Talk:Taiwan/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Comparison with mainland Chinese culture

Perhaps an interesting section would be on the culture of the ROC, especially as it contrasts with those of the PRC.

Where to put ChineseText box?

Does anyone have any ideas where to put the {{ChineseText}} template? I think it should go at the top, but it collides with the Country infobox there. --Ideogram 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems that in other articles with Chinese text, the {{ChineseText}} template is put in one of the bottom sections like See also, Notes or External links. --GunnarRene 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

The trade surplus is substantial, and foreign reserves are the world's third largest.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

Do you have guys some sources for that? Cheers, Noisettes 11:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What

I THINK THIS ARTICLE NEED MORE AND MORE PICTURES , SEE People's Republic of China ANDSouth Korea ANDJapan ANDSingapore , THESE ARTICLE HAVE A LOT OF PICTURES ,SHOULDN SOMEBODY TO ADD MORE PICTURES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ORDER (talk • contribs) 2006-08-15 08:56:12

Rename to Taiwan

This article should be reverted to Taiwan, it is a more common usage for this subject. 71.138.114.200 10:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

ROC is not recognized by the UN. Check UN Resolution 2758. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.174.144.85 (talk • contribs) .

There is already a seperate article named Taiwan, and ROC is the offical name of the country. Until that name changes, I don't see a reason why this article should also. There are also de facto countries not recognized by UN that have articles here as well (See Unrecognized Countries). Please take your personal politics elsewhere outside Wikipedia. This is not the proper forum for them. --24.82.221.45 06:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, isn't recognizing Taiwan as a country also NPOV? Willsuzhou 08:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. That would offend both the PRC and the ROC. --GunnarRene 09:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the discussion page. Please shorten your personal opinion too. May I correct your mistake, ROC is the "OFFICIAL" name for Taiwan. I knew there are many unrecognized places in the world. Discussing about the personal politics issue, do you mean either ROC is not a state nor Taiwan is not a quasi state? Wrong, China is a state right? Because without either PRC or ROC which would cause division/seperation of China. I want to provide you a fact, ROC abides by the One China principle as well as PRC, there is not that much conflict between the two governments within this One China framework historically, culturally or politically (as you personally do not like it, sigh).

In fact, Republic of China (on Taiwan? depends on the understanding of the National Assembly eletion held in Taiwan in the early 90's and the later abolishment which transfers all it's structural organs and powers to Legislative Yuan) wants to re-enter UN and such effort had started since 90's. However, the PRC always reacted that UN Resolution 2758 had settled the case for ROC's bid to re-enter UN. UN Resolution 2758 has something to do with Chiang Kai Shek's government which is the Republic of China. What I am emphasizing here is that when ROC was ousted by the UN many (and to a certain extant, most countries in the world) countries shifted dipomatic recognition to PRC in the 70's to whom should be the sole legitimate government of China based on their national interest and choose to approach ROC with the name "Taiwan" via unofficial means. So when we call Taiwan we say Taiwan but not Republic of China according to what passport and which government you have. Most countries in the world have unofficial relationship with ROC with the name "Taiwan" and understands there is only one China and what One China principle means. Recognizing both PRC and ROC would violate both government's different One China stance. Recognizing either ROC or PRC at the same time calling the other government with PRC or ROC would stand against it's national interest and fires the dispute of which government either PRC or ROC should represent China. The US regulates relations with Taiwan by a domestic law which is the Taiwan Relations Act that allows unofficial relations with Taiwan by it's citizens. The KMT in ROC wants hold the status quo (not re-unify nor unify with mainland because China is independent, complete in territorial term and it is already unified!)with mainland China. On the other hand, by the theory of Taiwan independence, ROC is illegally occupying Taiwan, in addition, there are certian amount of citizens in Taiwan supports constitutional referendum to abolish the ROC title and have independence. The PRC do not want to see the split of Taiwan therefore passed the anti-succession law. When the topic comes to "Rename to Taiwan" my statement fits because such topic in the discussion page emcompasses multi-dimensional responses.

What? --GunnarRene 18:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether is it illegal or not for a particular government to occupy a particular territory is not up to us to manupulate, to debate and to decide. What we should be interested in is to document facts into wikipedia. 'Republic of China (ROC)' is/was an entity that exist(ed), and this article is written for the purpose of documentating this entity. 'Taiwan' has its attributes and shouldn't be mixed up with 'ROC'. My suggestion for this problem is to amend the article to describe 'ROC' more than on 'taiwan'. Informations related more towards 'taiwan' can then be moved to other respective articles. --Trueblues 12:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I AGREE AND FULLY SUPPORT THE RENAMING OF THIS ARTICLE TO TAIWAN! The Republic of China (Taiwan) is an independent sovereign country, and it doesn't matter what kind of false rhetoric that the Communist Chinese governent of the People's Republic of China uses to make the ROC (Taiwan) look like one of their so-called "provinces" and confuse the international media. Taiwan is an independent country that goes by the name: Republic of China (Taiwan) www.gio.gov.tw

I SUPPORT CHANGING THE NAME TO TAIWAN! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.191.71.222 (talk) .

Wikipedia is not a personal soapbox, nor is it an appropriate forum to decide the status of a nation or a vehicle for jingoistic nationalism. You're reeeeaally going to get more consideration if you calm down a little. Luna Santin 09:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan is the island on which the main government of the Republic of China is situated on. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct! And the Republic of China on Taiwan is an independent sovereign country separate from the People's Republic of China just like there was the United States of America and the Confederate States of America or North Korea and South Korea, otherwise why would they have their own Army, Navy, Air Force, Missile Command, Space Satellites, their own DEMOCRATICALLY elected President Chen Shui-Bian, their own democratic government and their own national borders which they currently control disregarding the irrelevant and obsolete ROC maps that still show all of China, including Mongolia and Tibet, which is practically ridiculous!

Why do people who have no sense of history post on Wikipedia? Wikipedia is a laughing stock among academians because of the previous post. The Confederate States of America was most definitely not a country. It was never recognized by any other nation and the Civil War and Reconstruction affirmed that. The Civil War was fought over whether or not states have the right to secede and since the North won, the Confederate States had no right to be a seperate nation. During Reconstruction, with the passage of the 13th to 15th Amendments, the United States established its precedence over individual states. I mean if the Confederacy was its own country, Hawaii would have withdrawn immediately after joining the Union. Every time Republicans won an election, the blue states would secede. Furthermore the situation in North and South Korea is very different. After WWII, the peninsula was split between the US and USSR. There was no established gov't at the time like there was in China, no overthrow of the gov't, the peninsula was split in half. Next time, people should research a bit before ranting about Taiwanese independence. Kwazyutopia19 21:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)KwazyUtopia19

The article will remain Republic of China. This is consistent with the Manual of Style which clearly states that entities are named by however they name themselves (Self-Identity). This is regardless of the fact that very few countries recognise Taiwan as the 'Republic of China'. Wikipedia is not the United Nations, and calling or not calling a country by a particular name has nothing to do with what is right or legitimate. If the government on Taiwan chooses to unify with the mainland or rename its country to "Wizzle-Wozzle" we can revisit the question Kransky 09:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should be renamed to Taiwan. Screw political status, most people refer to it as Taiwan anyways. 65.165.15.175 05:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of China holds much history on mainland China as well. To move everything in this article to Taiwan would therefore be inappropriate, where would ROC on mainland China fit in Taiwan's article? Leave ROC's article to describe the political entity, and leave Taiwan's article to describe the island's geography and culture. Further... don't you think moving all of this information to Taiwan's article would result in an excessively large page? Think twice, type once, no problem. Vindictive Warrior 13:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree changing the name to Taiwan! It is the most common name for the Republic of China. See Wikipedia:Use common names--Jerrypp772000 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

To Vindictive Warrior: If the whole article is going to merge into the article of Taiwan, then you won't have to worry about it. There won't be any missing information!--Jerrypp772000 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

This reads more like a travel brochure than a factual article, please address this ASAP.Pubuman 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please be more specific. How is the text not neutral, even if it reads like a "travel brochure"? --Jiang 11:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"The system has been successful in that pupils in the ROC boast some of the highest test scores in the world, especially in math and science" There is no source or basis for this at all. What does this even mean, there are no standardised tests for the world as such, and thus scores are not comparable.

