Talk:Taiwan/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

PRC's official policy

It's quite obvious that Mainland China would exercise military force to regain Taiwan, but moreover, the official policy is to remain in the status quo with aims for eventual peaceful unification under the "One country, two systems" model. It is absolutely urgent that somewhere within the text, it should say PRC is using Hong Kong as a run up model for a Taiwan Special Administrative Region under Mainland Chinese rule. That is the official policy, and the fact that it's not even mentioned is appalling. Because in a 100 years, Taiwan (if it indeed capitulates to Mainland) will be (according to the PRC) adopted and integrated into China proper using Hong Kong style reunification. For those that are not following, the eventual aim of the PRC (official policy) is that Taiwan becomes an SAR after war is over. Phead128 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Government in Exile

There's a dispute over at Talk:Government in exile over the sovereignty of the ROC, and whether or not it is a gov't in exile. There is also a request for comment for one of the editors involved. More input is needed to resolve this issue, thanks.

Request for comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mafia_godfather T-1000 (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

From the wording in the disputed line it seems to be describing what the Republic of China considers itself to be (a Government-in-exile) rather than public opinion or any external opinion for that matter. I do not think this line should be disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.178.190 (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the ROC does not consider itself to be in exile as a factual matter, since it controls and currently runs Taiwan as its own (it considers itself the rightful sovereign of Taiwan, as well as over all the rest of China and some additional territories). The neutrality and accuracy of the source from where the statement was derived is being disputed, FWIW. Ngchen (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Says Ngchen and a few other editors. I urge people to please uphold wikipiedia policy of verifiability WP:V on these POV-pushed theories such as "Taiwan is a part of ROC". There are no credible 3rd party sources indicate ROC has acquired territorial sovereignty of Taiwan and also no official documents from ROC government stating that disposition of Taiwan has been formalized through its constitutional process(prior to the national assembly reform, modification of national territories need to be passed by ROC National Assembly). Just because ROC government administers Taiwan like the way US administered Iraq does not make it an owner of Taiwan. Mafia godfather (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, says every Taiwanese who thinks Taiwan is a country. If the ROC does not have the sovereignty of Taiwan, then Taiwan could not be a country. Or are you seriously arguing that most Taiwanese don't think that Taiwan is a country? T-1000 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan is not an official country, whatever Taiwanese THINK is irrelevant. Just because bunch of people believe earth is flat does not make earth "flat". This is wikipedia, we do not publish opinions as facts, we can only publish facts of opinions. And facts of FACTS will be just as it is. It is obvious that your perspective is the fringe one because up until now you or others have yet provided any reliable sources that can challenge the facts I have contributed. My advice to you is, let it rest, because I have plenty of time and energy. Mafia godfather (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If the majority of Taiwanese thinks that Taiwan is a country, then your contributions are in violation of this guideline:

"If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.[5]

Read the parts in bold, whether or not you can prove your case doesn't matter one bit. T-1000 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I told you a thousand times, that guideline deals with perspectives, not facts. Please read the entire NPOV page, or refer back to RfC. Mafia godfather (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, facts are ""a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute", and it's common knowledge that majority of Taiwanese dispute "Taiwan is not a country". T-1000 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you are not getting this. What taiwanese think is irrelevant in this case because they are basing it on an OPINION and opinion may not always be fact. Just because majority of people in a village believes world is flat does not mean earth is indeed flat in that village. Do you get the NPOV policy at all? You cannot use opinion to dispute fact, only facts can dispute fact. Do you have any valid facts from reliable sources that can counter the fact I have contributed? I am waiting. Mafia godfather (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your contributions do not meet Wiki's definition of "fact" in the first place. Saying it's a fact over and over again do not help one bit. T-1000 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Says you? I am sorry, but I have provided enough reliable sources that state it as a fact. Note, I did not "prove" what I have contributed is a fact, I provided reference that have stated it is a fact. So far, your fringe theory have not been evidenced except for your argument that it is an opinion of some that my fact isnt a fact. You better do better than thatMafia godfather (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, says the definition found on Wikipedia. T-1000 (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, talk about contradictory. You bash every reference that doesn't support your narrow-minded perspective, and wholeheartedly support anything that does. That, my friend, is not NPOV. Even basic facts like "The ROC has control of Taiwan" you end up disputing. "No official documents?" Please! And if you think the ROC and Taiwan is ANYTHING like the United States and Iraq, you need a serious lesson in both history and current events. I'll stop arguing there because with someone like you, there's obviously nothing that will convince you otherwise regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Stop asking for evidence when you'll just dispute it anyway. Multivariable (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who suggested to have "The ROC has control of Taiwan" to be worded as fact, see [1], I am only disputing "Taiwan is a part of ROC". Just to get the record straight before you digress further. Just curious, you said I have disputed every reference and evidence, can you name one? I have not seen an evidence provided by the other side yet. Mafia godfather (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki policy: "NPOV also focuses on facts being used to support a perspective. Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but DO NOT ASSERT OPINIONS THEMSELVES. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible. WP:NPOV

I have provided "facts" with credible sources to back these facts, and if there are any credible disputes to this fact, these disputes should be made with reliable sources as well, standards apply to any "perspective" as far as wikipedisa's concern should be applied to these "disputes". I have seen none of such credible disputes other than your rants. In fact, the fact I have provided these sources that blatantly dispute YOUR "fact" and you cannot provide any to respond to that, that means your position is FRINGE. NOw we have a couple editors also dispute your theory, and since you cannot provide any relevant sources to show that what you are saying is a fact without serious disputes, you should let it rest for wikipidia is no place for your fringe theories. Mafia godfather (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Read your own quotes: "That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible." Your contributions do not meet the text in bold. T-1000 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, can you provide any evidence of "serious disputes" to my fact? Please don't tell me it is YOU. Please don't. Mafia godfather (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Taiwanese people. They are not "no one", are they? T-1000 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a Taiwanese and I know enough of people like myself who disagree with you and recognize the fact i contributed. Yet, I did not use the opinion of those who are like me when I contributed the fact. You know why? Possibility of bias. Japanese have a very different version of what really happened in Nanjing and they certainly disagree with facts seen by rest of the world. You going to take 127 million people's words for it? What about what happened at Tianamen Square for China? You going to say not many people died because 1.3 billion Chinese people think so? Please. Anyway, I asked for evidence of this serious dispute, please me a serious dispute from 3rd party reliable source(OTHER THAN Taiwanese or ROC government or they are the ones in dispute). Mafia godfather (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Events like Tiananmen Square are disputed, which is why the article gives the number of people killed by the PRC: "The official Chinese government figure is 241 dead, including soldiers, and 7,000 wounded.[28]" and other sources, such as the NATO intelligences "7,000 deaths – NATO intelligence.[36]" to comply with the NPOV policy. You, on the other hand, totally ignore those countries that recognize PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan, and the POV of the majority of Taiwanese. That is a direct violation of NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Mafia godfather, I think there is a misunderstanding here. When reliable sources report conflicting information, it's not our job to say that one source is right and the other wrong. Rather, neutrality requires that all conflicting perspectives be stated, without implying that any one is more correct than any other one. Now, as for opposing perspectives (or "facts," if you will), I'll make an incomplete summary of them here. Reliable references to them are found at legal status of Taiwan. (1) SFPT should be interpreted "consistent" with JIS. (2) JIS transferred sovereignty. (3) prescription rule applies. (4) Uti possedetis applies w/r/t the Treaty of Taipei. All of these arguments have been published in reliable sources too, and we cannot ignore them. Facts about law can be disputed all the time, and here is a classic dispute in law that we cannot take sides in. Claiming that side X's legal arguments are better than side Y's would violate neutrality, as well as the rule against original research. The existence of the dispute is the undisputed fact. Oh, BTW, there may be issues with USA-Centrism as well if one takes Dulles and his views and make them too dominant. Ngchen (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ngchen, right now we do not have a conflict because there are no reliable information on the fringe theory of Taiwan is a part of ROC. I have provided a fact and there are no evidence of serious disputes other than T-1000, you, and a few other editors. Yet, none of you provided any reliable sources to challenge the evidences I have provided that CLEALR stated my contribution as fact. Neutrality is not an issue here for a fringe theory of "Taiwan is a part of ROC" that is only accepted within the jurisdiction of the disputed party(China, particularly ROC). Furthermore, I have seen no reliable references at legal status of Taiwan, otherwise, you probably would have thrown at me before I find them. My next project is to go to that page and put "citation needed" on all parts I found dubious and not evidenced, we'll get there, don't worry.

Back to your numbered points.

"(1) SFPT should be interpreted "consistent" with JIS."

SFPT is consistent with JIS as JIS is a legal to-do list and SFPT is a legal agreement of settlement. Objective of SFPT clearly was to hold Japanese obligation per JIS fulfilled. In the speech by John Foster Dulles on SFPT during the meeting that time, he made it clear that the treaty settles the issues with Japan and Allied Powers. Legality wise, SFPT is the ultimate legal agreement on WW2 so its legality supercedes JIS, whatever JIS listed and not fulfilled by SFPT would be deemed settled or forgiven.

"(2) JIS transferred sovereignty."

JIS cannot and does not transfer sovereignty. It listed demands and Japan has agreed to fulfill them, that's it. Instrument of surrender is merely a memorandum and its listed demands are subject to be changed or altered in the future if new events(such as Chinese civil war) arise. Taiwan was still a part of Japan from the moment JIS signed to the day before SFPT comes into force. No territorial sovereignty can be transferred by military annexation, this is violation of Hague Convention IV article 55. If you do not know about the relevant history or legal concepts, please do a bit more research.

