Talk:Taiwan/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

I hate to be rude, but the start of this article is too hard to understand

Maybe it's just me, maybe it's too late at night, but after I've read the first paragraph of this article, I am even more confused than when I started. Just thought I'd make that point for what it's worth... Triki-wiki 12:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)Triki-wiki

Official languages

I don't see how Hakka, Min-nan, and Cantonese (!) became official languages of the ROC. Cantonese is not spoken in Taiwan, at least not more than French is. The Cantonese people fled to Hong Kong, not Taiwan. They can't even make decent dim sum there. How would they also know how to speak Cantonese?

There is one official language: Mandarin. Everything else is irrelevant. This article is not meant to be a translation table. Only the most relevant language should be listed. --Jiang 20:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinese usage

Okay, after seeing zhuyin on the page, I now believe that the adding and subtracting of ways to say Republic of China in Chinese is getting ridiculous. Cycled on and off the page in the past few days have been:

• Traditional Chinese (needs to be there);
• Simplified Chinese (not neccessary, but wouldn't hurt);
• Tongyong Pinyin (ROC's answer to hanyu);
• Hanyu Pinyin (standard around the world);
• Wade-Giles (no longer defactoly official); and
• Zhuyin (can only be understood by those educated in ROC or by people from ROC).

I've given my opinion on each of these. This has probably been discussed before, but can we decide this as once and for all as we possibly can? -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 02:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason for listing all these translations/romanizations is utility. Scripts/romanizations that are common enough to be helpful are trad Chinese, Simp Chinese, Hanyu Pinyin, and Wade Giles. Tongyong Pinyin *might* be helpful given its official status, but zhuyin is used as nothing more than an educational tool. It is not a different way to write or represent Chinese for non-Chinese language educational contexts. The standard for Chinese language education outside of Taiwan is Hanyu Pinyin, so people reading this English lang article who would need an educational tool to help them decipher the Chinese characters would be looking at Hanyu pinyin (also used in English texts as a representation of zhuyin), not zhuyin (which is never found in English texts). Those who know the zhuyin can read the Chinese, so listing zhuyin here is not helpful. --Jiang 03:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no provision at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) for use of zhuyin as zhuyin is neither a Chinese script, nor a romanization. There also is no established consensus or precedent for using zhuyin (just flip to any Taiwan-related article and you will not find it). The Manual of Style also calls for using both traditional and simplified forms for where they differ. --Jiang 03:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Zhuyin is a Chinese script if one considers Taiwan a part of China, isn't it? Though as you point out it certainly isn't a romanization. I'm writing here because I'm a bit curious about the romanization "Jhonghuá Mínguó". What pinyin standard is this? Is it Wade-Giles with Hanyu tone marks or is it some other standard? Rōnin 20:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Tongyong Pinyin -- Khepidjemwa'atnefru 23:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

(response to user:Jiang's remarks at 03:31, April 17) As per Wikipedia:naming conventions (use English), only roman letter-based transliteration is neccessary. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles), similarly, only mentions the use of roman letter-based transliteration. — Instantnood 05:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

HK and Macao, also "democratic republic"

OK, first of all, did ROC on the Mainland claim Hong Kong and Macao as their territory? Secondly, I think the "democratic republic" bit is misleading. ROC's first free election was in 1996, while ROK's was in 1987. It is the oldest independent republic in Asia, but to say that it is the oldest "democratic republic" is incorrect. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 05:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Just "oldest" by itself is misleading - Lanfang Republic was a lot older. Should be older *surviving* perhaps. --Sumple (Talk) 08:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it the first one being internationally recognised as a sovereign state? The ROC before 1949 (well, after as well) did not actively claim Hong Kong and Macao, nor did it explicitly recognise them as British and Portuguese posessions. Some works are saying Chiang Kai Shek did demand Winston Churchill to return Hong Kong when the war was over. — Instantnood 13:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The ROC government did not recognise the Treaty of Aigun, under which Ch'ing (Qing) ceded Outer Manchuria to czarist Russia. Yet it has never included Outer Manchuria (Russian Far East) into its maps. — Instantnood 20:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Republic of China on Taiwan??