"The ROC was a founding member of the United Nations and held China's seat on the Security Council until 1971, when it was expelled by General Assembly Resolution 2758 and replaced in all UN organs with the PRC." Again this is not factually accurate. ROC was not expelled per se, as the UN still maintains. It was given a choice and ROC chose to leave. See the full UN report for details. I think this constitutes some sort of bias! Please address these issues. Pubuman 07:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that you bring up these issues at Talk:UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 (the resolution to "restore to the People's Republic of China all its rights and expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek.") and at Talk:Education in the Republic of China. --GunnarRene 03:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion noted, however since these claims are made in this article I feel the NPOV tag is fair, where ever the inaccuracies are they should be noted, don't you think so? And thanks for applying the tags properly, the general NPOV tag I suppose was ... too general... Pubuman 14:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fair to tag, but the most visible tags should be in the main articles on those subjects, not here in the summary. You did nothing wrong, so don't worry. It's a collaborative effort. --GunnarRene 15:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think a {{Fact}} tag would be more appropriate than an NPOV tag. BlueShirts 15:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Blueshirts. Indeed, this was not really an NPOV dispute, but rather one about facts in two sections. But using {{Fact}} does not rule out a "disputed section" template; the disputed section templates highlight the existence of the dispute while the "citation needed" is used to locate exactly where the questioned sentences are. --GunnarRene 15:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with GunnarRene, perhaps citation tags should be added to the specific sentences also?Pubuman 02:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember, Resolution 2758 was drafted by Albania, one of PRC's strongest supporter at the time, and it reflected PRC's position then and now: PRC succeed ROC as the government of all of China. However, ROC has survived on a piece of China, Taiwan, for the past 57 years, and gained legitmate right to govern Taiwan and surrounding islands through democracy. Therefore, PRC did not succeed ROC as the government for all of China which leads to the present situation of two governments claim sovereignity on all of China while each one only controls parts of China. --Will74205 22:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The RoC does not recognize the one china policy. That is the central conflict in cross strait relations.

Well in the Taiwanese Constitution, Taiwan still claims parts of Inner Mongolia and Mainland China as its territory. Therefore, Taiwan by claiming this land accepts that there is one China only it claims to be the rightful gov't. Check the NYTIMES Sept 28, 3006 issue. Kwazyutopia19 21:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)KwazyUtopia19

Change the map

According no NPOV policy map should consist of all disputed teriitories. ROC claims mainland china and a bunch of other territories. Please include them in the map. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leotolstoy (talk • contribs) .

This issue has already been discussed before. It was decided to include only areas under the effetive control of the ROC government. The same goes for the PRC and pretty much any nation-state anywhere in the world. The locator box is intended to give readers an idea of where a nation-state is located. I fail to see how implying that a government controls areas that it doesn't in the locator box is neutral. -Loren 17:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont see this policy being implemented in other maps. All chinese maps mark south china sea, arunachal pradesh and aksai chin (In fact all these areas are drawn inside the boundaries). I dont see why we are having this disparity User:Leotolstoy.

The PRC map does not show Taiwan, and the maps of South Korea and North Korea do not cover the entire penninsula even though both the ROK and DPRK claim each other. If your objection is in regards to disputed territories on the PRC map I'd suggest discussing it over there, rather then here where it is somewhat off topic. -Loren 20:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No. PRC maps show Taiwan. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:China_administrative.png, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:China-Anhui.png or for that matter any locator map of PRC. I already discussed about NPOV rules and everybody told me that if a territory is being claimed by more than one country, it should be included in all those countries' map and should be properly annotated.User:Leotolstoy

This does not extend to the locator box maps which is what you were disputing and to which I linked to earlier. Territorial claims are addressed further in the articles, however locator box maps show only areas under effective control. -Loren 20:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know all maps should be accurate. Image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:China-Anhui.png appears in the locator box of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anhui and it shows Taiwan as a disputed territory. I dont see why this map cannot be made accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leotolstoy (talk • contribs) .

The map is already accurate in that it shows the current jurisdiction of the ROC. Territorial claims are covered further elsewhere in the article, not in locator boxes in the infobox template. -Loren 23:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Are those images (in PRC pages) not locator images?. It is wrong to show Taiwan as part of PRC in all PRC's images, but not including mainland china in Taiwan's locator image User:Leotolstoy

Loren meant country locator maps, actually. Currently practice is inconsistent, for example, Image:LocationPRChina.png does not show Taiwan and Arunachal Pradesh; Image:LocationJapan.png does not show the southern Kuriles; but Image:LocationIndia.png shows Aksai Chin as well as all of Kashmir. In the case of the ROC it's clear that showing all of China would simply add to the confusion that many readers have, therefore it is not shown. -- ran (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation text battle

The first paragraph of the article is apparently acceptable to all, and it does a better job of explaining the situation to the lay reader ("Two Chinas? Huh?") than the disambiguation blurb ever will. That's why I proposed the "see below for details" variant: it avoids effectively duplicating the first part of the article, keeps mention of "the other China" to a minimum in order to placate those editors who apparently hate to see it referred to at all, and still prevents the page from looking at first glance like it says "China: Not to be confused with China," as the most minimal of the texts unfortunately did.

I fear that we're now going to start fighting over the little flag. There's some value to putting it there, just as there was some value to mentioning that the RoC is colloquially referred to as Taiwan 90% of the time, but, also like references to Taiwan, it seems to be unacceptable to some editors. Or maybe that's just my pessimism talking, and we've finally settled on something. —Eric S. Smith 20:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel the flag is not very useful. Anyone who needs the disambiguation to point them to the right "China" would have no idea what the flags mean. --Sumple (Talk) 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Think we need a semi-protection for the article? We get little "John Smiths" coming and adding "Taiwans" every day to the title (and I'm not referring to the specific user, rather as a whole). How about a semi-protection until Western media stops its propaganda and Chinophobia? Comments? Aran|heru|nar 12:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hehheh, I think the word is Sinophobia. --- Hong Qi Gong 16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Wheaton on de facto Sovereignty

"The internal soveriegnty of a state does not require the recognition of other states to confirm its internal sovereignty. The existence of the state de facto is sufficient in this respect, to establish its sovereignty de jure. It is a state because it exists.

"The external sovereignty of any State, on the other hand, may require recognition by other States in order to render it perfect and complete. So long, indeed, as the new State confines its actions to iys own citizens, and to the limits of its own terriotory, it may well dispense with such recognition..."

Henry Wheaton, Elements of International Law, 6th ed. (Boston, 1855), p. 30f.

Wheaton has a lot more to say on sovereignty, some of which lend support to the PRC position and some of which lends support to the ROC (Taiwan). But fo all intents and purposes you could make a case that Taiwan is de facto sovereign, without denying the fact that this is complicated by Taiwan's general lack of intenational recognition. Just my two cents. --Niohe 12:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

wait a minute, as far as I can see, what those quotes say is that de facto existence proves de jure sovereignty. That's not the same as "de facto sovereignty". I'm pretty sure there's no such thing as "de facto sovereignty" because sovereignty by definition is de jure, i.e. a question of law.

It's like you can have de facto possession and de jure ownership, but there's no such thing as de facto ownership. If you "de facto" look/act like you own the item, then you have possession.

If we use the Wheaton line of reasoning ("internal sovereignty"), then Taiwan is de jure sovereign by virtual of its existence, but not necessarily recognised externally as such. --Sumple (Talk) 13:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Sumple, you can't confuse the issue like this. If we are to believe Wheaton, Taiwan has de jure international sovereignty, which I am not sure excludes the possibility of de facto internal sovereignty. That is not just a question of what is enshrined in the organic law of a country, but also how the government of Taiwan actually operates. I understand that you are trained in the common law, which gives strong enmphasis on precedents and unwritten laws, and I am quite surprised that you are making arguments like this.

Finally, property law and the law between nations are quite different concepts, I am sure we can agree on that. Taiwan is not a piece of real estate.--Niohe 16:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

True, but on the other hand there are other examples where there is a clear distinction between 'de facto' and 'de jure' sovereignty, Iraqi Kurdistan being one example, and there are few who would argue that Iraqi Kurdistan is a sovereign state. If the issue under discussion was the 'Republic of Taiwan' it would be clearer, but we are talking about the Republic of China, whose functioning internal sovereignty is limited to a tiny proportion of what is internationally recognized to be the the territory of the state; by that definition then the ROC's claims to even internal sovereignty are dubious, so Wheaton's definition is inappropriate. However, the ROC does maintain de facto control over a small proportion of what is recognized by all governments, including those in Beijing and Taipei, to be the sovereign nation of China, which makes the ROC sovereign de facto on Taiwan. Wheaton's definition would be applicable if the ROC gave up all its claims to the mainland, under which circumstances its internal sovereignty would be clear (on the precarious assumption that the PRC would not take action to debilitate that internal sovereignty). Cripipper 14:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was umder the distinct impression that the ROC has given up its claims on the mainland.--Niohe 17:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

De facto yes, but not de jure. The 1946 ROC constitution clearly stated that the territory of the ROC was that which was originally governed by it and that it could not be changed without the consent of the National Assembly, which never happened. Nanjing is still the legal capital. There is, however, scope for argument that Taiwan is not actually part of the ROC; but that just backs up my original point. One could argue that the ROC is a de facto sovereign state, and that Taiwan is a de jure sovereign state (on the principle of Heaton). The matter just becomes rather muddy when one refers to the Republic of China (Taiwan) because technically and legally they are not the same thing. Legally, Taiwan either a) is not part of the ROC (never having been incorporated into the national territory by means of the National Assembly) therefore making ROC rule on the island illegal and that the ROC is only then the offshore islands (but then if you take Heaton into account by virtue of its exercise of internal sovereignty on Taiwan, the ROC is sovereign there); or b) is a province of the ROC - so then the question of sovereignty goes back to what is the ROC and the nature of its sovereignty.