"(3) prescription rule applies"

It is a form of adverse possession that allows one country to take over a land of another if the other does not protest for a prolonged peiod of time. In normal real estate laws, like California, adverse possession needs to meet certain tests and the prolonged period of time is 5 years. It is not unheard of. However, such form of acquiring territories is no longer applicable in today's world under UN charter. The only law that can come close to this is UN Article 73. "Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end..." ADVERSE POSSESSION is what the world trying to prevent from happening now. The territorial sovereignty of Taiwan belonged to Taiwanese people after it became a limbo cession, and Taiwanese were not given opportunities to properly decide on if they should dispute ROC's claim or not due to 5 decades of martial law. I am sorry, Ngchen, nice try there. I will address that on the wiki article later.

"(4) Uti possedetis applies w/r/t the Treaty of Taipei."

Disregard the fact most of the application of this legal principle has been before enactment of UN charter and Hague Convention IV of 1907. The legal concept MAY be applicable to justify ROC's control of Taiwan, not necessarily ownership, especially there is a clear treatry that states Taiwan's disposition is to be remain undetermined. ROC acquired rights to control Taiwan as a military occupying power for the Allied Powers via General Order Number One issued by Allied Powers, and the Allied Powers signed a treaty with Japan to settle Taiwan's issue by not awarding to anyone, including ROC. Thus possessor of Taiwanese sovereignty is back to Taiwanese people, not ROC, for ROC has never "possessed" sovereigty of Taiwan and they actually were acting on Allied Powers' behalf(see General Order No. 1) and the Allied Powers regarded Japan as the rightful owner of Taiwan until the SFPT comes into force. That was why Japan was asked to renounce sovereignty of Taiwan. Treaty of Taipei came into force AFTER Taiwan has been given up. Uti Possedetis as you can see mostly apply to the natural people of the newly formed independent states(BY UN Charter Article 1 sec 2 to be default owners of territory by principle of self determination), in this case, it would be more of a justification for Taiwan than ROC. As what the International Court of Justice in the 1986 rules... "[Uti possidetis] is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of obtaining independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new states being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the changing of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power. " Is ROC a natively established government of Taiwan seeking independence from Japan? There is simply very little merit for this argument, and that is why it is also a fringe theory used to justfy ROC's claim.

Finally, most of these arguments you provided were opinions or arguments and do not constitute as facts. Joe Hung as research associate of a government think tank is already biased for ROC, we will disregard that. What about Claude S Phillips Jr.? Aside from the fact nobody really know him, if you read his article you can see that he is bringing an argument or a different perspctive to a prevailing understanding of the fact that ROC did not indeed have Taiwan. The only claims otherwise were from China and ROC who did not have any capacity to decide on Taiwan's disposition. US may have pressumed Taiwan is a Chinese territory when Truman declared Taiwan was a Chinese territory "liberated" by World War 2, but this position was no longer the case when the language of transferring sovereignty of Taiwan to China was removed from the SFPT at the end. I brought John Foster Dulles into the picture because he is not only secretary of state for a country that has been an ally of ROC(less likely to bash ROC interest) and he is also the co-author of SFPT. He would have more capacity to interpret SFPT than Cluade Phillips or Joe Hung.Mafia godfather (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I rest my case with regard to the existence of the dispute :-). And your harping on "doing more research" is precisely what the rule on original research forbids. You may not like the arguments presented in these reliable sources, but the fact is that they have been made, and are held by at least substantial minorities. So, again my point is that the existence of the dispute is well documented. Finally, there might be a misunderstanding on your part about neutrally reporting disputes. Let's say there is a dispute between X and Y, and think-tank of X publishes an argument. That argument forms part of the description of the dispute, since X is a party, and it would violate neutrality to say "Oh, think-tank of X is wrong because of blah blah blah..." Ngchen (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ngchen, you notice that what is disputable is not ROC is not a government in exile or Taiwan is not a part of ROC, it is because ROC claims to be owner of Taiwan, right? Since you were kind enough to open up to us and show us how disputable ROC claim is, I acknowledge your intention to rest your case. =) Once again, I do not dispute the fact that ROC's claim over Taiwanese sovereignty is disputable.

Regarding your analogy. I will respond this: If X was a perspective argued by X supporters and Y is a perspective argued by Y supporters, then your analogy woud work. However, lets say X presents a fact that Y does not like but cannot bring out another fact that would challenge it, then we have no issues with NPOV for a fact has no serious documented disputes and thus NOT subject to NPOV limitation. You understand what I am trying to say here? So, if you say that "ROC is a government in exile" is wrong and my referenced evidences are wrong, show me another 3rd party reliable source that states ROC is NOT government in exile. Do not show me another argument or opinion, show me a fact. If you say that "ROC does not have territorial sovereignty of Taiwan" is fringe, show me a reliable 3rd party source that states ROC is owner of Taiwanese sovereignty or sovereignty has indeed been transferred to ROC. There is none. Mafia godfather (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, since the ROC's claim over Taiwan's territorial sovereignty is disputable, then it would violate neutrality to state in an article that the ROC "is" a government-in-exile, wouldn't it? After all, what if Joe Hung and others are right? Ngchen (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In my contributed section, ROC declared its self to be government-in-exile. I am not going to dispute it if ROC declares its self so. If you call yourself Ngchen, why would you dispute yourself? As you can see from this comment [2], it was clear to outsiders that there isnt anything wrong with it. Mafia godfather (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(Combining the above thread) Actually, the source you use has a footnote questioning the notion that the ROC is in exile if I remember correctly. Now, in terms of X bringing out a fact that Y does not like, and Y argues that X is wrong because of a series of other facts, we cannot take sides and say that X is right, or that Y is right. As for a question such as sovereignty, there are historical facts, and then there are questions of law. The historical facts are things such as the SFPT being signed, Japan surrendering, the ROC claiming Taiwan, and so on. Questions of law are things like whether sovereignty of Taiwan was transferred to the ROC, the natives, the PRC, nobody, etc. These questions, as well as ones like whether the ROC "legitimately" exists or not, are questions of law, and they are disputed. Whether the ROC is in exile falls into the second category; after all, for the sake of argument, let's suppose Joe Hung is right. Then the ROC would have sovereignty over Taiwan per the Treaty of Taipei, and the ROC would not be in exile. Of course, we can then suppose that he's wrong, and the ROC could then be in exile. Hung's view has substantial numbers of followers, so it cannot be ignored. Ngchen (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnote of ROC government questions its self as a government in exile? I must have missed that. Can I see that series of facts Y brought out against X from you? So far I see a lot of arguments made by other X supporters and none of the arguments can constitute as "facts". The facts made by X are validated from reliable sources, the "facts" argued by Y, eh... Who knows Joe Hung? Who knows Claude Phillips Jr.? Are they respectable academics by peers in the world(since we are discussing an international issue now)? I simply pointed out 2 facts.

1. ROC declared its self to be legitimate Chinese government in exile. Because it can declare what its self is, I am not going to dispute that. This position of course was also shared by Council on Foreign Relations, an influenctial American non profit organization on US foreign policies existed since 1921.(Detroit Free Press, April 29 1955 page 8 col. 1)

2. Territorial sovereignty of Taiwan has never been transferred to ROC and ROC has never received territorial sovereignty of Taiwan by any legal agreements in history. Such "fact" can be seen in many places that are considered to be reliable sources. UNHCR [3] or the official government record that recorded John Dulles's meeting with a foreign premier. Even Claude Phillips Jr., who made the argument about prescription law mentioned mainstream journalists like Walter Lippmann of NY Herald Tribune that time consider Taiwan not a territorial sovereignty of ROC. He even quoted Arthur Dean, former diplomat of US and key adviser of numerous US president that Taiwan was a terra nullius.(see "United States Foreign Policy and Formosa" Foreign Affairs, XXXIII(1955)). So, I am sorry, Hung and Phillips obviously are not of their caliber. Not saying Joe is right or wrong, but since research associate Joe's interpretation of Uti possidetis is so outdated, I would rather take the interpretation of International Court of Justice in the 1986 Case Burkina-Faso v Mali over Hung. There used to be similar publication as such, but most of them are removed, such as [4] by Huang who also argued in favor of ROC's claim. Joe Hung may be next. :) Mafia godfather (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well then, we have come to a conclusion. One, that a dispute exists. Two, that substantial (non-negligible) numbers of followers exist in each camp. Therefore, neutrality requires that we do not take sides and to simply describe the dispute accurately, and claiming that the ROC "is" in exile would be taking a side. Although quite a few scholars take the view that the ROC is in exile, obviously that is not the only view. Ngchen (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have provided that views of diplomat, researcher of a congress report, a Stanford textbook, and think tanks that recognize the fact ROC is a governemnt in exile. Not to mention, ROC government's own admission of this. There is nothing to be disputed about ROC is a government in exile. Unless you can provide evidences from 3rd party reliable sources that expressively state ROC is not a government in exile. What is disputable is your claim that ROC isnt. Since that dispute exists, I will not take any side to say your view is disputed or not. I remain firm about the fact that ROC is a government in exile. Mafia godfather (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read your (heated) discussion, and it seems to me that both sides are well represented in terms of well-sourced views that support both points of view. A diplomat, U.S. Congress, textbooks, thinktanks... They'll all very good. But the point that Mr. "Mafia Godfather" is missing is that it is not our place to decide who is right. It's not our place to think, or to decide whose opinions (and they are ALL opinions) on a conflict are right or wrong. All we can do is say that the opinions exist. Mr. Kent (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

AESAN in lead

I have reverted this edit by an IP as I think it's a too vague to write that Taiwan is north of the AESAN and it's also borderline innaccurate - in particular Vietnam and Burma are certainly not south of Taiwan. Instead, I think it's clearer to just mention the countries that are directly below Taiwan; i.e. the Philippines, Indonesia and Australia. Any objections? Laurent (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tensions and Status Quo

POV problem: Article says The current president, Ma Ying-jeou, however managed to ease tension with the PRC by maintaining the status quo.