I don't like that formulation because it is very awkward. Taiwan is either a province or a country; it is also an island but a damn big one. I don't know where this "on" Taiwan business came from but it doesn't sound like English. For example, you would say "animals in Malta" not "animals on Malta". "In Madagascar..." not "On Madagascar...". "The government of Ireland" or "The government in Ireland" not "The government on Ireland". "The United Kingdom's territories in Britain..." not "The United Kingdom's territories on Britain". The only instance where you would use "in" in a similar situation would be if it is a small island: e.g. "on Little Diomede", or if preceding a geographical feature: "On the Chinese mainland...", "On the island of St Helens...". What do others think? --Sumple (Talk) 03:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

A quick Google search brings up 106,000 hits for "on Taiwan" vs. 9,380 hits for "in Taiwan". I'm no linguist but seeing as the general policy here is to avoid neologisms, we'll typically go with whichever usage is more widespread. -Loren 03:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, it was Lee Teng Hui's neologism. He first used it publicly in his speech at Cornell University. — Instantnood 13:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

How did he get into Cornell with English like that? Meh. *yields to the rule* --Sumple (Talk) 14:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What would you say? On the Isle of Wright or in the Isle of Wright? On the Chongming Island or in the Chongming Island?  :-) — Instantnood 14:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

On Isle of Wight and On Chongming Island, imo, because there's a geographical feature identified. Plus they're both so little. --Sumple (Talk) 23:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What about Borneo or Sumatra, or Honshu? :-D — Instantnood 05:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I don't know if this should be on this page. It's "in Borneo" and "in Sumatra" isn't it? The Borneo page has one instance of "in borneo" and none of "on borneo". Same with Sumatra. However Honshu has one instance of "on Honshu" and none of "in Honshu". Hmm... well Lee Tung Hui *was* educated in Japan. --Sumple (Talk) 00:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting observation indeed. I guess it depends on whether a name is more likely to be regarded as a place name or a name of an island. — Instantnood 19:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan IS INDEED a province of China (Republic of China), not the other China (People's Republic of China). The ROC (Republic of China) had the "whole China" = mainland area + taiwan area, before they lost it to the communists (which later formed PRC). Republic of China, now still claim the soverenty of the mainland part of China, however, it really only has governmental control on the Taiwan Province and the Kimmen, Matsu parts of the Fujian Province. Therefore, one would say that it's "Republic of China ON Taiwan" since ROC now really only controls the Taiwan Province effectively. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.183.62 (talk • contribs) .

That's not what we are debating. --Sumple (Talk) 05:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)63.

69.236.183.62 pointed out that Taiwan is not a country, but only a province under Republic of China. The country is "Republic of China" which is composed of mainland and Taiwan. However, Republic of China only exists on Taiwan, thus the name of Republic of China on Taiwan. Direct translation from Chinese also "Zhonghua Mingguo 'zai' Taiwan." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.183.62 (talk • contribs) 23:19, May 7, 2006 (UTC)

Again, that's not what we are debating! We are debating whether it should be "on" or "in". It is a grammatical not political question. "zai" can be in, on, at, etc. --Sumple (Talk) 00:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the convoluted world of ROC/Taiwan/whatever affairs where pretty much anything you say can be taken in a way you never intended or imagined possible. -Loren 20:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(response to 69.236.183.62's comment at 23:19, May 7) Present-day ROC is not only existing in/on/whatsoever Taiwan. It covers Quemoy, Matsu, Jyuguang, Taiping, Pratas, Wuchiu, etc. — Instantnood 19:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

(response to instantnood)yeah, some of those little islands are categorized under kao-hsiung county(and that's certainly in taiwan province) or elsewhere in taiwan province. i'm talking about the taiwan province under the ROC, not the island, and i mentioned the jinmen(quemoy), mazu(matsu) parts under the fujian province earlier. And I said all those because sumple's first statement says "taiwan is either a province or a country" i'm saying that taiwan isn't a country but a merely province under the country called republic of china. You don't say it's the government 'of' taiwan because it's the government of the "whole china," not just 'taiwan,' you don't say it's the government 'in' taiwan because it's a government that is supposedly having governmental control over the "whole china" and stating that it's the government in taiwan makes it a "taiwan government." you say Republic of China is currently on Taiwan because it's a situation where the government is originally thought to be temporarly on Taiwan, however, it's been so long and the issues still aren't sovled between the ROC and the communists(and their formed PRC)...thus the Republic of China on Taiwan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.183.62 (talk • contribs) 04:31, May 9, 2006 (UTC).

Pratas and Taiping are (nominally?) administered Kaohsiung City. These islands are not geographically part of Taiwan, and Kaohsiung City isn't part of Taiwan Province. — Instantnood 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

dang that's actually right. i didn't know it's under kao-hsiung city i thought it was county. anyways, they're all within the "taiwan area" "taiwan di4qu1". which is the area that the ROC calls "ziyoudiqu= taiwan diqu". That's where present ROC is on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.183.62 (talk • contribs) 21:23, May 9, 2006 (UTC).