Politically giving up claim to the mainland is not the same as legally doing so. Were the latter to happen Beijing would interpret it as tantamount to a declaration of independence, unless it was explicitly worded in some kind of 'One Country-two systems' formula. Cripipper 18:24, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I find your argument very confusing. We are not arguing a case in court of law here, let the ROC and PRC do that for themselves. If the PRC has chosen not to interpret Taiwan's renunication of its rule over the mainland, that's great, but you can't use Beijing reaction or lack thereof as the legal litmus test whether Taiwan has given up its claims or not in a legal sense. Does Beijing have a right to veto what we write here on Wikipedia?--Niohe 18:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The President of the ROC said they no longer challenge Beijing to rule the mainland, but the ROC constitution lays claim to it. Politically they have renounced rule over the mainland but not legally. There is a big distinction between the two. Cripipper 19:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, you are dodging the issue and it's getting tiresome. Governments often do things that are not enshrined in the constitution, it's called foreign policy. What is written in a constitution of a given country may or may not have bearing on a country's relations with other countries. Generally international treaties override local law, that is a fundamental principle of interantional law. If you renounce territorial claims publicly, that has a legal force in itself.

Ireland claimed North Ireland from the UK until not long ago, yet the two countries recognized each other. West Germany renounced its claim on the lands east of Oder-Neisse before doing it constitutionally - pending a political solution and eventual reunification. Perhaps the PRC, the policy of which you seem to defend, should start learning from other countries. Sober up!--Niohe 19:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I am not defending anything or anyone, and cannot for the life of me think what issue I am dodging. I was simply stating the legal position; we are not talking about foreign policy we are talking about juridical status. The constitution of the ROC says that the mainland is part of its territory. That has implications for the legal status of the ROC itself, as discussed above. Your statement "Generally international treaties override local law, that is a fundamental principle of interantional law. If you renounce territorial claims publicly, that has a legal force in itself" is not true. Countries are generally not free to do anything that is against their constitutions without a constitutional amendment or prior legislative device enshrining such a principle. A country cannot contravene its own constitution either in policy or treaty - to do so is, well, unconstitutional. A public renunciation of a territorial claim is a political act, not a legal one. In the ROC, it is in the constitution that changes to the definition of the national territory may only be made by the National Assembly. Cripipper 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you base that on? Actually international laws do often take precedence over local laws, many countries have even enacted explicit legislation to that effect, especially in Europe. If a country signs a convention on free trade or human rights, it is understood that the country is bound to change all conflicting laws. A constitution is but an internal document regulating the government of a country, which has little or no application outside its borders - if I understood it correctly. Or is it incumbent of the rest of the world to enforce the constitutions of other countries when they default?

If the Taiwanese government violates its own constitution by renouncing territorial claims, that is of little or no legal consequence outside of Taiwan and the other islands controlled by the ROC (Taiwan). It's their problem, not Wikipedia's. To say that Taiwan is not an internally sovereign state because it does not control the territories it claim in its constitution is just a red herring.

To exclude all properly footnoted references the name the democratically elected government of Taiwan happens to use now [www.gio.gov.tw/] is a POV edit. It is not our job to pass judgement or interpret what's going on in Taiwan, let the sources speak for themselves.--Niohe 00:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

What you may not realise though, is that constitutional amendments in Taiwan are, in and of themselves, controversial. A lot of these questions about the "independence" and "sovereignty" of the ROC, and even what to call the country are argued to the point of what the constitution says, with the pro-unification and pro-status quo camps arguing based on what's enshrined in the ROC constitution, and the pro-independence camp wanting to change the constitution so they can push ahead for official independence. A lot of the rhetoric that the DPP tries to push through are constantly being challenged in Taiwan itself, not to mention by the mainland Chinese government also. Even the US government has told the DPP to tone it down. Using what the current government does instead of what the constitution says is being POV. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for your incisive analysis. I had never heard about controversial constitutional amendments before, that must be a distinctive Taiwanese problem.--Niohe 20:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the sarcastic and passive aggressive reply! And way to assume good faith. My point still remains, however, that using the DPP's rhetoric at these articles is extremely POV. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I found your post patronizing to say the least, that's why I wrote what I wrote. I've been discussing this question for some time, and you talk as if I didn't know that both the Constitution and its amendments are controversial. As if use of DPP rhetoric was POV, but not use of the antiquated ROC constitution. Gotta run, let's keep up the discussion. Perhaps I need a cold shower first.--Niohe 20:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

What you've written so far does not exactly show an understanding of how crucial and controversial constitutional amendments are in Taiwan. The issue is directly related to these issues such as "independence" and "sovereignty", and the name of the country itself. Yet you seem to just take the DPP's POV readily without considering that the constitution and constitutional amendments is pretty much at the heart of the disagreement between the different camps. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean that I don't understand it. --Niohe 00:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, no; when talking about a legal issue, discussion of the ROC constitution, archaic or not, is not POV at all - it is rather crucial. The use of party political sloganeering is, however, POV. There seems to be some difficulty in seperating the political and moral issues here from the legal ones. Cripipper 20:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Niohe: [1] "rv Yes, a discussion is on-going, so leave as is for the time being and contribute with your own point of view." I was under the impression that "de facto sovereign" was the new language here. As for the legal force of public statements in the area of international law, that is quite a fuzzball. What we have here are statements that the ROC are not actively pursuing the claim to the mainland, but the claim still exists "de jure". If there was actually a treaty between the PRC and ROC where the matters were settled, that would be a convincing resolution — but even then ROC law would need to be changed and such a change would probably be demanded by the PRC. Such a treaty could even leave the issue unsettled and rather propose a "temporary" solution. Many countries claim territories in Antartica for example, but they have signed a treaty where although the claims persist, the countries have mostly agreed not to pursue those claims. In the case of the PRC and ROC, however, there's no such treaty yet.--GunnarRene 20:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, isn't "de facto sovereign" somewhat redundant with "state"? The PRC is both de facto and de jure sovereign according to its own laws. Even if other states consider it to be de jure non-sovereign, if we accept the theory Henry Wheaton above, then it follows from the supposed fact that the PRC is de facto sovereign that the PRC is BOTH de facto and de jure soverign, and "de facto sovereign" is redundant with "state". QED? --GunnarRene 20:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It is tautologous to some degree; shall we change 'state' to 'nation'? :) On a more serious point, see my point above about why the ROC claim to the mainland makes its sovereignty dubious on the basis of Wheaton. The problem with the ROC is that it is not sovereign de facto in 95% of the territory of the ROC. Cripipper 21:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Then how about we leave it out of the first sentence, since the very next sentences explain the facts of the situation without having to interpret which way the ROC is sovereign. "De facto sovereieign" is better than "sovereign" but I think the original designation of as a "state" is enough, especially since this state controlled mainland China in the past too. This kind of discussion might be suited for one of the sections. --GunnarRene 22:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)\

Well, that's that sorted. Genius Chimpanzee has decided for us what it should be. Unfortunately I disagree with him if 'equality' means dumbing down and does not explain the full legal situation. If equality of treatment is necessary then we should remove all references to Nanjing being the de jure capital of the ROC - after all, why should the ROC get two capitals and the PRC only one? ;) Cripipper 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV in presenting opinions is one thing, but the reality on the ground is another. The problem with focusing too much the legal situation is that quite frankly, every party involved has his/her own idea of what the legal situation is. Throw in politics as usual and you end up with some completely ridiculous things happening like people demanding we include mainland China and Mongolia on locator maps of the ROC, replacing everything with "Taiwan Province", or renaming the title of the ROC before the Constitution is amended. I believe the "legal situation" should take a back seat to the situation which actually exists. I think it is quite sufficient for the intro to mention that while the ROC exercises sovereignty over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, it's right to do so is disputed by the PRC. We can leave the sementics for the political status sections and articles. -Loren 02:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, unless any of us here has a PhD in International Law or Constitutional Law, how about leaving questions of law to experts, i.e. verifiable sources? WP:OR? Unless someone can supply a source on the point as to what is the status of the ROC government (sovereign, jointly sovereign, separately sovereign, internationally sovereign, externally sovereign, "de facto sovereign", etc), we really should not be deciding its status by empty rhetoric. Just leave it as a "state" (I think everyone can agree with that), and leave the legal details for the daughter articles, or until an unequivocal source is found. --Sumple (Talk) 05:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No objections to that here. -Loren 05:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So, we're not discussing law anymore? Well, I wasn't the one who brought law into the debate in the first place, but I quoted a recognized authority on the matter trying to bring some clarity into the matter WP:OR - look where it got us. I was very surprised by the hostility Wheaton elicited and I had a hard time keeping up with responding to manmy of the comments, that had little or nothing to do with the original point. Anyway, let's leave it. But we still can't quote or reference what popularly elected governments call themselves, I take it?--Niohe 13:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