Chen maintained more of the status quo, while Ma has actually been making changes to the status quo by making Taiwan more economically and politically dependent on China. Readin (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't talk about "status quo" at all since it looks like it could mean different things to different readers. We could simply rewrite the sentence to:

"The current president, Ma Ying-jeou, managed to ease tension with the PRC by stating that there will be no unification nor declaration of independance during his presidency."

What do you think? Laurent (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the term "status quo" is problematic for the reason you give. Also, ascribing motives to the PRC (or to anyone) can be a problem if when the PRC hasn't actually stated what their motives are.

The references provided in the article suggest other reasons the tensions are supposed to be decreasing.

For example, Ma said a number of things that fit with China's view that Taiwanese people are China's possessions. He said that relations between ROC and PRC are not "between two countries" but instead are just "special relations" (This changed status quo by " reversing a decade-long government position"). Ma said that "mainland China" is part of the ROC. Ma has adopted the supposed "1992 Consensus". The motivation for China to ease its threats has been interpreted by many to simply be a way to make common league with fellow opponents of the Taiwanese people's dream of formal independence (according to polls a solid majority would choose independence over unification with China).

As for the idea that it was Ma's promises, Chen made very similar promises at the beginning of his term. He only laid them aside when China neither responded by easing tensions nor leaving them as they were, but instead continued to increase its pressure and threats.

We need to be very careful about claiming to know what is in the hearts of the Chinese leaders and what are their motivations. Readin (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

From what you are saying, I think it would take far too much space to expose all the POVs and make this paragraph completely neutral. But perhaps we don't need to have the opinion of Lee, Chen and Ma in there - we could move them to the "Political issues" section, and expand at will from there. I think it's actually a bit wp:undue to have them in the lead anyway (or else why not Chiang or his son).

The current paragraph, without these opinions, would then simply be about the Cross-Strait relations (and perhaps we could expand and state the influence of China on Taiwan's international relations). How about it? Laurent (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Readin (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Map concerns

The ROC's infobox map only shows the Free Area as colored in, whereas the PRC's map colors in the Mainland, Taiwan, and Arunachal Pradesh. If we're showing the PRC's claims and not just their de facto territory, why does the ROC's map not include the Mainland Area?

I also mentioned this on the PRC's discussion page. 174.99.48.72 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Info box is really a place for facts. The map is based on the area in reality controlled by ROC government right now, or the "free area". ROC claims the entire mainland but they do not really administer it from geographical stand point. New ROC constitution amendments also implies that ROC no longer consider Chinese people in mainland area as ROC nationals for they are stripped of their ROC constitutional rights unless they are currently registered as ROC citizen. Mafia godfather (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

---

The following was moved from the PRC talkpage: --Cybercobra (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does the map in the PRC infobox include Taiwan and parts of India, but the ROC's infobox map only includes the Free Area? Interesting double standard. 174.99.48.72 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really a double standard, since there is no single great editor for both articles. In the case of the PRC, the government has claims on those areas, while not controlling them. I´m not sure about the status of ROC´s claims on "Continental China", but feel free to start a discussion on that article about that. This is even the reason why I pushed towards adding a label bellow the map. Uirauna (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The ROC claims Mainland China, although only one of the two major parties actively pursues these claims. It seems like we should have consistency across the two articles - IMHO, the best solution would be to only highlight areas de-facto controlled by each government. 174.99.48.72 (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, I even created another map for PRC with only the controlled areas, but had to make a compromise. On the other hand, the India article also shows claimed territories. Also, in the case of ROC it would look kinda weird, since "continental china" is a lot bigger than Taiwan. Does the ROC´s government officially claims "continental china"? Uirauna (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and some additional areas not claimed by the PRC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.png I agree with you that this would look silly, which is why I think the optimal solution would be de-facto control only. Since PRC claims on Taiwan and Arunachal are by no means universally accepted, and PRC has no de facto control, why do we need to show them? 174.99.48.72 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It would look silly because the claims made by both sides are silly. But that's not for us to judge. As an encyclopedia we should just show how things are. Since every country has a map, and many countries have claims over territory they don't control, there should really be a wikipedia-wide standard. Does anyone have any idea where such a guideline might be found - or where we should go to make one? Readin (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, things are fine the way they currently are. Maybe it's a double standard; however, it's only the PRC that's actively pressing its claims. The ROC map with the mainland is relevant only as a historical curiosity, and to make it more prominent would create an issue with undue weight. Again, just my opinion - feel free to disagree. Ngchen (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

However, I believe it is still the official stance of the Republic of China that Mainland China is a part of the Republic of China, therefore it continues to claim Mainland China. Bambuway (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just as soon revert the caption to what I originally had it as, which specified that only the Free Area of the Republic of China was depicted. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Cybercobra. Ngchen (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the "Free Area of the ROC" is a POV term that we should avoid using if possible. Using it implies that the ROC is the legitimate republic of China and that the rest of China still remains to be freed. Although that may be the official POV of the ROC, I don't think we should use it ourself in the infobox, without any explanations. Perhaps, as an alternative, we could use "Taiwan Area of the Republic of China", which is equivalent and less POV (and clearer than "Free Area"). It also seems to be more frequently used by the government (3795 results for "Taiwan area" against 444 for "Free area" on gio.gov.tw). Laurent (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Or you could use Republic of China administered area and Republic of China claimed area Bambuway (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn´t we move this discussion to the ROC talk page?Uirauna (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So moved. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I really dont think the map should be a "political map" and more of a geographical map since most mapmakers would have geographical/effective controlled area supercede political/claimed area anyway. You hardly see any maps out there with entire mainland as ROC these days. I think Republic of China administered area could work and have just Taiwanese islands and Kinmen/Matsu islands be included in the Republic of China administered area .Mafia godfather (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

'Free Area of the Republic of China' is not a POV term. It's the official terminology used by the government and in the Constitution as well. The are currently controlled by the ROC IS the 'free area of the Republic of China'. People uses it all the time as well. 'Ziyouqu' is used all the time and universally understood. As for the map, by no ways should it be a Geographical map. This article is about a political entity, not a geographical. Sure, it can be a political-geographical map, a map with geographical features and political boundaries, but it must by all means have boundaries and some way to make the RoC stand out from the neighbouring states. Anyways, 'Free Area of the ROC', 'Area administered by the RoC' will all work in my opinion. As for whether or not to include the mainland and all that stuff, I would recommend putting in a redirect link of some kind to the Free Area of the Republic of China article. This at least allows easy access for the reader to go into the area if they want to. If a link is provided, then the naming issue should relax a bit. Liu Tao (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

PRC being a Neighboring country to ROC

I am starting this discussion to avoid an edit war. The Chinese Naming conventions at [5] state that "Text should not take a position on whether they are considered separate nations.", Obviously, if PRC is a Neighboring country to ROC, then that imply that they are two separate countries, thus is in violation the Naming convention (as there is a major POV that Taiwan is part of PRC). The sentence is also useless, as the sentence before it already said Taiwan is east of the coast of Mainland China. T-1000 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a change my noting the PRC's geographical location in the following sentence. Would that be OK? Ngchen (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. T-1000 (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

T-1000, it's not useless because it contains a link to People's Republic of China as well as the acronym. Since it's one of the most notable neighbour of the ROC, it makes sense to introduce it early in the lead.

As for the naming convention, I personnally don't think any position is being taken. The ROC exists and so does the PRC, saying otherwise or implying that there's nothing off the west coast of the ROC (or that the ROC controls mainland China) would be taking a massive POV. We are just describing the facts without, indeed, taking any position.

Finally, the POV that Taiwan is part of China is introduced in the fourth paragraph so there's no NPOV issue. Laurent (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The re-wording was implying that the PRC was not a separate country. To bypass the "country" issue since the ROC is a state rather than a country, I went back to the earlier wording but switched "country" to "state" and used state names instead of country names. Readin (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of China (Taiwan) is NOT a regional "state" as the user Readin implies, but in actuality, is a functional independent sovereign nation-state or country with their own democratically elected President (aka. Commander-in-Chief, Head of State), Vice-President, their own government, and their own armed military forces composed of the Republic of China (Taiwan) Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Military Police, and Space Command (a NASA equivalent Space Agency) which is "officially" a "civilian" organization but during times of war would also serve a paramilitary purpose of launching Taiwanese space weapons and spy satellites, which the ROC (Taiwan) government has done before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.6.81 (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the WP:OR policy. There are sources saying that ROC and PRC are two countries, and there are sources saying the PRC and ROC are not two countries. You, as an editor, are not allowed to conduct original research to "prove" that the former is correct. T-1000 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the issue, to be honest. It is a fact that the ROC operates as an independent, sovereign state. Were we to suggest otherwise, we would in fact be compromising POV concerns, since we would allowing the PRC POV to override reality. Acknowledging that the ROC is a neighbouring country to the PRC, while also mentioning the territorial dispute within the confines of the article, seems perfectly legitimate to me. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

English Corrections Needed

I normally just make these kind of corrections myself, but this page is protected. Buchs (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Item 1

Corruption within the government and lack of direction also prevented any significant reform to take place

should be replaced with:

Corruption within the government and lack of direction also prevented any significant reform from taking place

Item 2

Because of the Cold War, most Western nations and the United Nations regarded the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China until the 1970s and especially after the termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty; after that, most nations switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC.

should be replaced with:

Because of the Cold War, most Western nations and the United Nations regarded the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China until the 1970s. Later and especially after the termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, most nations switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC.