Guys, off topic. Anon user above seems to misunderstand the meaning of the word "in". --Sumple (Talk) 09:19, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a page released by the US Department of State http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm click Crtl+F and search for on Taiwan. It's used more than merely a few times...when it talked about the KMT administration (the ROC government) it used "on" Taiwan. ROC's consulate (well, sort of) also uses ROC on Taiwan http://www.roc-taiwan.org/usoffice/dc.htm Taiwan Relations Act of 1979 http://www.usconsulate.org.hk/ustw/geninfo/tra1979.htm "The President having terminated governmental relations between the United states and the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.236.183.62 (talk • contribs) 12:12, May 9, 2006 (UTC).

It's like everybody identifies it as an island or an island group. — Instantnood 20:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Note also the Taiwan Relations Act does not cover ROC-held islands on the opposite side of the strait. — Instantnood 18:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Split of article to avoid POV

I propose doing the following operations on this article for the purposes of clarity and to avoid POV. The article as it is written shows extreme bias towards the minority pan-Blue POV of Taiwan. China, the majority of Taiwanese people, and ordinary readers of English would not say that ROC pre-1949 equals ROC post-1949. This is why most people on Taiwan call what is formally called ROC, Taiwan, without batting an eye. If this article were the majority POV, people would call it China, not Taiwan. I think we SHOULD preserve, and must state in any reorganized articles that there is a group of people view that the ROC as "the real China" or as the same entity as it was pre-1949, but we will not use that as an organizing principle. It will make for a much more clear article as well as less biased.

The proposal:

1) There will be a new article on the historical entity called Republican China, which will chronicle the government, politics, culture, economy, important events, etc. of the entity China from around the end of the Qing dynasty to prior to the CCP victory in 1949. It will combine information from the current Republic of China article and the History of the Republic of China article. However, this is what we will do to avoid confusing people. The title of the article will be Republican China article. Then, we can either create a disambiguation page under the title History of the Republic of China or we can redirect to the Republican China article and have a notice at the top saying that if you're looking for the history of Taiwan, please go to so and so.

2) There will be one article on Taiwan. It will combine the current article on Taiwan with the current Republic of China article. The Republic of China article will redirect to Taiwan or we can make it a disambiguation page between Taiwan and Republican China. We will make very very clear language in the Taiwan article stating that the formal name of the government is Republic of China and we will also point out that people generally just say Taiwan. We will state clearly why people who support preserving Taiwanese independence don't like the name ROC and why people that feel Chinese and not Taiwanese don't like giving up the ROC name. We will even point out that a lot of people don't care. In any case, we will be NPOV not by essentially writing two different articles from two different points of view, but by writing one article that recognizes the different points of view while adhering to standard linguistic conventions.

There's a very similar situation, which Wikipedia has handled in the more common sense way, which I will point out--that of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro. Though some Serbians view Serbia to be the new Yugoslavia, it is clear that Serbia and Montenegro, while obviously deeply connected to the historical entity, is not quite the same thing as Yugoslavia. We will handle the situation in the same way here.

I wish to hear different opinions along the lines of how to solve the POV issue here. It should be clear that the current article is unsustainable as it is--people are confused as heck about it, and there are odd things like "Economy of China", "Economy of Taiwan" right next to each other. It was the logical way to organize under the framework that says the ROC is the same before 1949 as after, but as the economy section shows, it's the framework that's the problem.--DownUnder555 12:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

My two cents is that it would get rid of weird things like "exercises sovereignty over" when a state is supposed to be the people plus the government plus the land. One thing I want to point out--there are people who say Taiwan=Republic of China, but we can simply include that in the new organization of the articles as well, meaning we'll state that the formal name is still Republic of China, even if some people would like to say it's Taiwan or that they're interchangeable. This is different from recognizing the reality that people call or refer to the ROC as Taiwan mainly and not as the ROC. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.59.12.231 (talk • contribs) 15:34, May 7, 2006 (UTC).

Not even pro-independence politicians who're in power are disregarding the fact they're holding offices of the Republic of China. And as a matter of fact many of them don't even consider the entirety of the present extent of the ROC (i.e. Taiwan, Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu, Jyuguang, Pratas, Taiping, etc.) as part of their definition of Taiwan. This article as it is already best illustrates the reality. As for economy articles, we can have articles with titles like economic history of China (1912-1945) (or perhaps 1949), and economic history of Taiwan (pre-1949). Economy of the Republic of China can focuses on post-1949 Taiwan, Quemoy, Matsu, Jyuguang, Wuchiu, etc. — Instantnood 17:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to split the article in two. I think the easiest way is to just incorporate any pre-1945/49 stuff to the History of the Republic of China article. The current Republic of China article should only focus on post-1945/1949 material, with the exception of history and/or government. BlueShirts 22:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

brief comments:

1. the original "proposal" seems biased - pan-blue is by no means minority seeing as how they've just won the local elections with huge margins.