That was a deliberately inflammatory comment on your behalf. Where does it say "we still can't quote or reference what popularly elected governments call themselves"? --Sumple (Talk) 13:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please be careful before you accuse people of making inflammatory comments; that is your interpretation of what I just said. In good faith, I inserted references to the official ROC (Taiwan) government homepage on the China page, which were propmtly deleted or overwritten by other users, who told me to move this to the ROC page. When I did move the link there, then I was told it was inappropriate.--Niohe 14:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Mr. Niohe, but cool it. You indeed have a tendancy to adopt a very aggressive tone; see above your comments "we still can't quote...?"; "Sober up!"; "Thank you for your incisive analysis"; "You're dodging the issue and it's getting tiresome..." Even your response to being accused of making inflammatory incomments was, erm, inflammatory. Go take that cold shower you mentioned yesterday! Cripipper 14:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sigh.--Niohe 15:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Territory, capital and constitution

Quick question, can someone point me to where in the ROC Constitution the capital and territorial boundaries are defined? A cursory search of the ROC Constitution shows no mention of the subject, except for some vauge references to the mainland, Mongolia, and Tibet. The closest thing I can find is Article 4: The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly. See ROC Constitution, and analysis on [2]. -Loren 03:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is not defined. And no one wants to. The middle line was defined by the US in 1951 See [3]. Parts of the ROC lie on the Chinese side of the line, and civilian flights actually fly into Chinese airspace without an agreement. Wenzi 05:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Article 4 is translated into English in the official translation as 'existing national boundaries', but that is not what the Chinese text says. The Chinese is actually lacking in clarity ("依其固有之疆域"), but 'traditional territories' or 'intrinsic territories' come closer to the actual meaning; it is a claim seemingly based on precedence and ethnicity rather than anything definitive. 'Existing national boundaries' only comes close if you understand it as meaning 'national boundaries as exist in 1946', but even then that is not what the Chinese text says. Cripipper 14:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, I have taken my shower. As I have understood it, the job of an editor is to enter information that is verifiable - we are not here to establish "truth". Now, I and some other editors feel that it is appropriate to enter the name that the authorities in Taiwan happen to use at the moment - The Republic of China (Taiwan) - and I entered a verifiable source in good faith in support of my edit. The reasons why we think it is appropriate to do so we can leave aside for the moment, as well as the reason why some people feel it is inappropriate.

What answer do I get? Well, I got into a long, long discussion with one editor whom I have great respect for, documented on my user page, where he put forward a number of arguments against using ROC (Taiwan). One argument was that if we say ROC (Taiwan), the we have to say PRC (Taibei). Another argument was that since the name is not enshrined in the ROC constitution it cannot be used. Now, I must admit that I was carried away by these arguments, and while I stand by my basic reasoning, I now realize that what happened was that we started to engage in interpreting PRC and ROC policies and constitutions, which is not our job. I should have realized this at the very beginning, but I didn't. My apologies for that and for any remarks that may have been understood as sarcastic.

Now, if we boil this down to a policy matter at its most basic level, we should be dealing with verifiable information - not decide what is constitutional or not. If I say that the government on Taiwan calls itself the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and that it considers itself a "sovereign" state, and if I can back that up with a verifiable source, which I can, then there is no reason to delete that information. I don't need to justify it further. If I am asked why we shouldn't say PRC (China) as well - as a counterpart - the burden of proof is not on me. To use the name ROC (Taiwan) in the heading of an article related to Taiwan is not an expression of a POV. To delete it, because it is "offensive" to some people is an expression of POV. --Niohe 02:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And the problem with your reasoning, as explained before is that the official title has not actually been changed. The ROC Constitution which the government functions under has not been changed in any amendment, which is also perfectly verifiable. As long as the Constitution which the government functions under remains unamended or otherwise unchanged the official title has not changed either, regardless of what the Executive Branch, or any government official implies or says. Constitutionality aside, the Executive Branch alone does not comprise the entire government. I have yet to see similar changes from the other major branches of government including the Legislative Yuan (who by the way actually have the power to change the Constitution), the Control Yuan, the Judicial Yuan, much less other Executive agencies, which one would expect had the official title been changed. To reiterate again, the official title has not changed. Should it change in the future then it will be included. Until then claiming that it has is in the same category of soapboxing as calling this the "government of the Taiwan authorities", or referencing everything as "China's Taiwan Province". -Loren 03:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I never denied that the constitution has not been amended. And I recall you saying that "I believe the 'legal situation' should take a back seat to the situation which actually exists." I can verify my claim, so can you. My claim does not exclude yours, but you argue that that your claim excludes mine. Please explain exactly how. Now, if we lift our eyes beyond the Taiwan "problem", you will realize that we are not in a position to determine the official name of a country on the basis of constitutions alone. We're not interpreting constitutions, we're not resolving the Taiwan problem here, we're writing an encyclopedia. And when we do that "the reality on the ground" matters.--Niohe 04:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My claim is over the usage of the official title of the state. Since this article is about the Republic of China we address it with its official title, which is defined in the Constitution. The fact that some offices associated with the Executive Branch have changed their usage does nothing to alter the name of the state, not to mention the new usage is far from universal which precludes it from being a common term for the state. This has been stated to you several times by many people other then myself. As such, I feel no need to continually repeat everything everyone has said. Suffice it to say, this article is about the ROC. The official name of the ROC has not been changed. Common names for the ROC include Taiwan which is already included in disambiguation making it unnecessary to continually use it throughout the article. Using other nonofficial terms when referring to the ROC outside a disambiguation context constitutes endorsing a POV. Therefore we use the official title. -Loren 05:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, it is useful to remember that conflicts over names are not something limited to the region that arouses our passions. Please have a look at this entry on Derry/Londonderry. Yes, I know that China is different and that no straight parallels can be made, but please sit down think over it. 僅供參考 --Niohe 05:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think that it would be sensible to call the article the ROC, since that is what we are talking about, and then have a disambiguation page for 'Taiwan' which permits the reader to choose between Taiwan the island, or the ROC. Cripipper 09:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Gosh, this is childish. I can't even update stuff about Taiwanese aborigines, etc. Taiwan is what it is, and not what (whomever) wants it to be. --Ling.Nut 15:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, we should avoid using de-jure or de-facto

According to a consensus with Jiang, we decided that we would call the Republic of China simply as a state rather than to add adjectives such as "disputed," "multidemocratic," "de-facto," or "de-jure." There was a consensus I had with Sumple and Loren that if the use of the labels "de-fato" and "de-jure" is an extreme controversial issue itself, we should simply throw away those terms and let the reader decide whatever he or she wants to believe in the subseqent paragraphs regarding the different point of views about the state known as the Republic of China. Allentchang 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

This whole issue is brought up by the use of the contentious word 'sovereign'. I think we should stick to 'country' and avoid all references to sovereignty. Cripipper 09:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think state is better than country, because a state does not imply independence or lack thereof either way. --Sumple (Talk) 09:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The [country|definition of country]] is 'In political geography and international politics a geographical territory', whereas a state 'is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory'. It seems to me that use of the word 'state' invokes the issue of sovereignty and its nature, whereas to state that it is a country avoids this as its usage may mean either 'nation', which is satsfactory to those who adhere to the 'One China' principle, or 'state' which appears to satisfy those with 'Republic of Taiwan' sympathies. That's my reading of it anyway. Cripipper 11:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Correction Required to First Section

There is an inaccuracy in the first section, which reads "...the late 1940's, and since then has only administered the island groups of Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu." In fact the ROC also controlled the Dachen or Tachen Islands until 1955. See Wikipedia article on Tachen.61.171.225.175 07:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary of dispute?

Can we please get everyone to briefly summarize their positions and try to move the discussion forward so we can get the protection lifted as soon as possible? I note that this article is a current good article nominee and it will not look good to the evaluator if the article is still protected. --Ideogram 00:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Summary of my position (see above for more detailed explainations):

* The ROC being the main subject of this article, we refer to it using its official name unless there are future changes via constitutional amendment or similar mechanism.

* "Taiwan" is often used in common speech to refer to the ROC. This should be mentioned in disambiguation text, however again, when we refer to the ROC we should use its official name.

* I favor describing the ROC as a state as opposed to a country, the former having a narrower definition, being more concise in describing what th ROC actually is. "Country" also implies a sense of community which I don't think exists entirely in the present day ROC. Some identify more with Taiwan, others identify more with China, and others prefer not to think about it. In regards to NPOV, I don't think we can achieve something acceptable to all as the PRC dislikes the use of both terms.

* Finally, I strongly suggest that we avoid using weasel words and peacock terms in this and other related articles. Some examples include: "Republic of China (Taiwan)" outside of a disambiguation context, replacing all instances of "Taiwan" with "Taiwan Island" or "Taiwan Province", constantly referring to the "Free Area of the Republic of China", use of "the Taiwan authorities" to refer to the ROC government as a whole... etc. -Loren 01:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of China (Taiwan) is not a weasel word, if I am not mistaken even the late KMT used the term before the current administration took power. To call a state what its electee d government has called itself for - what is it now? - almost ten years is not a weasel word. It is something that can be verified. Verifiable information have a place in Wikipedia. In case verifiable pieces of information appear to conflict, we take both into account and reflect both. This is Wikipedia, not Monopedia.

I think it is confusing to use ROC exclusively when referring to the government on Taiwan. If you go out and have an opinion poll in Europe, for instance, I bet that a lot of people will have a great deal of difficulty distiguishing between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. Many people will also think that Taiwan is an independent country.