Done. Thank you very much for your input. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote Improvement

{{editsemiprotected}}

{{For2|the culture and geography of the territories governed by the Republic of China, most notably Taiwan|[[Taiwan]] and [[List of islands of the Republic of China]]}} should be changed to {{about||the culture and geography of the territories governed by the Republic of China, most notably Taiwan|Taiwan|and|List of islands of the Republic of China}}.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Years in the headlines should be removed because the years do not correspond to the content in the sections.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote change Not done: it would have no effect; observe:

Currently:

For the culture and geography of the territories governed by the Republic of China, most notably Taiwan, see Taiwan and List of islands of the Republic of China.

You propose:

For the culture and geography of the territories governed by the Republic of China, most notably Taiwan, see Taiwan and List of islands of the Republic of China.

And passing "and" as a parameter seems like slight template abuse.

It has no VISUAL effect, but it reduces manual square bracketing.174.3.98.236 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's vastly more readable in the For2 form. Can't see how it's an improvement to chop up natural language just to take advantage of some template funkery.--Father Goose (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

:/ Well I've changed it. No difference, but it's easy to put things in fields.174.3.98.236 (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into the year-section-title thing. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Not done: I see no obvious errors. If you can point out something more specific... --Cybercobra (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

===Chinese Civil War and World War II (1927–1945)=== begins at 1925. Since that title is incorrect and should have the years removed, all titles should have their years removed.174.3.98.236 (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Cybercobra (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

"The founding of the Republic of China began on 10 October 1911 as a result of the Wuchang Uprising, but it was not formally established until 1 January 1912. The ROC had once encompassed mainland China and Outer Mongolia."

The tense "had once" seems strange here. When? More generally, the article is not terribly clear here, and in a few other places, whether the RoC originally was China, or whether there remained another entity called "China" which, during that time, just happened to be encompassed by the RoC. Do you see what I'm getting at?

The introduction to the "History" section does not make clear the drastic readjustment of the RoC's territory (from the whole of China to just Taiwan). It talks about the "The Republic of China on mainland China" and "The Republic of China on Taiwan" as if they both still exist. 86.161.41.187 (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

Read the entire bloody paragraph you presented:

"At the end of World War II, with the surrender of Japan, the Republic of China took over the island groups of Taiwan and Penghu from the Japanese Empire. After the end of the world war, the government drafted the Constitution of the Republic of China, which was adopted on 25 December 1947. When the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT), the then leading party of the ROC, lost mainland China in the Chinese Civil War to the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1949, the central government relocated to Taiwan, establishing Taipei as its provisional capital. Despite being forced out of mainland China, Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader, declared that the ROC was still the legitimate government of China and Outer Mongolia. In mainland China, the victorious Communist party founded the People's Republic of China. The Taiwan Area became the extent of the Republic of China's jurisdiction."

It clearly states what had happened, as for the history, if you had read the introductory paragraph of the article itself, you should know that the Republic no longer has control of the mainland. As for the History section, that's after the introductory to the article. People who knows how to read should know to read the introduction first before reading anything else. It's common sense. You read from top down, not bottom up. Liu Tao (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As well as clearly being too stupid to understand my point, you are also extremely rude. 86.172.103.81 (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC).

What was your point? The point you have made is that the 'had once' made it seem strange, I do not see how it seems strange, it had once encompassed mainland China and Mongolia, now it does not. As for when, the reader can continue reading the paragraph and see what had happened. The RoC lost all of its mainland territory to the Communists in 1949. As for the 'other places', you need to give specific examples. If one has read the entire article, or if something does not seem clear, then you continue reading or do further research. As I've said, it's common sense. You don't read an article bottom up, nor do you learn Trigonometry before learning Algebra. I'm not being rude, I'm just being cold and straightforward. Liu Tao (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't get your point either, Anon (86.172.103.81). The history of the ROC's territorial possession is quite complicated both because it was an empire (as the PRC is now) and because of it's reality bending claims that Taiwan is still part of China and that the ROC is still the legitimate government of China. Given all that, I think the opening paragraphs are about as clear as we know how to make them. If you have any specific suggestions for improvements I'm willing to listen but I'm not sure what we can do with just your criticism.

Giving orders to other readers is rude. Using "bloody" in a sentence is rude. Doing both in the first sentence of a reply to someone's first post is very rude and probably grounds for an administrative talking to. Readin (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, get this straight, the PRC is not an Empire, it is not ruled by an Emperor. It is a Socialist Republic.

As for giving orders, I was telling him to do what was obvious and common sense. The lad read the first 2 sentences of a paragraph and then started crying 'unclear'. Had the lad read the entire paragraph, he should not have any issues at all and this would have never been brought up. Using the term 'bloody' is not rude, only to very little. People use it all the time, it carries no offense. If the lad is offended, then tell him to swallow it down, because just the fact that he brought this 'issue' up is offensive to some as well. You can't please everyone, you never can, and you never will. Tis the cold hard truth, either accept it or don't. Liu Tao (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear. According to Wikipedia, an empire is "a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy." Can you think of a better description of China? You're right they don't have a emperor (though Mao probably qualified for the title) but they do have an oligarchy as called for in the definition. The territory is geographically extensive, and it consists of many former states and many ethnically diverse peoples speaking many languages (although the government is working hard to make them all speak the same language).

As for your use of language, there is no need for foul language whether mildly or severely offensive. The offense of the term varies by country and given that people all over the world may read this you should avoid using it.

The fact that you say you were "telling him to do what was obvious and common sense" when you gave the order just shows why it was offensive. You were implying that the editor was childish or dumb and needed you to tell him to do the obvious. Readin (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh, it's about time that you've pulled information from other Wiki-articles and using them on the grounds for 'consistency', I've been doing that since I've joined, yet you just shoot me down each and every single time. I will say no more about that. But back to the issue, what about the term 'oligarchy' then? What's the wiki-definition for it? How does the PRC qualify as an oligarchy? As for 'geographically extensive', what is the line between geographically extensive and not geographically extensive? The Bulgarian Empire was an Empire, yet the Spanish Kingdom is larger than the Bulgarian Empire, then how come the Bulgarian Empire is an Empire but the Spanish Kingdom is not? Many former states? The Kingdoms of Greece and Yugoslavia both consists of many former states yet they were Kingdoms, not an Empires. Ethnically diverse, both the Kingdoms of Greece, Yugoslavia, and Spain all have many different language speaking people, yet they were/are Kingdoms, not Empires. So, mind you explaining all of these 'why's for me one by one?

As for my use of language, 'bloody' is not foul nor is it offensive, nor is it offensive from those who I have learnt the language from. As for variation of offense of terms, I can say oh, the word 'dumb' which you later used is rude or offensive towards me, so you cannot say it. I can also say that the fact that he is questioning the effectiveness and criticising of wikipedia articles is insulting as well. If he feels offended by my way of speech, then I'll say I'm offended by his actions, so he should avoid making criticisms. I will speak to him just as I speak to every other lad, he is not my superior, I've no reason to watch what I say when I speak to him. If he is offended, then tell him to swallow his pride and feelings, this is how many people speak, there is no reason for millions to change their way of speech just because of this one man. Liu Tao (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If I were arguing for a change to the article, you would be right to point out the problem of using another article as a source. But since this isn't about an edit, a wikipedia article will do. Readin (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So, you are saying that it is okay to call for consistency in speech based on Wiki-articles but not when editing? Wow, what's that word to describe these kinds of actions? It starts with an 'H', I think... Can't remember...

And answer my bloody refutement, don't try to change the bloody subject! If you want to reply to what I've said outside article subject, go ahead, but do not do only that, at the least refute the stuff that HAS to do with the article and subject at hand. Liu Tao (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to go point by point on why China is an empire. In any case you know enough about China to recognize the truth of it regardless of whether it fits with your political views.

As for whether your comments are offensive, we can always ask an admin how they fit with wp:civil. Readin (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Political views?! This is common sense! An Empire is headed by an Emperor or Empress, tis why it is called an empire. An Empire is proclaimed, it is a form of political entity, not created. The Korean Empire is an Empire, yet it is composed of only the Korean Ethnic Group, speaking only the Korean language and restricted to the Korean Peninsula.

As for being civil, go ahead. As I've said, I've insulted no one, if you feel the way I talk is a bit vulgar or rough, it's the way I talk. Many talk the way I am and don't take offense to what I say. I'm not 'uncivil' just because I use the word 'bloody'. As for the 'impression', that's up for one to decide. Unless he is going to admit that he didn't do what I said one with common sense would do or something that should have been done, what I was saying did not have anything to do with him. Have some common sense people! I am sick and tired of having to tell critics and editors to keep reading the articles. This situation is even more ridiculous. He quotes the first 2 sentences of a paragraph and says that they're 'unclear' with something, but the rest of the paragraph explains exactly what he's complaining about the sentences being 'unclear' about.