2. i don't agree that anything about pre 1949 ROC should be moved into the history. it should be noted that not everyone thinks of taiwan when you say ROC. many people would identify the ROC with the 1911-1949 regime on the mainland as much as the government in taiwan post-1949, if not more. so it is inappropriate if this material is excised from this (main) article. --Sumple (Talk) 00:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, I'm not sure why you put proposal in quotes. In any case, responding:

The situation in Taiwan is much more complicated than your "pan-blue is by no means a minority" would indicate. I said that people who believe the ROC is the pre-1949 entity that is the legitimate ruler of all of China--THEY ARE a minority. As was pointed out, for the story to be consistent, you'd have to have people use China to mean ROC, but people don't do that. They say Taiwan when they mean the ROC. As to the specific reasons why KMT won a lot of seats (notice that deep-blues won NOTHING), is basically because of corruption scandals by officials in the DPP government (Kaohsiung MRT scandal), plus the personal popularity of Ma Ying-jeou. Unpack that one more step--why is Ma Ying-jeou popular? He's a good looking guy that has a Mr. Clean image, he speaks English well for someone Taiwanese, and he has a Harvard law Ph.D. If you know anything about Taiwan, you would understand why he's so popular. He's the fulfillment of everything that parents hope for their children in Taiwan--English speaking, Harvard, Ph.D, respected profession (doctor, TSMC engineer, law). Unfortunately, there's no way to make the leap from the popularity of Ma Ying-jeou to say that people support an image of Taiwan in the mold of this article. Notice also that they were all local elections that they won. How does an image of the ROC as the real China fit into a local election? Tell me if you were a candidate, how you would sell yourself based on your belief that the ROC is not Taiwan and is the legitimate ruler of all of China. Sounds kind of silly, doesn't it?

In fact, the exact opposite would happen. If you strayed from promising a clean record while in office and economic development, and said something about how Taiwan is not the ROC and the ROC includes China, Mongolia, Tibet, etc, you would be committing political suicide. Ma Ying-jeou had the perfect opportunity to say this is what he believed in his televised meeting with President Chen, and he turned it down, because he knows that's fire.

I'm going to agree with your second point, and via my agreement, disagree with Blueshirts. Yes, it would be inconsistent to take out the pre-1949 stuff out of the article as Blueshirts has proposed. But what the organization should be is that the ROC should redirect either to pre-1949 material OR to Taiwan, because you're precisely right, there are large amounts of people that associate it with either.--DownUnder555 11:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the current article claims that "ROC pre-1949 equals ROC post-1949". Please c/p statements that suggest this and we can edit those statements.

The proposal is unfeasible because it gives too much emphasis to the ROC post-1949 when the PRC/CPC is claiming that such a ROC does not legitimately exist. Creating disambiguation pages at heavily trafficked pages is also inappropriate. Yugoslavia is not a dab page, and is not Serbian-centered, and does not make the claim that it still exists.

In any setup, there is should be an article on the Republic of China as a historical entity (1912-present), currently existing at history of the Republic of China, and an article with a country template attached to refer to the entity commonly known as Taiwan. The former should not abruptly end at 1949 because that would be CPC-pov, while not ending it abruptly without explanation would be KMT-pov. I think the solution would be to not end it, but include extensive explanation on how the Communists do not consider the existence post 1949 to be legitimate. As for where the country template should reside, that is a whole separate issue.--Jiang 01:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's my view on the matter. There is a huge amount of overlap between the Taiwan and ROC pages. There would not be so if Taiwan and the ROC were truly distinct entities. Wiki policy is that we don't write two articles from different POV on one topic. Thus, we should make sure that we state the ROC on Taiwan's links to the history of the ROC, but we should do it next to any descriptions of Taiwan, with which it cannot be de-linked. Only by putting all the POVs next to each other do we get a NPOV article.

