have declared loyalty to the KMT and appealed to it (e.g. during Lien Chan's visit, when a Mainland Chinese was arrested after he appealed to Lien Chan to run for President of All China against Hu Jintao), and they should not be ignored as a part of the (suppressed) political spectrum in mainland China.
• Finally, we should not forget the large Chinese diaspora around the world, whose opinions and loyalties on this matter are, in reflection of their diverse backgrounds, decidedly diverse and heterogeneous. There are those loyal to the PRC (as China), those loyal to the ROC (as China), those loyal to the ROC (as Taiwan), those loyal to Taiwan (called "ROC"), those loyal to China (PRC and ROC combined), etc etc.

Take this image, for example, Image:Diaoyutaitwoflags.jpg, a depiction of nationalists planting the PRC and ROC flags on Diaoyu Island, circulated in poster format among more nationalistic segments of the diaspora community. This poster, not the mention the people who carried out this landing in the first place, clearly subscribe to a form of Chinese nationalism that is inclusive of both the PRC and ROC. That nationalism is entirely absent from the dichotomous view of "Chinese nationalism" and "Taiwanese nationalism" that you were presenting.

In short, your proposal is based on a dichotomy that skews and oversimplifies the extremely complex nationalisms and ideologies underlying this entire China/Taiwan issue.

-- ran (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It is so unfortunate this article discussion has become a biased and partisan mouthpiece for some groups who have different agendas. For an encyclopedia, the facts must be stated before POVs. The ROC is the legal name of the areas governing Taiwan, Liangchang and Jinmen...etc

ROC is still the name, it can't be changed unless the constitution is rewritten. Under the final years of the KMT, the ROC on Taiwan was promoted but not legally enforceable. Now the Pan Green have promoted and emphasized Taiwan the main governing area. This should be stated in the article but not to state that the name has changed.

Putting everything aside, it doesn't make a huge difference which way it goes because the international community does not recognised the RoC. But this article must be updated for future developments in cross straits relations.--Zhongxin 02:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Morphi edits

Two points: The current form of the dablink was arrived at after much discussion and there is no way you are going to just delete it unless you can get consensus. Also, the sentence "The political environment is complicated by the potential for military conflict should overt actions toward the retention of using the "Republic of China" as the country name or not" is completely false. --Ideogram 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So maybe it time for some challenges. It is Wikipedia, everyone got the right to edit.

What did you mean by "false" about that sentence. Grammatical or spelling errors? I don't mind your editing & correcting it.

If you think the logic, concept, or ways of description is "false", you can say more about your POV. I can hardly understand what your "false" is. --Morphi 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with challenging the status quo. But don't revert-war -- if someone reverts your change, you should bring it up for discussion on the talk page. See WP:BRD.

I'm guessing English is not your first language. The sentence "The political environment is complicated by the potential for military conflict should overt actions toward the retention of using the "Republic of China" as the country name or not" states that "overt actions toward the retention of using the 'Republic of China' as the country name" could lead to military conflict, which is false. The name or retention of the name is irrelevant. What could lead to military conflict is moves towards formal independence instead of simply continuing with the current ambiguous situation. The sentence as it was before you changed it correctly describes the situation. --Ideogram 19:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Contribution to Wikipedia has nothing to do with whether English is his/her first language. But I appreciate that you always kindly keep that in mind.

The political environment is complicated by the potential for military conflict

No, you should read or re-read the Anti-Secession Law. In it's article 8 :

"In the event that the "Taiwan independence" secessionist forces should act under any name or by any means to cause the fact of Taiwan's secession from China, or that major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession from China should occur, or that possibilities for a peaceful re-unification should be completely exhausted, the state shall employ non-peaceful means and other necessary measures to protect China's sovereignty and territorial integrity."

"Taiwan's secession" has a large free space to be defined and explain; maybe Taiwan changes it name to another is one; declaring Taiwan independence is another; there are too many actions can be explained as supporting "Taiwan's secession."

But, and the most important, it did not say that PRC won't use forces if ROC is ruled by a pro-reunification party. --Morphi 20:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is your opinion based on your interpretation of what was written. As such it does not belong in Wikipedia. --Ideogram 20:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that "overt actions toward" "retention" is nonsensical, and if I tried to correct it to make sense, it would mean the opposite of "changing the name". --Ideogram 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And I mention your poor English because you don't seem to understand how what you write reads to a native English speaker. At the very least you are going to have to explain what you are trying to say before we accept your changes. --Ideogram 20:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the dablink got axed again. I restored it, with a bit of a grammatical edit. --Folic Acid (Talk) 12:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ROC=Taiwan=Chinese Taipei?

In the dablink, it writes : "Today, More people have heard of Taiwan rather than ROC." It should not be confused with the People's Republic of China (PRC)."