Anyways, are you going to refute my questions or not? Do not say that you do not have time, because apparently you have enough time to respond to this. If you are not going to back up your claims or views, you should not bring them up in the first place. Now, answer my questions and stop avoiding them. Liu Tao (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specific change you are proposing we make to the article. If you have a specific change, propose it and we can discuss it. If you don't have a specific change, please read WP:FORUM, "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article". It seemed to me we were going off-topic.Readin (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this was like a month and a half ago. Second of all, I didn't propose the change, the lad that started the discussion did. You just extended it. I wasn't proposing for change, I was trying to keep the article as is. Liu Tao (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"island nation"

The sentence stating that the ROC "is an island nation comprising the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and other minor islands" is redundant. The terms "island" and "nation" (not factually true, you mean state?) are already mentioned in this sentence and the sentence before it. Why apply this unnecessary, pov label? The Republic of China is the political entity, so using the word state is acceptable. Since when has anyone called the ROC an "island nation"?--Jiang (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"State of Taiwan"

This text "It is also often informally referred to as the "State of Taiwan", in particular in countries where the ROC is not officially recognized" cites sources which do not support that statement. In the French Article it shows chef de l'Etat de Taiwan (meaning Head of State of Taiwan) aka the President of the Republic of China, there is no reference to any "State of Taiwan". The other article, which is in Italian however does cite "Taipei, capital of the State of Taiwan". The other two articles did not make any reference to support that statement. Officially, countries which do not maintain diplomatic relations with the ROC use "Taiwan", or in some cases "Chinese Taipei" while most non-Chinese mass media use "Taiwan", "Taiwan's government/people/economy", "the island's government/people/economy" etc. on topics regarding the ROC or Taiwan. It is the first time I've heard "State of Taiwan" being mentioned outside "Taiwan independence" articles or topics. Anyone care to clarify or to disagree? Rtzj(talk) 18:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles in question:
http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/monde/chronologies/asie-2006.shtml
http://www.gloobal.net/iepala/gloobal/fichas/ficha.php?entidad=Textos&id=7001
http://www.paesionline.it/asia/taiwan_taipei/guida_turistica_citta_taipei.asp
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,675094,00.html

The ROC is commonly called "State of Taiwan" in the French language, including in official documents, and in other European countries. This is because France doesn't recognize the ROC and so use a description (rather than a name) for it. See for instance the French article where "État de Taïwan" is bolded like a common name. Laurent (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

There's an User:71.68.249.98 pushing the POV that ROC/Taiwan is a country and ignore all other POV's, The discussion is here: [6]. Given that we just had a discussion on this topic, if you guys could take a look at it and give your input in would be great. Thanks. T-1000 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC

Don't listen to the incoherent rambling of T-1000 who has repeatedly pov edited in clear violation of official Wikipedia naming convention policy. Just examining his edits would be self-explanatory and conclusive that he is at fault in pov pushing as well as violating the Wikipedia naming conventions.

For anyone interested in the other issue, it was who built the IDF fighters:

Okay, so I looked up citations, and I've found this: [7]. It seems that the issue is that the IP user removed American involvement in designing these planes, as seen here: [8], but the global security websites states that:

"Taiwan produced the Ching-kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter with extensive assistance by American corporations, led by General Dynamics. The project consisted of four sub-projects. They were the Ying-yang project (in cooperation with General Dynamics Corporation) which made the air-frame; the Yun-han project (in cooperation with Hughes Corporation), which designed the engine; the Tian-lei project (in cooperation with Westinghouse Company), which took care of the avionics system; and the Tian-chien project, which developed the weapons system. "

So this is a classic case of POV pushing by the IP user to try to push a POV that the Americans were not involved. At best, the issue is disputed. T-1000 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the word "state" to "island chain", as island chain is a neutral term. How can a region be deemed a soverign state,if it is not formally recognised as one by the international community(vast majority)?lso, the fact that

I altered the intro slightly,again(as it was chcnged back to state: The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, is a largely internationally unrecognised and disputed state entity in East Asia located off the east coast of mainland China

"this is acceptable, and neutral. however, due to POV opinions,it is being edited constantly. so for for wiki neutrality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.54.72 (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you drunk or something? Laurent (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

very mature Laurent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.54.72 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't too far fetched... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:MakmoudHassan

Now there is a User:MakmoudHassan trying to change every instance of "country" to "sovereign state" in order to POV push for the ROC, lol. Thoughts on this and how to deal with this user? T-1000 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's anything we can do besides continuing to revert his edits and issue warnings, like what's currently being done. Maybe if there's a consistent reversion comment or link, others will take note. These types usually give up quickly, which is good. -Multivariable (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

With this note on the talk page, I don't think anyone is going to mind using rollback without an edit summary for this particular user, correct? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Now blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal

There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I noticed the map of Taiwan in the "country infobox" has, as its alt mouseover text: "A map depicting a relatively small island in East Asia". Now I know that things on the Taiwan page are different from other countries' pages, due to Taiwan's contested status, but to me, it smells of vandalism (describing it in such vague, unflattering terms). I can't find what it has been, as the text seems to have been there quite a while. Normally, I change these things on the spot (if it were up to me, to make it as NPOV as possible, I'd label it "A map of Taiwan and other islands controlled by the Republic of China") but I figure with the Taiwan article being undoubtedly a hot article, and my having no prior involvement in it (in other words, despite being a longtime Wikipedian, I'd be seen as a newbie here) I'd just put it out here and see what the consensus is. --Canuckguy (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the alt text. It's intended to describe what the image visually looks like for those who are blind or similar. It's different from the caption due to this different purpose. See also Wikipedia:Alternative text for images. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering Japan and the Philippines both have "Location of ___" while Indonesia doesn't have any alt text, I would suggest changing it since yes, it seems unflattering. Since the Republic of China is not a single island and since the purpose of the map is to show where it is located (rather than its relative size), I would suggest changing it to simple "Location of the Republic of China". -Multivariable (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask at WP:ALT what is a good alt text for a map. I think "Location of..." is not useful for a blind person because they won't learn anything from that. We should rather describe how the island looks, perhaps how far it is from the coast, its size relatively to the surrounding islands, etc. Laurent (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To Canuckguy - This page is routinely vandalized by PRC operatives and should generally be ignored. You only really need to know one thing about Taiwan -- it will NEVER (under any circumstances,) become part of the PRC. Taiwan is a sovereign nation state. End of story.97.125.85.230 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Democratisation

A citation is needed for democratisation due to the contested social sciences definitions of this. Should be easy to supply from at least one analytical perspective. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Claims of inflation over time are highly dubious it needs specific inline citation, and ought to indicate the method of calculation used (GDP, CPI, etc.) and its equivalence being given in USD is high dubious as this was not the currency in use. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The inflation cite needs a second source due to the extreme dubiousness of calculating worth over time (especially when rendered in a currency other than the one where debt was expended). The cite fails to indicate CPI or GDP inflation, or the year when inflated from or to. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just an estimate, it's obvious it's not going to be 100% accurate but at least it gives some rough idea. The source it comes from is reliable so I don't think the dubious tag is appropriate. If you have a source that provides a different estimate, feel free to add it to the article. Laurent (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In relation to Fenby, he's neither a historian nor an economic historian. He's entirely out of speciality, and there are many good reasons (Measuring worth) to refuse him verifiability on the inflation measure point. In particular, in relation to dubiousness of inflation measures, see [9]. It requires disciplinary expertise in time inflation, which Fenby is two removes from (academia, disciplinarity). Penguin is not a full academic press for this kind of measure where the author lacks speciality. Fenby needs back up on the dubiousness of a current USD of many years past state debt. Fifelfoo (talk)

Citation required for "not without reason" Fifelfoo (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he calculated this amount by himself as it's not hard to ask an economist. I don't have the book with me but I seem to remember he credits many historians and other specialists he was in contact with when he wrote the book. The book was first published by Ecco (Harper Collins). Sorry to ask again but do you have another source with a different estimate? Laurent (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Name historians and cite. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Issue with highlighting in Map

I invite users who have any concerns regarding this issue to add their input here, under the appropriate section. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In favour of "Locator map of the ROC Taiwan.svg" (beige highlighting):

• I prefer the SVG map, it's more detailed. Maybe we can change its color if it's different from other country maps. Laurent (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• I was the editor of the SVG type map... the reason that I worked on it is the original png map obviously difficult to be viewed and inaccurate. In spite of this, if some editors still suppose that the current appearance of SVG type make map which looked choppy or less distinct, I will try to reform it in identical as other locator maps if everyone consider it is necessary...--ILVTW (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In favour of "LocationROC.png" (green highlighting):

Highlighting inconsistency with PRC Why are we shading Taiwan in the People's Republic of China article, but not the other way around? It would appear to violate neutrality to show one side's unenforceable claims, but not the other side's. Kiralexis (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mongolia

The treatment of Mongolia in this article is flawed on two counts. The article asserts as fact that the ROC still claims Mongolia, when in fact the ROC foreign ministry has stated the contrary: article. There seems to be an argument that this move was against the ROC constitution, however given that "An MOI official said that Mongolia had not been part of ROC territory when the constitution was ratified in 1947 and that the matter should therefore not be considered a constitutional one." [per above article] this argument seems to be just one POV among several, i.e. not a fact.