Jiang, you're trying make the PRC's point of view out to be some big bad wolf, but it's not. The ROC as the political entity governing China did cease to exist in 1949, and that's a point of view much of the rest of the world agrees with too. I think there is plenty of room in a single article to say that "many people feel very strongly to this day that the ROC is the only legitimate ruler of all of China and take the ROC government on Taiwan as the not just the ruler of Taiwan. This spills over into culture as well, with some taking Taiwan as the modern torch-bearer of Chinese culture." There's no denying the ROC's previous history on Taiwan, but it's not the continued history of China. There are plenty of points of view that are not deep-blue nor are they CPC.--140.112.185.129 10:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Jiang--The fact that the ROC article is a single article creates that equivalence.--DownUnder555 16:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the accepted NPOV policy of Wikipedia, in dealing with the Taiwan situation we recognise that there are two political entities, the PRC and the ROC. Thus we say: (1) PRC is no equivalent to China (which is why there are two aritlces, China and People's Republic of China), (2) ROC is not equivalent to Taiwan (ditto two articles, Taiwan and Republic of China, (3) ROC is not equivalent to China (as above), etc.

Any move that puts ROC the political entity together with Taiwan the geographical, administratrative, or cultural entity would violate this NPOV policy. --Sumple (Talk) 06:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Not nessicarily as long as the proposed article makes clear that the post-1949 ROC claims to be a direct continuation of the pre-1949 ROC. The reason I am hesitant on any such action is because: a) It's going to open a whole new can of worms, and b) Quite frankly I'm burnt out over the whole issue. -Loren 06:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I am Taiwanese grad student. No one here think Taiwan's government is really ROC, only name, and only because China say they will have war with us.

I am a Taiwanese-Chinese high school student. My dad is a person from the province "benshenren," my mom's dad (my grandpa) came with the Kuo-ming-tang party from mainland. I grew up in Taiwan, and my parents (even my "Taiwanese" dad) think that our government is the ROC government. I was taught that I was Chinese, and Taiwanese...as in when I'm say Taiwanese, it only identifies which part of China I'm from, not as to use it to indicate what "country" I'm from. (For example, a person from Guangdong would say he's Cantonese, but it's understood that he's Chinese. To say he's Cantonese only tells which part of China he is from. Therefore, I don't understand why some people like to say they're Taiwanese, but not Chinese.)My parents said we're lucky that we live in the "free zones" of China (Republic of China), in T'ai-pei, a city that the ROC government still controls. My grandma and grandpa lives in Miao-li county, Taiwan province. And my grandpa has told me that I'm lucky to live in one of the only two provinces of China that gives people the freedom of speech and such. I am a Taiwanese-Chinese, my government is the ROC, hopefully one day this government can grant its freedoms to all Chinese citizens in all provinces. So I have to disagree with what the previous person said. I live in Taiwan, and "I" and "my parents" think the government currently in Taiwan is indeed the ROC government...and I think my family and I count as "some one" here in Taiwan. 69.236.183.62 (talk • contribs) 21:57, May 12, 2006 (UTC).

That's pretty much my thought too. You can't be "Taiwanese" without being "Chinese" too. Whether that means culturally/ethnically and/or politically depends on who you talk to though. BlueShirts 05:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people say that as a political statement and not culturally. They simply don't agree that Taiwan is a part of the PRC, so they say, I'm Taiwanese, not Chinese. So there's no disagreement. But most people don't view Taiwan as a province of China, either ROC that supposedly governs all of China or the PRC. Most people would support a ROC whose scope was limited to Taiwan though. In any case, we need to follow majority, and then we can capture the other points of view in the article, as the proposal claims it will.

Stay on topic guys. 69.236.183.62's IP, I must point out, is located in San Diego, USA. He's right that some people in Taiwan hold that point of view, but it's usually Mainlanders and their children, and since democratization is limited to about 5-10% of Taiwan's population. This means we should recognize it, but we can't bias the entire organization of the article towards this 5-10% of Taiwan.--140.112.185.129 09:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