I think the statement is biased. While speaking of the Republic of China, it can be referred to the Republic of China before 1949, whose territory excluded Taiwan and Pescadores, or the Chinese government that retreated to Taiwan in 1949. In a historic view, none of both "is commonly know as 'Taiwan' or 'Chinese Taipei'."

Modifying the statement as "Today, Taiwan is commonly know as "Republic of China" or "Chinese Taipei." seems to be more rational and easily understandable. --Morphi 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the exact opposite. More people have heard of Taiwan rather than ROC, or that they recognize the name Taiwan but not necessarily the state name ROC. I think I know what you're trying to say but your wording is totally off. Blueshirts 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

It's strange that if Taiwan is more famous, maybe they should replace the little known "Republic of China" with it.

I think the "known" here is actually "recognised" semantically. So, saying that "the ROC is commonly recognised as 'Taiwan'" is not neutral nor even common sense. --Morphi 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, "commonly known" means what common people call it. It does not mean the same thing as officially "recognised". --Ideogram 19:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Blueshirts said, "More people have heard of Taiwan rather than ROC, or that they recognize the name Taiwan but not necessarily the state name ROC." Such means, this people will learns that Taiwan has another name "ROC" or Chinese Taipei. It would be concluded by that "people" that "Taiwan is also (or commonly) known as the ROC and Chinese Taipei." Saying it in a reverse logic as "the ROC is commonly known as 'Taiwan'" is not necessary right (in logic inferences or boolean function operations) since the subject is Taiwan or ROC, due to the inequivalence of both, the first statement is not logically consistence.--Morphi 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) This has nothing to do with boolean logic. This is about common English usage. Taiwan is the common name, ROC is the official name. --Ideogram 20:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Morphi, I think what you don't know is that Taiwan is the more common name, not ROC.--Jerrypp772000 22:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the original objection can easily be fixed by "The Republic of China today is ..." emphasising that we are talking about the Republic of China as it exists today, rather than any historical version being referred to today. --Sumple (Talk) 10:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The ROC is still the legal official name for the areas governed in Taiwan, Jinmen and Liangchang county. But this is not recognized internationally because of the political division. So it must be used in official puproses. However, because of the political evolution in Taiwan, the ROC evolved in ROC on Taiwan during the final years of the KMT. Now with the pan green in executive power, they are really emphasizing Taiwan, to try and create a distinction between the mainland.

--Zhongxin 02:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC) sorry, spelt liangchang wrong, it should be liangcheng.

The Taiwan Relations Act

In the [Taiwan Relations Act], it did not say that "The United States has provided military training and arms sales to the ROC." as in this article (Republic of China). The original law says, "It is the policy of the United States to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." The replacement of the term "Taiwan" with the term "Republic of China" twists the original TRA's words.--Morphi 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

Necessity, you are the only person creating this dispute. Per this discussion, you are not entitled to place the POV tag on the article when consensus is so clearly against you. If you find more people who agree with you the tag can be put back. --Ideogram 12:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Those who have actually bothered to read both my discourse and past discussions in the talk page will find I'm not the only person who think this article should be divided into several pages. People have, for example, discussed about it under the heading “NPOV: Taiwan/Republic of China”, and it seems that even a poll was conducted last September on this issue. This article in its present form is essentially two articles held together by a common title. Under almost every section of this article, the content is divided into a Pre-1949 section and a Today section. Pre-1949 ROC and today’s ROC, defined as a state outside of China, are simply two distinct entities. The view that there is some kind of continuity between the two is shared by no group, as I’ve tried to show. It is advocated only by the Four-Stage Theory of the Republic of China, based on an intuition that the state institutions constitute the state itself. But as I've tried to show, this idea doesn’t pan out in international law.

Even the system tells us that this article is too long and should be split into smaller page. Obviously there are individuals who hold very strong opinions. They actively monitor this article, and make sure the article conforms to their views. People who attempt to improve the article will quickly find out that their work is destined to be rendered in vain by unexplained reversions, and soon give up and go away. It is therefore not surprising why polls always lean on the side of the status quo keepers. However, Wikipedia articles are not written by conducting polls. Otherwise, there would be no article on evolution or islam. By putting a pov tag, I’m merely indicating that there is a dispute on this article, and readers should look elsewhere to find out, for example, why second Sino-Japanese war was not fought between Chinese-Taipei and Japan. But I'm also willing to put this issue up for arbitration--Necessity 10:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand the discussion I linked to. You are the only person putting the POV tag on. Don't edit war. You will lose. --Ideogram 11:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not a place to discuss international law because such things are always open to interpretation and dispute. That the pre-1949 ROC and the current ROC are "simply two distinct entities" is a disputed statement. Our job here is to present info through a NPOV. I can argue with you on and on over the basics of this contentious subject but it will still do no good for the article. Please discuss how specific portions are the article are either inaccurate or biased. I think you still fail to understand how a disambiguation works. Disambiguation separates pages of mutually exclusive topics of the same name, not topics that are subject to contending meanings and interpretations. The factory plant and the potted plant are mutually exclusive "plants". The defunct entity Republic of China and the Republic of China on Taiwan are contending definitions of a single entity.