The article also says that the ROC "encompassed" Outer Mongolia from 1911 to 1949. Given that the ROC had control over Outer Mongolia for less than 18 months (late 1919-early 1921), and that the rest of the period the ROC claims over Mongolia were as theoretical as their post-1949 claims on Mainland China, I think that sentence gives a false impression. There may be some point in mentioning those territorial claims in the lede, but then as what they were - claims, not control.

Pyalh (talk) 01:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I also added some "dubious"-tags on sentences about Mongolia being part of the ROC in 1947 or 1949. As can be read from the article, the ROC recognized Mongolia's independence in 1946. While I think I remember something about references to Mongolia in the ROC constitution, I believe these tagged statements need at least some more elaboration. Pyalh (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Opinions on Adding American CIA involvement against the ROC in "United States involvement and current standpoint"

I seek opinions on adding the following paragraph to this article-

The Anti-communist Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek, President of the Republic of China, believed the Americans were going to plot a coup against him along with Taiwan Independence. In 1950, Chiang Ching-kuo became director of the secret police, which he remained until 1965. Chiang also considered some people who were friends to Americans to be his enemies. An enemy of the Chiang family, Wu Kuo-chen, was kicked out of his position of governor of Taiwan by Chiang Ching-kuo and fled to America in 1953. Chiang Ching-kuo, educated in the Soviet Union, initiated Soviet style military organization in the Republic of China Military, reorganizing and Sovietizing the political officer corps, surveillance, and Kuomintang party activities were propagated throughout the military. Opposed to this was Sun Li-jen, who was educated at the American Virginia Military Institute. Chiang orchestrated the controversial court-martial and arrest of General Sun Li-jen in August 1955, for plotting a coup d'état with the American CIA against his father Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang. The CIA allegedly wanted to help Sun take control of Taiwan and declare its independence.

ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Although I am strongly anti-American, I think that this paragraph is a bit too much detail and would more appropriately fit in History section of the Republic of China – United States relations article. This would make the length of that section seem disproportionately large in comparison to other sections covering foreign policy. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 22:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Should this then be included in History of the Republic of China, Politics of the Republic of China or Kuomintang? It's clearly of historical significance. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that the issue here is a wider one - the Republic of China (1912-1949) is a completely different animal from Taiwan, even though it was the apparent "successor" to the original ROC. The hatnote doesn't even mention the History of the Republic of China article and as for the lead saying "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan", is far from having always been the case. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 06:44, Saturday March 5, 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please add an interwiki for pa:ਚੀਨ ਗਣਰਾਜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.155.97 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 12 March 2011

 Done Thanks for the proposed addition! --HXL's Roundtable and Record 16:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Shorten intro section

I suggest shortening the intro section. There's too much history and other details that should be covered in history section or other sections. Please shorten, or I'll do it later on. --Mistakefinder (talk) 09:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I shortened it about a year ago but it grew up a lot since then. I think most users just write whatever they have to write in the lead, and don't really try to expand the rest of the article. I'm going to remove a few things, if someone objects let's WP:BRD. Laurent (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

sovereign state

I'm sure this has been talked over and over, but unless there's another source other than a BBC News that would claim RoC's completely undisputed sovereignty, I'm going to reword the sentence in a way that explicitly states the on going disputes. Feel free to go to my talk page or simply reply to this heading. Thank you.Gw2005 (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This has indeed been discussed before and the consensus seems to be for the piped link "[[sovereign state|state]]", at least it's the version that tends to last the longest. In my opinion, sovereignty is not a legal status, it's a fact. A state is either sovereign or is not and it doesn't matter whether other states claim their territory or not. In the case of the ROC, sovereignty is obvious - they have an independent government, military, etc. and it's been like that for over 50 years. Laurent (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Laurent said: "In my opinion, sovereignty is not a legal status, it's a fact." This is incorrect. Sovereignty is a legal argument, it is not something that you can see or judge with your five senses. The legal reality is that when the ROC moved its central government to Taiwan in December 1949, Taiwan was still Japanese territory. Hence, at that point the ROC became a government in exile. Then in the post-war peace treaties, the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan was not awarded to "China." Since the ROC does not hold the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan, it cannot be considered a sovereign state. This is indisputable. 114.34.117.74 (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

then the argument really depends on wither RoC still considers the areas they formally control as their sovereign rights. I'm not interested in reviving a whole unsolvable argument up again, but since the matter is still in discussion in many aspect(in fact, dispute), it only seems fit to mark an argument up for what it is. (I did not make any change to article as of now.) Gw2005 (talk) 03:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The only thing that is disputed is the political status of Taiwan, but the sovereign politic status of ROC has never been disputed because you know why? PRC kowtows to Sun Yat Sen! if ROC was a disputed dynasty in the vast Chinese historical lineage, how can PRC establish herself as a Chinese succesor state? PRC needs ROC's legitimacy as a sovereign status in order to justify her political agenda in Mainland China including Taiwan. Do not get Taiwan and ROC messed up, one is geopgrahic, and the other is a actually a legit historical and present undisputed sovereign state in the context of the Chinese Civil War.Phead128 (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The ROC is not a sovereign state. This has been proclaimed many times by US government officials . . . . also remember that the Chiang Kai-shek representatives of the ROC were kicked out of the UN in Oct. 1971. As the above poster Laurent says: "Sovereignty is not a legal status, it's a fact." But anyway you look at it, the ROC does not meet the requirements for having sovereignty over Taiwan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.37.14.26 (talk) 13:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Pictures

Is the gallery of pictures really needed at the bottom? The PRC article doesn't have a bunch of random pictures with no clear purpose. T-1000 (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not really random - it's showcasing certain aspects of the ROC that are not mentioned in the article, including the geography and culture of its controlled territories. Perhaps we should have actual sections about these topics but in the meantime a gallery is a good start. Laurent (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Original name

The original Chinese name of the island is Taiwan, and in the past (from the 16th century) has been called Formosa by the west. icetea8 (talk) 10:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your edits and the reasons I reverted them, this article is not about the island of Taiwan, this article is about the political entity known as the Republic of China. That's why there is an article called Taiwan. In 1912, Taiwan was a part of the Empire of Japan, and the Republic of China was located in Mainland China. It makes no sense whatsoever to say that "Taiwan" is the "original name" of the Republic of China. Since the ROC existed in Mainland China before 1949, and that the ROC only acquired Taiwan after 1945, it is illogical to equate "ROC" with "Taiwan" in the sense that they are synonyms, when they are clearly not. The Republic of China was formed in 1912 after the Qing Dynasty emperor abdicated and Sun Yat-sen declared the republic after the Xinhai Revolution. The island of Taiwan was formed via millions of years of volcanic activity over 500 million years ago, and today happens to be the main island (not the only island, the main island) controlled by the ROC government (the ROC also controls Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and Taiping Island, which are by no means attached to the island of Taiwan). The two terms cannot be exchanged for one another. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why two pages?

Why are there separate pages for Taiwan and the Republic of China? The same thing goes for China and the People's Republic of China. Ryan Vesey (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to introduce you to WP:NC-ZH#Political NPOV, which is not going to change any time soon. We have WP:RECENTISM, at least for China vs. PRC (I think even the most ignorant would realise that China, or Chinese civilisation, long preceded the PRC). In any case, the most recent edit by MistakeFinder is best left to the judgment of those that strictly abide to the policy under WP:NC-ZH. –HXL's Roundtable and Record 23:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Call me ignorant, but I don't see why the PRC can't be seen as a successor state to the ROC and the previous Chinese dynasties, just as the Russian Federation is a successor to the Russian Empire and previous Russian states. As for "not going to change soon", I wouldn't be so sure about that, as commonsense arguments recently upturned a similarly shallow and pedantic "consensus" against equating Mandarin with Standard Chinese. Looking at the previous move discussions for the China issue, the dominant faction that opposes equating the PRC with China appears to be not the Pan-Blue partisans but those people who want to deny legitimacy to the PRC and implicate it as an amoral communist state with no rights to be associated with Chinese civilization. Such bigoted and outmoded views are sure to be exposed and discounted in a future move discussion. Quigley (talk) 01:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

@Quigley: However, there is no rump state that claims the legacy of the Soviet Union, and so the Russian Federation enjoys full recognition as the sole Russian state, as per the succession of states theory. However, as long as there is a political entity that claims to represent China, the PRC cannot enjoy that same outcome, especially since a handful of tiny countries, such as the Holy See, do not recognise the PRC at all. Controlling the majority of land/population/whatever doesn't necessarily make a state "succeeded" - during the Second Sino-Japanese war, the Empire of Japan controlled the eastern coast of China, and thus 80% of China's economy, but this majority control did not mean that the ROC was succeeded by the Wang Jingwei government or whatever, and that Chiang Kai-shek's KMT regime in Chungking, in reality having absolute control about 20% land area of China proper at one time, was illegitimate (Meh, shitty example. I should be getting more nutrients.). And as for the actions of WP editors, this doesn't necessarily have to do with leftism or rightism; I'm quite sure there are those out there that are reluctant to call the ROC "Taiwan", as it gives the impression of Taiwanese independence, and that it is not "China". Not all those opposing the renames are rightists. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Merging PRC into "China" and merging China to "Chinese civilization" does not necessitate a merge of ROC into "Taiwan", which I do not support. Of course, the PRC = China idea gets its legitimacy not from simple control of land (all I have to say about your comparison between the PRC and the Japanese Empire is Facepalm ) but from the overwhelming de jure international recognition of the PRC as China, and the de facto recognition of even the microstates that are bribed by the ROC. Not in this universe does NPOV means weighing the view of the Holy See the same as that of the rest of the world. Quigley (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Renaming PRC to China gives pro-independence editors the excuse to rename ROC to Taiwan, however. The lines would go along "why would you still call the ROC China, if you call the PRC China? There can only be one thing to call China!" There have been many requested moves in the past, despite that the ROC historically had nothing to do with Taiwan between 1912 and 1945. Plus, that would pretty much be a double standard - saying that the PRC has succeeded from the ROC, but that the ROC still exists as the ROC and hence shouldn't be renamed to Taiwan. Additionally, merging all the information in China and People's Republic of China is going to get you a really long article, how do you plan on solving that? As for the Japanese example, meh, haven't been getting enough oxygen into my brain this morning. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 02:46, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