Remember, this is the English language Wikipedia, by default we give priority to words and terms that make sense to an English language audience with no prior knowledge of China. We are here to provide the reading public with verifiable information, not using Wikipedia to present the "true" version of China or Taiwan for that matter.

So, I am inclusive, not exclusive. I suggest that we use both ROC and ROC (Taiwan) interchangeably, in a balanced way, that is the only NPOV way of doing this. We should abstain from revert wars and unwarranted requests for blocking pages, instead we should try to find ways to accomodate the use of both names. If that is not a compromise, then that word has lost its meaning.

As for state or country, I am agnostic. It is not our job to have a position on that. We can have a paragraph in an appropriate article, outlining the main arguments.--Niohe 02:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Another thing regarding state or country, I must take exception at the idea that only entities where people have a sense of community can be called "countries". Just go to Belgium and you will get an interesting perspective on how this works out in reality. We have to get rid of the idea that this problem is no unique and so hard to comprehend that we have to redefine the English lexicon to describe it "accurately". It is not our job to gauge the "countriness" of Taiwan, but to use verifiable information.--Niohe 03:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To date I haven't been directly involved in this article; I work on Taiwanese aborigines and related issues. But I can't update this one... so... my two cents... Color me agnostic as well. Both sides of the dispute know there's a dispute. Wikipedia is not the UN. International (or inter-whoever-whatever) disputes will not be solved via encyclopedia article. Note the dispute. Note the issues. Move on.

Having said that, I favor use of the term Taiwan throughout the text.. not because I am taking a political stand, but because in real life, real people always and everywhere refer to it as Taiwan.--Ling.Nut 03:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

My position on the use of "Republic of China", "Taiwan", and "Republic of China (Taiwan)" are as follows:

1. The name of the state is the "Repbulic of China", according to its constitution and no government policy contradicts it (even the one that labels things as "Republic of China (Taiwan)", see below. Hence, any mentions of "the states of the Repbulic of China", especially when in paralle with "the People's Republic of China", should say the "Republic of China"
2. "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is the name used by the Taiwanese government in administrative matters, with the parenthesised "Taiwan" added to avoid confusion with the People's Republic of China across the strait. As such, the appropriate usage for this term is for the avoidance of doubt. To me, that means every instance (where required) other than the exception in (1). Furthermore, the parenthesised (Taiwan) should be placed outside of any link to Republic of China, because it is a disambiguation, not a part of the name of the state.
3. "Taiwan" is the common English name in reference to this state/country/province/place. In an ideal world, "Taiwan" would be called "Taiwan" and "China" would be called "China". However, clearly that does not reflect a neutral point of view because many would hold that (1) there is no "country" called "Taiwan", or (2) (pro-unification stance) Taiwan is a part of China, so there is no "Taiwan-China" dichotomy, or (3) (pro-Japanese/independence stance) the Republic of China has no legitimacy to rule Taiwan and so should not be equated with Taiwan. The best compromise is to maintain the separation between the Republic of China the state and Taiwan the country/island/geographical location. --Sumple (Talk) 10:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me join in that Wikipedia is not the UN and not the place for resolving international disputes about anything but editing articles. As such, the ROC, PRC, China and Taiwan articles do a reasonable job of presenting the facts without giving preference to one view. In addition to the policies of Wikipedia, I want my editor colleagues to think of what makes sense to the reader. Writing (Taiwan) after multiple instances of "Republic of China" does not make sense at all, especially in articles that have allready told the reader about the PRC/ROC conflict. We don't write for people with 3-second memories. But writing "Republic of China (Taiwan)" when referring to the state in other articles does make sense to avoid confusion with the People's Republic of China. Example: [4]. BTW, I suggest going back to state as the most accurate term for this political entity/construct/whatever. --GunnarRene 11:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again I disagree about state v. country. The definition of country is 'In political geography and international politics a geographical territory', whereas a state 'is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory'. State may be more accurate, but country seems to me to be less contentious and avoids discussions of the nature of sovreignty. Cripipper 12:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The absolutely simplest way to solve this is to refer to the PRC as China and the ROC as Taiwan. That is what most media do and that is what most other encycliopedias do. Articles can be rearranged accordingly. Is that too radical for Wikipedia? --Niohe 12:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions:

1. Note the dispute in the very first sentence of the article. "The Republic of China is a territory in East Asia whose political status is a matter of long-standing dispute." This is a heads-up to the reader that the terms 'nation' or 'country' or 'state' are all problematic. Don't make the reader wade thru even one sentence before hitting this concept. Do it way up front.
2. Move the word Taiwan to a position even earlier than it already is. Make it more immediate and prominent: "The Republic of China is a territory in East Asia whose political status status is a matter of long-standing dispute. Commonly referred to as Taiwan, its legitimacy as de facto country is disputed by the PRC, and unrecognized by the UN (including the United States). However, it has its a democratically elected president and government, issues its own passports, etc."
3. OK, refer to it as ROC after the first sentence. But hit the word Taiwan with a very big hammer.

I know no one will think that's perfect, but the principles are valid I think. The debate should be noted immediately. That way no one will innocently stumble onto the perception of country or province as being settled. They'll know that 'state' or 'region' or 'territory' or whatever term you settle on is a proxy that stands in for a place whose political identity is in limbo.

Thanks --Ling.Nut 13:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Saying that the Republic of China is a territory doesn't make sense because that would get into the mess of the claimed territory (including Tanu Tuva) that certain groups think of. The Republic of China's history is that of a state.

A state is a political community even if it has political parties that have extreme opposite view points. The Montevideo Convention is clear that international recogniztion is a sufficient, but not necessary condition and the Republic of China passports are uncontested except for a few countries. Look at the Chinese character for state 國: It has a boundary, it has a weapon, it has a mouth (feeding people) over a ground. (Curiously, the simplfied version suggests that the emperor or government is the most important aspect of the state.) Personally I think that in every day language, there's no real difference between state and country, but's it's much safer to use the term state because of the political aspects. When people go on an international flight, people never say "leave the state" but "to leave the country," which is translated in Chinese as 出國. Boy, if Jiang saw all of this, I don't know what he would think . . . . A political idenity in limbo is a unqiue identity itself. Allentchang 23:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If people are more comfortable with state than country, then go ahead with it. A lot of this dispute comes from the fact that concepts like "country" and "state" are not neatly separated in any single Chinese word. 國家 can mean either "state", "country", or even "dynasty".

The main thing is that we should refer to the Republic of China as "Taiwan" in the article, just like most other encyclopedias.--Niohe 23:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, we should just let the first sentence simply be "The Republic of China is a state in East Asia." Then say whatever controversy one wants. Allentchang 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it be useful to add a section explaining the naming controversy of "(Taiwan)"? - Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

We do have an excellent article called the Political status of Taiwan. We have to avoid the temptation of too much overlap between articles. Allentchang 23:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Niohe, why refer to the Republic of China as Taiwan. That is incorrect. The name of the state is Republic of China, according to its laws and Constitution. Taiwan has only fallen into use because of the diplomatic isolation. Before in the Cold War, Republic of China was always used. There was never mention of "Taiwan." We should still use Republic of China and Wikipedia is RIGHT for using that. -ChungCheng 00:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Refering to the "ROC" is not a post-cold war thing. Actually I am old enough to remember the cold war and I never heard of Taiwan being referred to as you say. I even thought that Taiwan was a completely separate country. It was marked as a separate country on maps as Taiwan. If you wanted to read about the Republic of China in an encyclopedia, it was listed under "Taiwan" and then you found the official name. When you read about the government of the ROC, it was referred to as the Taiwanese government. Actually, if you read even earlier stuff you will find the ROC referred to a Formosa. What the constitution says is one thing, what people actually say is another. I repeat, this is the English language Wikipedia and we should follow usages most common in the English speaking world.--Niohe 01:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And there was a time American publications told of the evils of communism. Are you sure we should be reflecting that kind of western/American bias in WP? Besides, the ROC existed before they moved their base to Taiwan, and even after that, it was seen by the western world as the true legitimate government of mainland China. - Hong Qi Gong ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 02:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Who said I was referring to the US? The US position on Mainland China was seen as extreme in many Western countries, don't forget that the UK and several European countries recognized the PRC very early. Yet even countries that recognized the PRC and did not buy US propaganda referred to the ROC as Taiwan in most publications.