The status quo, which is recognised by all political parties that are represented in ROC's legislature, is that Taiwan is at the time being part of the ROC, and ROC administers territories that are historically, culturally and geographically not part of Taiwan. The current pro-independence government has not even considered to abandone the non-Taiwan parts of the ROC, and to stop exercising its power and fulfilling its duty there. The state at which ROC = Taiwan has not been achieved. — Instantnood 18:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I am 69.236.183.62. I'm not in San Diego, but I'm heck as sure in San Francisco, CA, USA. But why does that matter? I left the Taiwan region of ROC in last July to pursue my higher education here in the United States. And I travelled on my Republic of China passport(yes, the one with the added TAIWAN roman letters, but I intrepret that as "ROC currently governs the 'Taiwan region'.) Back in middle school, we had to learn all these "our country" ('wo3-kuo2'; wu3guo2)'s hisotry, geography, and blah. The Minsitry of Education-published textbooks, when I was learning the "Mainland region," the textbook says 'Our country's Mainland region' "Wo3guo2 de da4lu4di4qu3" (my pinyin is bad, excuse me, i hope i spelled that correctly, i grew up with my head being messed up with the bastardized Wade-Giles and other MSP II romanizations used by the ROC, however my national phoentic system is perfect. yeh that bopomofo thing) Clearly, my China, the ROC, the ministry of education under it, still teaches the kids from the taiwan province the same thing. That our country is ROC, and in the textbook it even says our country is like REALLY big or something. (yeah from thta i conclude that it has to include our "mainland region"...i duno if they counted mongolia...like i said, my taiwanese dad, or my other "benshenren" relatives are all supportive to the ROC government. (except for this uncle who opposed my dad's marriage with my "1/2 waishenren" mom. -she's half hakka, half mainland.) I personally also have friends who hold the same view. I think it's not right to say Taiwan = ROC, even "mingjingdang" hasn't achieved that yet. Can someone explain to me when a person says "Taiwanese, not Chinese" is political when we can say "I'm a Chinese of the ROC" or "I'm a Chinese of the 'free' China." I don't know, maybe those aren't really good ways to re-state it, but I just find myself hypocritcal if I had to say, I'm only Taiwanese, and NOT Chinese...Cuz deep-down I know I am Chinese-no matter Taiwan-raised, Taiwan born. Cuz being Taiwanese is being a kind of Chinese to me. (I lived in the north part of Taiwan, I heard people from the south mostly think they're Taiwanese but not Chinese, is this true?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.184.174 (talk • contribs) 21:27, May 13, 2006 (UTC)

For me, the problem with your comments is that I can't trust anything about what you are saying. You lied about being a high school student and you lied about being in Taiwan. The fact that you don't know people from southern Taiwan makes me think that even if you really are from Taiwan, you don't know the mainstream opinions of Taiwan because somehow you've managed to live an isolated life in Taiwan.

My proposal does not deny that people in Taiwan hold your viewpoint. But it does deny giving this viewpoint, held by 5-10% of Taiwan's population, dominance over that of the majority of Taiwanese and both the common sense/rational opinions of English speakers. I absolutely want the viewpoint you hold aired in the new organization but it can't be given dominance.--DownUnder555 11:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe there's more than 5-10% of people who hold that kind of point of view. I think that the majority of Taiwanese people at least acknowledge the fact that they are ethnically Chinese and that their country is called the Republic of China, at least for the time being. And please stop with ad hominem attacks. When did he "lie" about being a high school student from from Taiwan or San Diego? Based on your username you must be from Australia and what are your qualifications? BlueShirts 20:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

argh, taidu fenzi these days. leave my china alone. republic of china does not = taiwan. read the handbook. they can create their republic of taiwan, but until that day, republic of china will not = taiwan (after that day, it won't either, except rot=taiwan). it's in the constitution, it's written, documented. and japan returned taiwan province to china. (i learned all these from textbooks published by minsitry of education roc in t'ien-mu junior high school in shih-lin section, t'ai-pei city, republic of china) and that's how it's supposed to be presented on wiki. (you can add some taiwanese-chinese think "blah blah" but then again i don't know how you got that 5~10% thing. I am a high schooler from taiwan, left last july with my aunt, and i'm still a high schooler. i did not lie, i said "i'm a high schooler in taiwan" so that it's easier understood that i'm from taiwan (and not an ABC or something). and most of my classmates didn't care about politics but i know almost all my friends dislike chen shui-bain. i haven't heard my friends say they hate chinese. they said they dislike "daluren" mainlanders. i know they shouldn't say that cuz i know they only mean they hate the communist government. but i really don't think my friends would not consider themselves chinese, at least in t'ai-pei. i rep the r.o.c. to the fullest, it's where home is truly at. i grew up in t'ai-pei for the most part, lived in miao-li county when i was little. (I even remember when I was little, on the back of the "homework book" we used, it says "Zhu ge tang tang zheng zheng de zhong guo ren...be a good chinese person. i know i'm chinese even if i'm from taiwan. i'm taiwanese, and i'm chinese. [it's so sad that we need to say the second part, i'm chinese, in order to let people like you to understand that i'm chinese too]) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.162.0 (talk • contribs) 13:57, May 14, 2006