According to the NC-TW consensus, the short form of Republic of China on Taiwan is not "China" but "Taiwan". In practice today, on Wikipedia and off it, the ROC-on-Taiwan is the ROC but not ever just "China". So we aren't calling two things "China" anyway, despite the technical factors of the Two Chinas and the 1912-1945 period that inhibits a merger of ROC and Taiwan. Not all of what is currently in "China" will stay when PRC is merged into it; the new "China" article will have as much ancient Chinese culture and history as the Republic of India article has ancient Indian culture and history. The rest is siphoned off to a new article, Chinese civilization, akin to Maya civilization. Quigley (talk) 03:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

@Ryan: Taiwan deals with the geographical island, its specifics (geography, climate, agriculture), and a touch on its inhabitants; ROC deals with the political entity, its government, and the specifics (economy, military, demographics, foreign relations, history). Compare Ireland (island) and Republic of Ireland, British Isles and Great Britain, Hawaii (island), Hawaiian islands and Hawaii, Americas (continent) and United States, Hong Kong Island and Hong Kong, Korean peninsula and South Korea, etc etc. China deals with Chinese civilisation in general, from ancient times to modern, whilst PRC specifically deals with the political state that existed from 1949 to now. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Mass changes to administrative divisions section

Energiya, you have some explaining to do here: you cannot simply remove the whole "second-level division" section without any directly related explanation in your edit summary or discussion here. There is less controversy with the second-level divisions, which the mainland Chinese media seem to recognise as well, so you have even less of a reason to blank it. I have to return to the task of building mainland township lists assigned to me now, so... —HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The ROC government currently does not claim any political divisions to the "mainland area" (which is controlled by the PRC) since 2005. This site shows clear that the "mainland area" does not include in the territory chapter. 中華民國年鑑 九十五年版 Even the recent edition made by the Ma Ying-jeou government keeps this point [10].

On the other site 政府組織 also states that

目前我國有臺北市、新北市、臺中市、臺南市及高雄市等5個直轄市。縣(市)則有臺灣省宜蘭縣、桃園縣、新竹縣、苗栗縣、彰化縣、南投縣、雲林縣、嘉義縣、屏東縣、花蓮縣、臺東縣、澎湖縣、基隆市、新竹市、嘉義市等12縣3市，及福建省金門縣、連江縣等2縣，合計有14縣3市。鄉（鎮、市、區）合計有153鄉、41鎮、17市及157區。

, this show clearly the current political divisions only exists in "Taiwan area", and claims no divisions in "mainland area" at all.Energiya (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

OK the reason to delete "second-level division" is here 政府組織 this site states that the first-level divisions should be direct-controlled municipalities, counties, and provincial cities. (直轄市及縣（市）為我國第1層級的地方自治團體。) The second-level division is township, county-controlled city (鄉（鎮、市）為我國第2層級的地方自治團體。). This is different to the pages (it also shocks me at the first look). The local divisions laws of ROC does not classify the levels of divisions. So i deleted it.Energiya (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

and the author wrote "我國", implying a personal stance? What about Taiwan Province then? Our own page here on Wiki even states that it is divided into 縣 and 市. That Taiwan Province is not on the same level as the municipalities (直轄市) is ridiculous.

Even if the author's opinion were official, that is not a reason to delete the section. This article, before you came, clearly was describing reality, regardless of official considerations. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 15:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This website is the ROC Government Information Office (行政院新聞局), which is the spokesman of the ROC government. so their speaking reflects the governmental view. Taiwan Province is streamlined now, the provincial government now reforms as the branches of our Executive Yuan. The name still exist, but practically the 縣 and 市 direct controlled by the Executive Yuan now. The streamline of the provinces breaks the border of the 1 and 2nd division levels. Our law doesn't state 縣 and 市 to be the 1st or the 2nd level. So i think it's better to keep the same view as the laws.

The subcection of "claimed territories" are no longer claim by our government as a territory, and should be rewrite as the historical issue [11]. This is what i did, i only move the claimed territory to the history issue. On the other side, the formation of the administrative division is totally controlled by the ROC government. How can you "regardless of official considerations"??Energiya (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems the article has been locked due to edit war for quite some time. My poor Chinese reading skills do not extend to searching through long lawtexts, though I do remember hearing something in the Taiwanese news about the government ceasing to claim the territory of the mainland as their own some time ago. I would like it very much if some light could be shed on this. Thank you. - Sandertams (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's been talked about during the presidency of Chen Shui-bian, but during that of Ma Ying-jeou it's unlikely as he wants to keep the status quo. Laurent (talk) 02:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

This change is done in the Chen Shui-bian era, we can compare the 94th edition and the 95th edition of the ROC yearbook.

The 94th (2005) content shows

第二章　土地(Territory)

第一節　臺灣(Taiwan)

第二節　大陸地區(Mainland area)

and the 95th (2006)

第二章　土地(Territory)

第一節　臺灣(Taiwan)

第二節　外島地區(Outer Islands)

It's obviously the mainland china are removed in this year. Even at the time Ma Ying-jeou was in office. He did not restore that. The most recent 98th edition, this part becomes

第二章　土地(Territory)

第一節　臺澎地區(Taiwan and Penghu)

第二節　金馬暨外島地區(Kinmen, Matsu and the outer islands)

In my opinion he want to bring some ambiguity of the sovereignty to keep the status quo. So I prefer to use "stop claiming" because the ROC never renounce those territory also.Energiya (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Again

Instead of copying large amounts of document text into the discussion, explain the rationale behind these changes yourself. I will reject your changes in whole if you continue to remove the "First-level" and "Second-level" sections entirely. It is clear from the text "目前我國有..." that the ROC still considers Taiwan and Fujian provinces on the same administrative level as the municipalities (Taipei, New Taipei, Kaohsiung, Taichung, and Tainan). Also, the wording 'stops any claim' includes 'stops any claims of sovereignty'. This is, of course, against the Constitution, and reminiscent of the Pan-Green's deluded views as well. In any case, your changes are confusing, as I doubt the ROC would have only in 2005 stopped listing Zhejiang, etc. as part of their provincial divisions. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Stop using your political bias to "doubt" what the ROC government does. You didn't even read the discussion clearly. I did mentioned before the 98th edition ROC yearbook (published in 2010 in Ma Ying-jeou Era)

第二章　土地(Territory)

第一節　臺澎地區(Taiwan and Penghu)

第二節　金馬暨外島地區(Kinmen, Matsu and the outer islands)

There are still various of websites and books can support this division list, like the office of the president ROC which was largely rewrite when Ma Ying-jeou was in office.

Currently the ROC comprises two provinces (Taiwan and Fujian) and five special municipalities (Taipei, New Taipei, Taichung, Tainan, and Kaohsiung). At the provincial level, under Taiwan Province are 12 counties and three cities, and under these counties and cities are 213 rural townships, urban townships, county-administered cities, and city districts; and under Fujian Province are two counties governing 10 rural and urban townships.

Note that the New municipalities are mentioned (New Taipei, Taichung, Tainan), they upgraded at Dec 25, 2010. This can support this site are made by the Ma Ying-jeou government not the DPP government. So this division list not only about the Pan-Green's deluded views at all.

Then i did not write 'stops any claim' but "stops claim", if you are sensitive about this words from your political bias. I propose to revised it as "Since 2005, the ROC government stops claiming the administrative divisions in the mainland area, but still claiming the sovereignty of it by the constitution." is it OK?

And, "First-level" and "Second-level" did not remove them entirely. I only combined them in the "Current division" section, no data inside were deleted, please read it again you will see. The main reason to delete these two section names are mentioned above, and the "First-level" and "Second-level" in this article also contradict to the consensus in chinese wiki zh:中華民國行政區劃. Also, the office of the president ROC website only mentioned the "Provincial Level", "Special Municipality Level", and "County Level". It obvious that it treats Provinces and Special Municipalities differently. So I think the best presentation in this page is avoid these "Levels" and only show the structural hierarchy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Energiya (talk • contribs) 22:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Shorten your posts. 'Stops any claim' and 'stops claim' are not much different; they mean the same. So no, your sentence is still flawed. Better would be to avoid anything on claims and state "since [year Y], the ROC has stopped listing its former provinces from mainland China".

I am not saying provinces and special municipalities should be treated as equivalents. I am only suggesting that they are on the same layer of administration. The similar could be said for the PRC's equivalents. In any case, Taiwan Province, ROC excludes all 5 municipalities, and presenting the administrative types in terms of levels helps gives readers a clearer picture of the ROC administration. Finally, whatever contradictions we may have with zh:中華民國行政區劃, they still present levels (級) of administration.