It is precisely because the ROC before 1945 and the ROC after 1949 are two very diffent "countries" that many people find the ROC label on Taiwan confusing. Go and ask three random people on the street where the "Republic of China" is and they will think you are asking for the mainland.--Niohe 02:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It is pointless to argue the political status here. Wikipedia already has articles about the arguments we have here: Political status of Taiwan, Politics of the Republic of China, and etc. And they do a good job in representing the point of view of all parties. For example, Niohe's view is more identifiable with the Pan-Green Coalition. This article is about the Republic of China so the ROC should be the preferred term over Taiwan, since ROC governs Taiwan. --Will74205 08:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pan-Green Coalition?! Where did I talk about that? It seems that you haven't even listened to what I said. Please keep irrelevant comments out of this discussion. --Niohe 11:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again Mr. Niohe, calm down. Will didn't say you talked about it, rather that your views are in line with it. I am in favour of keeping Taiwan and the Rpeublic of China seperate; we already have a very good article on Taiwan, detailing its history and culture. Let's keep it simple: 1) We have an article on the state called the PRC; 2) We have an article on the geographical unit of the island of Taiwan; 3) We have an article on the state called the ROC. There are differences between each of these, which should be reflected in a warning at the top and in the first couple of lines of main body text. Cripipper 11:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should calm down, I only asked him a question. Surely that should be fine, pray? This discussion is getting a bit repetitive, don't you think? --Niohe 12:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I just made a search to Encylopaedia Britannica Online, for what it's worth. When I searched for "Republic of China", the first hit was People's Republic of China with the PRC prominently displayed. When I searched "China" I got the same result. Only searching "Taiwan" would get me to an article with the ROC name and flag. I suspect searches into simlar encylclopedias, online and on paper, would yield similar results. It seems that Republic of China is confusing.--Niohe 12:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to start searching Encyclopaedia Britannica Online as a reference, I must point out that it doesn't seem to be referring to the ROC as "Republic of China (Taiwan)", anywhere that I can see. - Hong Qi Gong ^{(Talk - Contribs)} 15:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that and I also noticed that ther refer to Taiwan, not as a state or a country, bu an island controlled by the ROC. There are ways of talking about Taiwan as just "Taiwan" without taking a POV.--Niohe 15:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is my last comment, and it is in fact repetitive, but it seems worthwhile to repeat: I have switched to having no objections to saying something like "commonly referred to as Taiwan" in the very first or the very beginning of the second sentence, and using ROC thereafter. It seems a worthwile distinction, since we have an article on Taiwan island. I think neither state nor country should be used as a lead-off term, but something indeterminate like territory. I think the controversy should be the first topic tackled. I think the terms country or state could be used later, after explaining the controversy. I'm done now. Cheers! --Ling.Nut 16:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If we say that the Republic of China is a territory then how can a territory claim another territory? The Republic of China's Constitution uses the term "The State" in many of its articles. Based on previous consensuses over the past two years, everyone else that participated in this forum agreed that we would simply begin the article with "The Republic of China is a state in East Asia" and avoid saying anything else in the very first sentence. The second sentence can be used to talk about the political controversy if one really wants to. Allentchang 00:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Taiwan" is the territory. "Republic of China" is the entity which controls it. Lol how about "Republic of China is a thing, matter, or entity"? --Sumple (Talk) 04:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"The Taiwan-like thingie is bunches of land surrounded by bunches of water." You can quote me on that. --Ling.Nut 05:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We might be better off using the Uncyclopedia version. But in keeping with the spirit of compromise I vote for the "Taiwan-like thingy" as opposed to the "China-like thingy" across the strait. And betel nuts, don't forget the betel nuts. -Loren 05:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll go along with any majority opinion. I hope we have an opinion very soon... I was simply expressing my desire to see

1. a neutral wording within the opening sentence
2. followed immediately in the article by the issue of the political debate. Really done now. --Ling.Nut 02:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

About the dispute, I don't think state and country are much different in their present usage, but country might be better since state is used to describe second level governments in some countries. As for refering to the ROC as Taiwan throughout the article, I don't support it because this reference is in dispute itself, and the ROC controls more than the Taiwan Island. Refering to the ROC as the ROC throughout the article is more neutral and it is a more precise term than Taiwan. --Will74205 06:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that country and state really mean the same damn thing (pardon the language) and that nation has a totally different meaning. Now news organizations say that Ang Lee returns to his home island of Taiwan rather than home country [5]. Maybe we should conduct a temporal POV study of how news organizations label Taiwan/Republic of China with respect to time . . . . Allentchang 12:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

What dispute? Can we put these facts on the page as so not to confuse its readers any further?

1. Taiwan and China are controlled by different governments.
2. The government in Taiwan does not answer in any way shape or form to the government in China.
3. The government in China does not answer in any way shape or form to the government in Taiwan.
4. Taiwan and China independently make agreements and treaties with other nations.
5. Taiwan and China each print their own money.
6. Taiwan and China each operate their own military.
7. Taiwan and China each have their own head of state.
8. Taiwan and China each issue their own travel documents, and do not accept each other's documents as domestically valid.
9. No laws written in Taiwan are enforced in China.
10. No laws written in China are enforced in Taiwan.
11. No taxes collected in China are spent by Taiwan.
12. No taxes collected in Taiwan are spent by China.
13. China has a judiciary for which the highest level of appeal is in China and part of the government of China.
14. Taiwan has a judiciary for which the highest level of appeal is in Taiwan and part of the government of Taiwan.

Now, if those doesn't satisfy the requirements of being a country and a nation, than I think we should change wikipedia's definition of those terms itself. - Maceart

Using "Taiwan" for the ROC could suggest that this article doesn't mention anything about Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu... The name Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu solves this problem, but the name is neither commonly used nor preferred by the ROC government. (Stefan2 17:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Taiwan IS the common name for the ROC!--Jerrypp772000 22:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

failed GA

Sorry, we have a backlog and so when the current dispute is resolved, please renominate. GA articles have to be stable (criteria #5) --plange 00:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect

It's been 10 days of protection. Are we ready to unprotect now? -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Split the article

I have no horse in the Taiwan/ROC fight but this article is long and cumbersome and is giving short shrift to both the pre-1949 ROC eras and the current Republic. I know the subject as surfaced before but I am curious to gauge if there is support for an article split and a new ROC disambiguation page. It is not POV to note that the Republic of China has existed in radically different incarnations, much bigger differences than the French Third Republic, French Fourth Republic, and French Fifth Republic. Check out Kingdom of Poland (disambiguation) for how it might look.

Please opine in the poll below and stick to ROC -- avoid the Taiwan/ROC issue (for now anyway) and keep it civil.

-  AjaxSmack  02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Split article poll

Please choose an option here and discuss below in the Disucssion section

Split into two articles: Republic of China (1912-1949) and Republic of China (1949-Present)

Add "* Support", "* Oppose", "*First choice", "*Second choice", etc. followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ and discuss below.

• Support (Second choice). -  AjaxSmack  02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• I Support splitting the article into two for the reason that the ROC before and after 1949 are two very different regimes. Taiwan was not under Chinese jurisdiction when the ROC was established, neither am I aware that the ROC claimed Taiwan before the Second Sino-Japanese War. As a matter of fact, the ROC only controlled Taiwan for four years before it had to flee to Taiwan.--Niohe 02:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Territorial control is not relevant when we are going by state titles (ie the name of the polity). It is only relevant when we are dealing with common names (e.g. moving the content of this article under "Taiwan" on the assumption that "Taiwan" is the current short name for the "Republic of China" when in the past it was not). As far as the state (the political entity) goes, this is the same one: the regime in Taipei is continuous with the one founded by the KMT in Nanjing.--Jiang 03:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • See Kingdom of Poland (disambiguation) list for example of continuous regimes with separate regimes. (And pre- and post- 1927 ROC were hardly continuous). -  AjaxSmack  06:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • Those articles are mostly terrible stubs. Again, you are arguing for creating a series based on the history of the Republic of China, which I do not oppose if we use proper summary style. That issue is independent on how to apply the country template in, or whether to rename, this article. --Jiang 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose under the same assumptions, do we split United States into "United States (1908-1912)", "United States (1912-1959)", "United States (1959-1960)", "United States (1960-present)"?--Jiang 03:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry if this sounds sarcastic, but are you serious or just being facetious? The US adding states is quite a different thing from losing direct control of all your territory and reallocating to an island you've only controlled for four years or so. I'm dumbfounded.--Niohe 03:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The is meant to be a reductio ad absurdum, the premise being that changes of territory must be represented by separate articles. No, they did not lose all of their territory. They lost most of it. Just where do we draw the line?--Jiang 04:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It was you who was making a Reductio ad absurdum and I argued against it. You didn't even respond to what I said.--Niohe 04:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • Yes, I was referring to my own comment, which you inquired about. I don't see how your response changes the premise.--Jiang 05:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
      • The only territory that the 1912 ROC has in common with the 2006 ROC is Kinmen and Matsu Islands -- in the scheme of things, it's not that significant. There is hardly a comparable shift in the territory of a single polity in such a short time. -  AjaxSmack  06:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
        • so they lost a whole bunch of territory in a short period of time, but still, what is the overarching justification here? Territory itself is not the determining factor on whether topics are close enough to stay in a single article, or far enough to be split into two or several articles. --Jiang 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Concur with Jiang's opinion --Will74205 03:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose We do not split top level state articles based on regime changes unless the state ceases to exist or changes name. I see no reason to handle this one any differently -Loren 04:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't know what the criteria for a state to "cease to exist" is, but the transfer of the ROC government from mainland China to the island of Taiwan proved to be a major one.--Niohe 04:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. France still redirects to France, not Third Republic or whatnot. Plus the suggestion is ridiculous. BlueShirts 05:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Placing these dates in the ROC page title is not a good format. -Mysterius 09:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Proper sectioning of the ROC History article should be done instead. --GunnarRene 10:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support I agree with Niohe's opinion. Most would agree that the ROC designation has only been kept on as a sort of linguistic compromise, and that the reality of the ROC as a vast territory ended in 1949. The historical territory of the ROC, Sun Yat-sen's ROC, is an historic entity that is much the part of the PRC's history as it might be considered Taiwan's, in fact, i believe more so. It is really a quite different animal from that of the ROC which we now think of as Taiwan. The flag may be the same, but the reality of the territory, is not. If we want to speak about the modern 2006 ROC as theoretically being all of China, well, I suppose that could be an article in itself, but its nothing more than pure fantasy. I've often seen the designation Taiwan R.O.C. and don't see why this should be a problem. Certainly if we're talking about Taiwan during the glory days of the ROC, back when the capital of the island of Taiwan was Taihoku, it was not really a part of the ROC. So, either we are discussing an historic country or a modern one, but they really aren't the same, and I don't know if the average lay reader would grasp that without a disambiguation. Koira 13:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with GunnarRene; splitting this article violates Principle of least astonishment --Ling.Nut 14:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support (Second Choice), although I think that the title on the currently existing ROC should remain at Republic of China rather than [[Republic of China (1949 to present) – I am a bit nonplussed at the arguments that have been raised so far against this proposal; frankly, I haven't been able to determine whether they are in good faith or not. It seems clear to me that there is POV problem with suggesting either position, that the ROC that exists today on Taiwan is the "same" state as the one that ruled all of China previously, or that the ROC on Taiwan is not the "same" state. However, giving them all one article definitely appears to support the first POV; whereas splitting them at least shows some ambiguity, which is relatively neutral. Moreover, the objective fact is that the ROC's political structure and its role in world politics is vastly different today than it was in the 1940s (and, at least regarding its role in world politics, this was a fairly sudden change rather than a gradual development), which means that it would benefit from being discussed separately.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The name "Republic of China" is itself POV, but there is no way we can avoid it. We can only modify the text of the article.--Jiang
    • I don't think the name is POV by itself. We are simply reporting the fact that this is what the organisation in question calls itself. We call the "true Catholic Church" true Catholic Church, etc., etc.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
      • It's just that different parties of the conflict call it different names, and the name being used reveals the individual's political leanings. Descriptive statements re the name are not POV, eg, "The official name of the entity governing Taiwan is the Republic of China". Statements of fact not describing the name, but using the name to refer to an existing entity are POV, eg, "The capital of the Republic of China is Taipei." No matter what, we cannot avoid making arrangements and statements implying the existence of the Republic of China, but the text can be molded in ways to avoid the controversy. --Jiang 02:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Still, on that very specific point, Wikipedia has a pretty firmly established policy, enshrined in the Wikipedia:naming conflict, that we we go ahead and use names that are self-applied (or, even better, ones that are most common in English)—provided that it is not readily confused with something else—and we don't care what other people think about that. So, we call the Republic of China "Republic of China" because that's what it calls itself. I think this is quite a separate question as to whether the current "Republic of China" is the "same thing" as other governments that have previously called themselves "Republic of China".—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)(apologies for all the "scare quotes".)