If the article is too long, then article should be moved into daughter articles according to Wikipedia:Summary style (not splitting). I agree that some sections are much too long and content should be moved off to other pages. --Jiang 21:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The claim that the pre 1949 republic has any meaningful relation to the independent state that governs Taiwan today is POV.Dejvid 18:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

really?

taiwan under china?--60.52.25.23 10:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

What?

If you mean to ask whether Taiwan is controlled by China, that depends on what you mean by China, and what you mean by "control". Taiwan is not administered by the People's Republic of China, it is adminstered by the Republic of China whose effective territory consists of only Taiwan and a few nearby islands. The Republic of China is generally known as "Taiwan" (e.g. the President of Taiwan, the Legislative Yuan of Taiwan, etc.) in everyday discourse. Read this article for more details. -- ran (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is geography section?

It would be very helpful if someone could draft geography section. It's a pretty standard feature in articles on countries for a reason. Thank you.--Pethr 15:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The geography section is located at the article Taiwan, which covers it, as opposed to the political mess. Ngchen 19:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Provisional capital?"

So what's with calling Taipei the "provisional" capital? Do we really have to infuse every single bit of ROC-related info with 70 years of complicated history and politics? Yes, I know that the ROC is the only government of China, that the PRC is an illegitimate regime, that the ROC hopes to retake the mainland and destroy the communists, etc, etc, but I seriously doubt that the average reader who's looking for some basic information on "Taiwan" is going to understand why Taipei is called the "provisional" capital, and why we include "Nanking" as the "de jure" capital. Perhaps we could just agree the information could be presented in a straightforward way whilst also understanding that there exists a real contention about the status of the ROC vs. the PRC? --Folic Acid 11:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

At the very least we should mention that Nanking was the capital of the ROC, perhaps with a footnote clarifying what is going on. The way the capital is mentioned in the intro is a bit awkward; I have tried to improve that a bit, but perhaps the information about the capital needs to be moved somewhere else altogether (it needs to appear before "Chinese Taipei" is mentioned in the main text, though, to make clear why that's the name).

The "average reader "problem has no easy solution: the issue is complicated, and an encyclopedia must not hide this. The "easy solution" (if you ask me: Taiwan is an independent country with capital in Taipei that evolved out of the Republic of China whose capital was in Nanking) is unfortunately opposed by most of the world's governments, who seem to prefer a continuation of the "one China" fiction. We need to somehow find a neutral way of presenting this. Kusma (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't mean to imply that I want to completely ignore history, but I think presenting the intricacies of ROC history in the infobox and the first paragraph is a bit confusing. Perhaps a fuller discussion of Nanking could be moved to a larger section on ROC history? As for your "easy solution," I think that sort of thing may be covered in the article on the Political status of Taiwan. In any case, I'm all for seeking neutrality in the article. --Folic Acid 12:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem calling Taipei the "provisional" capital. Interested readers would look further and learn the messy history. Disinterested ones will naturally equate "provisional capital" with "capital," and be done with it. Ngchen 21:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Look here Folic. No one appreciates your recent controversial undiscussed edits. This is out of the spirit of Wikipedia. Taipei is the provisional capital and there is nothing wrong with that. This is an encyclopedia and that is REALITY. we need to express reality, facts, and truth here. Do not ignore history. TingMing 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I wonder who is actually out of the spirit of Wikipedia all the time, and I shall quote the last sentence of John Smith's. Besides the continuation of edit-warring, you have contributed little in virtually every discussion, joining at the last minute and repelling the established consensus between everyone else. It's nice to have second opinion/concern about the consensus, but if we have to ditch our POV and comply to yours all the time just because you claim that yours is the only "truth" and the only "reality", chances are that we would just steer away from your sole arbitration over every dispute. Vic₂₂₆^說 04:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

National Motto

"Three Principles of the People" is really the philosophy that the ROC Government runs on, but it is NOT a "motto". The ROC Government never adopted any mottoes. See Chinese Wikipedia: 國家格言：無 (National Motto: None). --Jitcji 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

first sentence is misleading

The first sentence currently reads:

The Republic of China is a Island in East Asia.

But that's hardly true; the island itself is named "Taiwan" (all sides agree on that), not "Republic of China". A better stab at a definition would be something like: The Republic of China is one of two governments claiming to be the legitimate government of China, although since 1950 it only controls the island of Taiwan. Of course better wordings are encouraged, but the point is that "Republic of China" is an abstract entity; its precise status is the subject of great controversy, but it isn't a geographical feature. --Delirium 06:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Relax. See the history. The word "island" is just of vandalism by an anon user. Don't be surprised by anything strange in the article. I'd bet it is one of the most frequently vandalised articles. --supernorton 12:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)