OK, if you are sensitive about this words from your political bias. I accept your sentence and quote the sentence in the president office "Since 2005, the ROC has stopped listing its former provinces from mainland China. Currently the ROC comprises two provinces (Taiwan and Fujian) and five special municipalities (Taipei, New Taipei, Taichung, Tainan, and Kaohsiung).". Is it OK to you?

And i'd not insist to delete the "First-level" and "Second-level" titles at all. But using "First", "Second" will make some misunderstand. If you insist to keep the levels (級) of administration, does it better to rewrite as "Provincial Level", "Special Municipality Level", and "County Level"?Energiya (talk) 05:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's zh:中華民國行政區劃 that is confusing us all. Now quit openly accusing me of political bias. It was you who removed material from County (China) (it was then titled County (China))...which is far more biased. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 12:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

zh:中華民國行政區劃 comfusing us all... then?? so how's your opinion for the levels and the division presentations?? Please concerning on this page OK? Whether to write the two "chinas" in a page or separate pages is debatable, and now somebody separate it. If you have some opinion on other page, you can discuss it on the talking page of that. But here you try to reject the data from the ROC government with a reason of TW independence?? Can you concerning on the discussion here? Energiya (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Keep all of those accusations in your mind, or I will have to begin removing them. I still think we should have sections for the administrative levels. We have a "See also: Administrative divisions of the Republic of China" pointer that should prevent the section "Administrative regions" from growing too much. How Wikipedia classifies the provinces, municipalities, and counties of the ROC should not be a question of only this article. Lastly, go ahead and introduce that sentence under the 'Claimed territories' section. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Scouts of China

On the Scouts of China article, User:Kintetsubuffalo insists on putting a Tag about the article missing information about the era during Japanese rule. Yet this article is not about scouting in Taiwan, it is about a specific organization that was started by the ROC in Mainland China. Whatever the Japanese did on Taiwan before 1945 has nothing to do with this organization. Currently, the article is complete, with it's history starting in Mainland Taiwan then going to Taiwan. User:Kintetsubuffalo claims it is for background, yet Like I said, the background of this organization lies in Mainland China. There is a separate Scouting in Taiwan article, and the Japanese info should go there. T-1000 (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

ITYM, Mainland China, not Mainland Taiwan. I think the closest comparison to this situation would be the South Korea, and Korea Scout Association does mention Scouting in the Japanese Empire prior to 1945. I would say that Scouting in the Japanese empire (specifically what occured in Taiwan) definitely belongs in the following articles Scouting in the Republic of China, Scouts of Japan, and Taiwan under Japanese rule#Culture with the highest amount of information in Scouting in the Republic of China. A mention *should* be made in Scouts of China when information is available - Perhaps changing (leaving any existing links alone)

The Chinese Scout Association was reorganized in 1950 on the island of Taiwan, and resumed the membership of the International Scout Bureau as Boy Scouts of China (BSC) and later Scouts of China

to

The Chinese Scout Association was reorganized in 1950 on the island of Taiwan. [[Scouting in the Republic of China|Scouting on Taiwan]] had been under [[Scout Association of Japan#Early Years|Boy Scouts of Japan]] prior to World War II. The Chinese Scout Association resumed the membership of the International Scout Bureau as Boy Scouts of China (BSC) and later Scouts of China

Well, if you look through the edit histories, I did try linking to Scouting in Japan, but that was reverted by User:Kintetsubuffalo without any explanation. And While the Korea Scout Association was always in Korea, the Scouts of China was founded in Mainland China, then an enemy to Taiwan. T-1000 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have copy/pasted this dispute to Talk:Scouts of China. — chro • man • cer  20:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Chinese_music

The Chinese template at [12] does not take the POV that PRC = China, as it includes the national anthem of the ROC, yet it doesn't include the music of Taiwan, which pushes the POV that ROC is not China. I looked and found similar templates like from here: [13], this old cuisine template has a PRC and ROC section. The Chinese music template should follow the old Chinese cuisine template. T-1000 (talk) 06:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do it. I removed PRC/ROC divisions from the Chinese cuisine section because I strongly object to politicisation of culture. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 17:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign State, again

The result from past discussions seems to be that we don't say who Taiwan belongs to in order to avoid a POV. Yet this page was calling the ROC a sovereign state, which implies that Taiwan belongs to the ROC, and is therefore POV. It also contradicts other pages. On the Government in Exile page, the ROC is listed. If we acknowledge that there is a notable POV that ROC is a GIE, then we can't call ROC a sovereign state here. T-1000 (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The ROC doesn't belong on the Government of Exile page any more than the PRC does. Both the ROC and the PRC are sovereign states; both have a degree of international recognition, and both control part (but not all) of China. Kiralexis (talk) 06:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Kiralexis:Yes, ROC (KMT) is an GIE on Taiwan just as much as PRC (CCP) is an GIE on Mainland. CCP was exiled by Chiang Kai Shek after the Nationalists purged KMT and China of it's Communist members. PRC (CCP) is just as much "exiled" from China (ROC) as ROC (KMT) is "exiled" from China (PRC). Both are equal sovereign states, but neither is sovereign of "All under Heaven" (ie. all China).Phead128 (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Phead128

The ROC is a government in exile. Look at the historical record. When the ROC moved its central government to Taiwan in Dec. 1949, Taiwan was still Japanese territory. Taiwan remained as Japanese territory until Japan renounced all rights and claims in the post-war peace treaty, effective April 28, 1952.114.34.117.74 (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. There are reliable source calling the ROC a government in exile on the GIE page. T-1000 (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are you referring to? A Taiwan nationalist with a bone to pick (Tsai Ing-wen) shooting her mouth off, or oblique media references from during the Chiang Kai-shek administration? Kiralexis (talk) 00:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be neutral, we have to be neutral. And we maintain NPOV by noting all major viewpoints. T-1000 (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Disagree with T-1000: In light of the historical and present context, ROC is a sovereign state. This is irrefutable, because ROC holds administration over territories not governed by the PRC. Conversely, PRC holds administered over territories not governed by ROC. Therefore, using your logic, mainland China belongs to PRC because PRC is sovereign state, therefore, we should strip PRC of sovereign state status. The real answer is to say both are sovereign states, but neither is the true sovereign of ALL of China until the Chinese civil war is resolved. I agree, the distinction must be made very pointedly that ROC's sovereignty is only limited to areas controlled, not claimed territories once formally administered that are presently controlled by PRCPhead128 (talk) 10:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Phead128 says: "In light of the historical and present context, ROC is a sovereign state. This is irrefutable, because ROC holds administration over territories not governed by the PRC." Such an analysis is incorrect. "Administration" is not directly equivalent to "sovereignty." As explained on the GIE page, the ROC is a government in exile. So the ROC hold administration over Formosa and the Pescadores. So what? That is not proof of sovereignty. 114.34.117.74 (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, how can ROC (KMT) be a GIE if it's a civil war... To claim yourself as GIE is both a declaration of independence, then a declaration of war if ROC still claims Mainland China as her own sovereign territory. Therefore, it cannot be the case that ROC is GIE, because it's a civil war! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phead128 (talk • contribs) 12:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not about what you think, that's original research. There are reliable sources calling the ROC a government in exile, for example Tsai Ing wen. T-1000 (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a civil war. Do you know what the meaning of Civil War? How can ROC be a GIE if it's engaged in a Civil War?108.7.241.222 (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand the meaning of going by reliable sources instead of what you think? T-1000 (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The "reliable" source is clearly wrong, since the ROC's own constitution states it's located on territories it holds legal legitimate claims to. Is your "reliable" source going to dispute ROC's own constitution? Wow. Your "reliable" source must either be a politician with dictatorial powers able to amend the ROC constitution, or must like divine spirit, capable of some magic.Phead128 (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Phead128

Please provide the reference when Taiwan was formally incorporated into national Chinese territory via the terms of Article 4 of the ROC Constitution!!!! According to all references which I have seen on the internet, this has never happened. Thus, the notion that the ROC Constitution applies to Taiwan is an elaborate FRAUD perpetrated on the Taiwanese people!!! 114.34.117.74 (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:truth. Wikipedia only cares whether the sources are notable or not, not whether they are "right" or "wrong", since that is inherently POV. T-1000 (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have another WP link: WP:GAME. While your link is just an essay, I will not accuse you of attempting to game the system, but please mind you that Wikipedia is more than just policies. You've got to add a bit of common sense. It should be clear to most people who know the Chinas well that they are both indeed independent, have governments, territory and sovereignty or at the very least function as if it is so. One is merely a lot bigger than the other. The work on this article should be to work this common sense into a form where it is reliably sourced and in accordance with core Wikipedia policies without unnecessary pettifogging. Indeed it is a very controversial subject we're dealing with here and we have to be careful, but this article is plagued with people bringing up the same policy yadda-yadda and it's really taking away time from peoples hands that could have been used much more constructively. - Sandertams (talk | contributions) 13:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's core policies is to mention every notable viewpoint. And there is a viewpoint inside Taiwan that Taiwan does not belong to the ROC, like what Tsai Ing Wen mentioned. Tsai Ing Wen is notable because She is the DPP chairperson, makes sense? T-1000 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Move of China to Chinese civilization, and China (disambiguation) to China

As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political_NPOV we have proposed moving China to Chinese civilization and China (disambiguation) to China. See the move request at Talk:China#Requested_move if you wish to comment. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Move proposal discussion

Following the discussion noted above, the move proposal discussion has begun at Talk:China#Requested_move_August_2011. Feel free to take part in the discussion. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 22:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)