• Support Agree with Koira, some disambiguation is needed Wenzi 14:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There needs to be one main article for the ROC. And the justification for the split is exactly what History of the Republic of China is for. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support Taiwan before 1949 in Japan hand. ROC ended the rule of whole since 1949. Matthew_hk tc 11:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• Partially Support I say we split this article into two parts (1912-1949,1949-present), and merge the second part into the article of Taiwan.--Jerrypp772000 22:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Split into three articles: Republic of China (1912-1927), Republic of China (1927-1949), and Republic of China (1949-Present)

Add "* Support", "* Oppose", "*First choice", "*Second choice", etc. followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ and discuss below.

• Support (First Choice). -  AjaxSmack  02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Least bad option: if you are going to split things based on the "regime" being "different", then it makes more sense to do a pre-post-1927 split than a pre-post-1949 split. The only commonality between the ppl in charge before 1927 (Beiyang) and those after (Nanjing) is the name of the government. Everything else, including actual territory, flag, capital, army, leaders, were radically different. By contrast, the only thing different before and after 1949 was the size of the territory. --Sumple (Talk) 03:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Splitting by "regime" works if we are trying to make a "history of the Republic of China" series. We are not dealing with the history of the Republic of China article here - we are dealing with an article with a country template attached to it. Perhaps this is the course the history of the Republic of China article should take, but that issue and this one (ie where to include the country template and what to include in it) need to be distinguished. --Jiang
• Oppose wrong article to propose this.--Jiang 03:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Concur with Jiang's opinion --Will74205 03:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The territory and official name were the same, but the capital changed. The difference is that of a regime change or a coup d'etat, not enough argument to split into three.--Niohe 03:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose The top level article should remain constant despite regime changes. Thailand hasn't been split into 16+ different articles. -Loren 04:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • The 1927 and 1949 ruptures were not merely regime changes. Here are some examples of countries that have multiple articles due to political shifts in the 20th century far less than what has happened to the ROC: Mongolia / People's Republic of Mongolia; Russia / Soviet Union; Yemen / Yemen Arab Republic / Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen; Democratic Republic of the Congo / Zaire. -  AjaxSmack  05:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • How were they not? Your examples all differ in name and composition of the state. The defunct entity articles there do not use the country template (except Soviet Union, which I think needs to be purged of its geography section). None of the existing entities have parenthesis in their titles. "Russia (1992-1991)" and "Russia (1991-present)" are hardly appropriate titles for the existing articles. In the case of 1949, we already have two separate articles for China: Republic of China and People's Republic of China.--Jiang 06:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
    • The parallels of your examples "Mongolia / People's Republic of Mongolia; Russia / Soviet Union; etc" already exists for the "China" articles, viz China/People's Republic of China/Republic of China/Qing dynasty/Ming dynasty/Song dynasty etc etc... --Sumple (Talk) 00:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, these dates are not a good format. The history article already has sections like this. -Mysterius 09:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Proper sectioning of the ROC History article should be done instead. --GunnarRene 10:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose agree with GunnarRene; splitting this article violates Principle of least astonishment More comments in "keep present article" section --Ling.Nut 14:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support (First choice) – per AjaxSmack.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 15:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There needs to be one main article for the ROC. And the justification for the split is exactly what History of the Republic of China is for. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maintain current article

Add "* Support", "* Oppose", "*First choice", "*Second choice", etc. followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ and discuss below.

• Support - and concurs with Jiang below. --Sumple (Talk) 03:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support voting is premature. --Jiang 03:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Again, saying that the ROC before 1949 is not related to the ROC after 1949 is the point of view of Pan-Green Coalition and thus would leave out the POV of the rest of the people. However, I am willing to support leaving this article as the main article with separate detailed articles for history of different ROC period. --Will74205 03:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Again, this is getting ludicrous. Guilt-by-association arguments have no place in Wikipedia, so please quit it.--Niohe 03:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If someone wants to do this along the lines of articles on the History of France where we have individual subarticles corresponding to different historical periods I am open, but since that is not what is being proposed here I feel the most appropriate course of action is to maintain the current form. Hence, Support. -Loren 04:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Split the history articles as you like, but maintain a single country article. One of the examples where the continuity of the country is visible is the question of the UN seat of China held by the Republic of China 1945-1971. Kusma (討論) 06:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support Why do these sort of requests to merge/delete/rename the ROC page come up so often?!? (I already know; you don't have to explain.) -Mysterius 09:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support The ROC relocated to Taiwan, but they kept their constitution, institutions of state, flag, name, etc. Although there were dramatic changes in circumstance, that does not warrant splitting the country article IMO. Now, the history article can be split into a series as long as the Histor of ROC article retains summaries of all the series articles in conformance with policies and guidelines. --GunnarRene 10:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Support Think the article is cumbersome? Trim some existing sections; they already have Main Pages. Dividing the history of the ROC according to subpages according to various govermental changes makes perfect sense. Dividing the top-level article about the ROC into subpages by regime changes clearly violates the Principle of least astonishment. --Ling.Nut 14:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• While I'm not expecting to win any converts to my argument of fundamental discontinuity between the pre-1949 and post-1949 ROC, I quote this to show that my position is rooted in my understanding of Chinese history rather than partisan politics on Taiwan or elsewhere. Wiki links are added by me, of-course.

• "When Chiang Kai-shek Chiang retreated to Taiwan, more distant regional warlords who had been his allies, such as General Li Tsung-jen, orginally from Guangxi, did not join him. Troops not close to Chiang, such as those that fought on Hainan island, were not permitted to come to Taiwan, and troops that did come to Taiwan were reorganized and more tightly unified by Chiang's more trusted military aide, General Ch'en Ch'eng. 'Bureaucrat capitalists' who Chiang had difficulty controlling on the Mainland, such as T.V. Soong and H.H. Kong, did not come to Taiwan. The highest officials who did join him were, for the most part,his personal followers from Zhejiang and other areas of lower Yangtze and the top core of military leaders who had served under him when he was commander at the Whampoa Military Academy." Ezra F. Vogel. The Four Little Dragons: The Spread of Industrialization in East Asia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. p. 16.