---

Can we all just take a deep breath, cool it, and dispense with the political heavy breathing? Identity politics is a contentious issue, but that's not what we're here to discuss. The purpose of this discussion is to determine how best to present the ROC articles. The question is whether the ROC article should be split to pre and post 1949 articles, or as a single monolithic article that covers both. As far as I am concerned neither proposal is inherently POV if done right. That the current government in Taipei is called the ROC is not in dispute. Nor is the fact that the ROC for the most part has been confined to Taiwan and a few minor islands off Fujian since 1949, or the existance and international recognition of Mongolia. I don't care if you think you're Taiwanese only, or Chinese only, or some mix of both. That is not the issue at hand. So shall we dispense with the dick-waving on both sides and instead discuss how to proceed? Thank you. -Loren 21:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Continuity of government

Okay, so to get back on topic. What were the circumstances surrounding the issue of succession of the ROC presidency in 1949? According to what we currently have on the CKS article:

Chiang resigned as President on January 21, 1949, as KMT forces suffered massive losses against the communists. Vice President Li Tsung-jen took over as Acting President, but his relationship with Chiang soon deteriorated, as Chiang still acted as if he were in power, and Li was forced into exile in the United States under a medical excuse (under Chiang's direction, Li was later formally impeached by the Control Yuan). In the early morning of December 10, 1949, Communist troops laid siege to Chengdu, the last KMT occupied city in mainland China, where Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo directed the defense at the Chengdu Central Military Academy. The aircraft May-ling evacuated them to Taiwan on the same day, forever removing them from the Chinese mainland.

So the question is, can CKS's actions in deposing Li Tsung-jen be considered something functioning "outside the system", and thus be analogous to the Free French under Charles de Gaulle meriting a seperate, but related article? Or should this situation be treated more in line with a domestic coup/power transfer, which could be covered in a single article? Yes, I am well aware that CKS still remained the major power in the ROC government even after his resignation. -Loren 21:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Chiang Kai-shek was still very much in control after he had resigned. I believe the resignation itself was ambiguously worded and failed to indicate if he was leaving office permanantly or retirely temporarily (though logic and convention would usually dictate the former). Li Zongren had wanted to establish a resistance in south Asia and open peace negotiations, but Chiang kept ordering counter-orders against his orders and it was Chiang (out of his home in Fenghua) who redirected the military supplies/personnel to Taiwan. When Guangzhou fell and the capital was moved to Chongqing, Chiang rejoined the government and Li flew to the US.

but there is more to the government beyond Chiang, and if we look at the cabinet ministers and members of the National Assembly and Legislative Yuan (many of whom lived to stay in office until 1991) before and after December 1949, we see continuity.--Jiang 22:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Li Tsung-jen was the "acting President" (代總統), a term he disparaged because under the ROC constitution, he should've been "President" (總統), since he was the Vice President (副總統). In essence Chiang Kai-shek acted without regard to the constitution. BlueShirts 23:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I see two issues:

1. If we split, that will avoid the incongruence of having an article that discusses two different entities (one a historical period in China, the other an administration in Taiwan and neeighbouring islands) in the same article.
2. However, if we split, we risk violating NPOV by recognising a separate "Republic of China in/on Taiwan" as distinct from the "Republic of China". Before any of the pro-Greens start blabbing, the reason this violates NPOV is because a significant number of people in Taiwan would say that the two regimes are not distinct.

On the second issue, I think the preceding discussion is enough to indicate that there is continuity. --Sumple (Talk) 00:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's a contiguous history of the same entity, but it makes for an easy breakpoint for the article - like many historical entries are series broken down by periods. That's not a POV breakpoint at all and there should be no objection to forward/backwards statements between the two. SchmuckyTheCat 05:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I just checked, it's a 71k article. Size alone justifies the split. SchmuckyTheCat 05:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Size alone does not justify a split. When an article is too long, we do not split it. We use summary style, which already exists in this article, but is being misused by some (perhaps well intentioned) editors who are adding too much content to this page while neglecting the daughter articles. We simply need to move a bunch of content to the daughter articles if size alone is the issue. Of course, size is not the only or main issue here.--Jiang 06:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Any reorganization pertains to the articles Republic of China, Taiwan, Taiwan Province, History of the Republic of China, and History of Taiwan. Among these, one of the articles must be a standard country article with the standard country template and another must be a general overview article for the Republic of China. As the first two are frequently trafficked pages of well known names, they should be simply turned into disambiguation pages like how China is not a disambiguation page just because different people have varying definitions of the term. It comes down to what we would like to call the 1) existing country template article 2) historical country article 3) island article and 4) province article and whether any of these should be merged, split, or eliminated. Disambiguation pages are not necessary here. --Jiang 06:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The question isn't whether some people believe that the ROC oh say circa 1920 is the same entity as the ROC circa 1980. We know some people believe this, and these people's opinions should be properly voiced. Bringing up your friends, your uncles, and your own beliefs doesn't help since we all already know this group exists. However, the question here is what is the right organization for this article.

Summarizing points:

1) The confusion argument. People regularly, predictably, always come to the talk page and state how they don't know what the difference is supposed to be between the ROC and Taiwan or that they think the article in general is confusing etc. Would it be better if we just followed English convention and had a Taiwan article on the state formally titled Republic of China?

2) The mainstream argument. The people that hold the ROC to be the continuation of the old ROC and the legitimate ruler of all of China aren't blue; they're deep blue. A majority of Taiwanese do not view the ROC this way. There was the interview with Ma Ying-jeou mentioned where he didn't dare say on national TV that the ROC consists of Taiwan +　China. Now the suggestion isn't to try to censor out this POV, but to give it its proper weight. NPOV means you state alternative POVs, but you attribute and you give them proper weights.

3) The law-based argument. Loren brought up the point that the transition of government in 1949 may or may not be construed as extra-legal. If extra-legal, the ROC pre-1949 and after 1949 may not be the same government on a legal basis.

4) My own "government" vs "state" argument. This article is obviously not about a government, but rather it is about a state. All of the descriptions about the ROC historical or current status include bits about the people, culture, economy--how would these fit into just a government article? If it's about a state, then it becomes exceedingly, exceedingly difficult to maintain that the old ROC is the same as the ROC on Taiwan.--61.59.233.156 09:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I propose that...

a) The Republic of China article should focus on the state of the current state that resides on the geographical entity known as Taiwan. Geographical information and other topics that are tied to the ROC's present location/state will redirect to sub-articles from the Taiwan article. A brief blurb will link to the separate article on the History of the Republic of China. Basically, an article about a state with the sub-articles linked to the geographical sub-articles. If sub-articles are required for the ROC before Taiwan, then they should be kept succint. (Ideally, this sort of culture/people stuff specific to a certain time period should go under the main geographic country; that is, the history of China.)

b) The article Taiwan, or Taiwan_(Island), focus on the history of this geographic location and its people/culture from prehistory to (briefly) now, with a link to the ROC article for more on the exact current state. Taiwan as a location has a history beyond the ROC, just as the ROC has a history beyond Taiwan.

c) The History of the Republic of China article will cover the entire history of the state(s) known by this name. It's impractical to maintain two separate articles on the same history topic when they're so closely linked. Whether or not you personally believe that the Republic of China on Taiwan is the same or different than the Republic of China on China, the history is too closely related to be satisfactorily cut. The summary and a section about the move to Taiwan should talk about the controversy over their identity (whether they're the same). Talking about the Histoy of the Republic of China in one article doesn't have to imply support for the claim that the ROC is the legitimate ruler of China; indeed, even supporting the view that the ROC pre- and post-1949 are the same does not imply that the ROC should still rule mainland China: losing a territory does not imply a disruption in government.

Overall, my best argument for this view, in my opinion, is that is will require the least amount of reorganization. Most of the articles just need some trimming or redirection of links. The ROC article needs a disambiguation note at the top. No new articles are needed, though. The current material can easily fulfill the requirements listed. Mysterius 22:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I like myesterius' proposal. I don't like the way anon user 61.whatever keeps on dismissing other people's POV as "extreme minority" without presenting any rational argument as to how the Republic of China now is distinct from the Republic of China before. --Sumple (Talk) 23:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm Taiwanese. How can they be same when the people and the place are completely different? If US move to Guam, after controlling it for 4 years, does it make it simply a retreat to a smaller portion of the territory? What percentage of China would Taiwan be again? People or land? You are all crazy.

I am also Taiwanese and if you continue to resort to personal attacks like that no one is going to take you seriously, and you run the risk of being blocked. Please discuss your reasoning, do not resort to insults. -Loren 16:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of China has been in existence since 1912 but saw its jurisdiction restricted to Taiwan and a few islands. What's so hard to understand? BlueShirts 20:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Except... Taiwan was then under military occupation. Continuing the above analogy, but not the attitude, from a law perspective, this would be like if the US moved to Japan right after World War II, which was under US occupation. Anyways, for an entity that's so in-love with unity of the state, anything that doesn't control Beijing, doesn't control a large portion of China, by definition, is not China. It violates 2000 years of Chinese political history.