• Gotta run. Keep the discussion going.--Niohe 15:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • This is pointless as we can argue forever on this, but for the sake of argument: Theyre more personnel changes at the top level after a parliamentary vote of no confidence than that. Keep in mind that even though they lost some people with the move, the people in control until 1988 in the Executive Yuan (approximation) and 1991 in the Legislative Yuan (not an approximation) were from the mainland, and in political positions of power before the move. There is certainly legal continuity. The same constitution and laws were in effect, before and after. One reason why Wang Yung-ching has a whole bunch of subsidiaries instead of just a single conglomerate in his control is because the Commercial Law, enacted around 1929 or so, limits the size and function of individual companies. Many of these laws are still in effect, unless they have been specifically repealed.--Jiang 06:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think the principle of least astonishment applies here, as we're not talking about creating an interface conflict in a program, but making a factual distinction of two different topics: the ROC as a government that has controlled the island of Formosa and the ROC as a government that has controlled the and the ROC when it was founded 80 years ago and unified China (at that time without Taiwan Island). If one of the the former republics of the USSR, say Georgia, still called itself the USSR, would we really be treating those two situations as the same thing under the same article? If we think past the politics, this is silly. If you want to imagine the ROC as being what it says it is, it is a defunct entity that exists still today, governed de facto in Taiwan controlling all of China; or you deal with the reality that the ROC of today is much different and is only an alias of Taiwan. I mean, there is a common joke about this made by people in Taiwan: which is bigger? Taiwan or China? Oh, Taiwan, we're the ROC, thats all of China! But it is nothing more than that; a joke. One that shouldn't be pepetuated by an article seemingly crafted at the moment to please no one other than legal purists. It should be made clear, to a neutral reader, that the ROC really ceased to exist as it had been in 1949, and I'm not sure this is made clear at the moment. If I find this argument convoluted and I have a degree in Chinese, how is the average person supposed to make sense of it? 69.138.17.176 02:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Who said the current real world situation made any sense? -Loren 03:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well I have to argue that the situation of the ROC is different from the hypothetical USSR situation because when the ROC moved to Taiwan with most of its government intact, including all the members of the National Assembly who were elected on Mainland China. The ROC today is of course different from the ROC in 1949, but it is more comparable with the difference between the United States during George Washington's administration from George W. Bush's administration. --Will74205 06:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
  • is more comparable with the difference between the United States during George Washington's administration from George W. Bush's administration This makes absolutely no sense at all. Would you mind elaborating?--Niohe 11:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It means that, in his opinion, other states have had significant changes in territory without that necessitating splitting the main country/state article. --GunnarRene 05:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support There needs to be one main article for the ROC. And the justification for the split is exactly what History of the Republic of China is for. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

What is the purpose of this poll? Shouldn't we be discussing the proposals before we "vote" on them? Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Jiang 03:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think some of the arguments raised here are disturbing. We are not have a poll on truth here, we are having a poll on how to arrange articles. If we were an editorial board in a publishing house, we might have a show of hands.--Niohe 04:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I set up the poll (not vote) stimulate discussion. A lot of interesting responses already -- there seems to be strong ideological conviction involved as well, although I'm not informed enough to understand which political position would oppose this.

Based on comment so far, what about a primary article at Republic of China for the whole of ROC history with secondary articles at Republic of China (1912-1927) and Republic of China (1912-1927) to deal individually with the history of these regimes? As of now, the ROC article is weak in covering the pre-1949 period when it was actually ruling China. Separate articles could give prominence to important info like the flag, capital, provinces, etc that are different now that the ROC is on Taiwan.

-  AjaxSmack  05:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Those are already nicely categorized in teh History of the Republic of China article. BlueShirts 06:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The country template is inappropriate for defunct regimes. There is already an article on the warlord era. What would be the content of these proposed articles?--Jiang 06:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Content could be flag, capital, population, administrative divisions, area controlled, a map, a short history with a main article link to the ROC history page, a summary of the political system, a summary of the economic system, etc. Please look at the Yugoslavia articles for examples: Kingdom of Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. -  AjaxSmack  05:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

History, as a narrative, functions better in our context if we are about to tie political intrigues, demographic data, and economic activites together as inter-related concepts. It makes no sense to separate them out into different sections. The best way to organize this narrative, within each era, is to section it chronologically and divide it according to major events so we can directly state how different factors have come into play.

Trying to have distinct sections on "history", "economics", etc. works for existing entities, where we are interested in the snapshot of the present and how it came to be. But for defunct entities, we are looking at the whole picture. It makes no sense to have a history section within an article that is entirely on historical content, or to highlight population data in an infobox when we are more interested in the progression of the population throughout the entire period, rather than its state at a certain point in time (e.g. the regime's demise, etc.).

We need articles on the Nanjing Decade and the Nationalist Government, just as we have articles on the Warlord era and the Beiyang Government (though the latter is a terrible stub).--Jiang 06:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

It is precisely the non-narrative aspects that are best served through regime articles. The Beiyang Government article is exactly what I'm talking about (or Empire of China (1915-1916)). I'm not a hyper-nationalist or ultra-communist hung up on names. You can call it the Corrupt, incompetent, and tyrannical warlord regime if that makes things better (those are quotes from the current stub). Once again, please look at the Yugoslavia articles and along with the many others out there you will find that there might be some use. The Roman Empire is clearly defunct but it has a nice infobox with maps, population info, capitals, etc. -  AjaxSmack  07:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The Roman Empire article is organized chronologically, and that is what I think should be generally done for defunct regimes. Of course, there can also be other sections on govt organization, etc. that do not fit into the chronology but the countries template should not be closely followed. The Yugoslavia article is itself fine, but the individual political entity articles need improvement. For example, the infobox in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia article lists 1989 census data followed by blank entries for HDI and GDP. The snapshot data should not be given, or given as a range. Time zone and calling code are also irrelevant, historically speaking. --Jiang 09:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Pinyin Usage

I look at the box on this page and I think to myself, why oh why are we using Tongyong pinyin in bold under the country name? Is this not supposed to be a wikipedia entry meant for an average English speaker to read? If so, chances are that, assuming they've learned pinyin, its almost doubtlessly going to be Hanyu pinyin. While I know that in Taiwan Tongyong pinyin is used in some localities, there is no reason to go against the style guide on pinyin for wikipedia here, which promotes using Hanyu pinyin whenever possible, so I think it should be right there in the box. Thoughts? Koira 13:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• The Tongyong pinyin and Hanyu Pinyin are both there so leave it. The average english speaker has NOT learned Hanyu Pinyin, and if they are confused about which one, they can click on the link. Wenzi 02:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you're missing the point? We are discussing the infobox not the article. The article is fine. The question is, whether Hanyu Pinyin or Tongyong pinyin should be in the infobox. I agree with Koira here, we should stick with Hanyu for the infobox... Nil Einne 13:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• What I'm saying is that the average person who reads about China regularly is much much more familiar with Pinyin than Tongyong. I think using Tongyong is non NPOV and politicizes a romanization that should just follow the Wikipedia standard. I mean hell, why not use Wade Giles too? Koira 02:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but there's no pleasing some people. --Sumple (Talk) 03:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

• Taiwan uses Tongyong pinyin, leave it as it is. If people who read about China want to read about Taiwan, I am sure they will understand Tongyong is different Wenzi 00:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
• The official transliteration of the ROC/Taiwan is Tongyong Pinyin, and that's what should be used. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic and have little to do with whether the average person prefers Hanyu PY over Tongyong. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 00:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Taiwan has no real standard in practice. They still use Wade-Giles, or a simplified form of it, often. They also use HYPY a lot. However, in this case, TYPY does have the advantage of being slightly easier for the average English-speaker to correctly guess the pronunciation of (actually, that's probably true in all cases where there's a difference).—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• True, since they teach Zhuyin Pinyin in schools, and Wade-Giles is used for names. But even so Tongyong is official, and used in the government-owned street signs and govt documents I think. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 19:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
• "Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic and have little to do with whether the average person prefers Hanyu PY over Tongyong" Actually, wikipedia articles ARE encyclopedic, yes, that is why they use a style manual, which for chinese romanization is hanyu pinyin, read the style guide yourself, i'm not making this up:

Romanization and tones

We usually use Hanyu Pinyin. (See Talk:Transcription of Chinese) When listing multiple romanizations, try to use the following order:

  1. Pinyin (necessary)
  2. Wade Giles (generally unnecessary, except in cases of famous ancient Chinese personalities or literature)
  3. others (only necessary if the context makes it appropriate to include a specific extra reading (e.g. Cantonese).)

Is Tongyong pinyin specifically necessary to be first, I can't find a compelling reason... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_%28China-related_articles%29#Romanization_and_tones Koira 14:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

When the above guidlines were written , they were discussing the use of Wade-Giles v PinYin in China[[6]]. Wade Giles was in use before PinYin in China. The use of Tongyong , IMHO, would be more appropriate in the case of Taiwan. Wenzi 14:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cf. KO: Revised romanisation is used for ROK-related topics, while McCune-Reischauer is used for DPRK-related topics. (Stefan2 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

So Taiwan is being compared to North Korea now? In fact the use of Hanyu pinyin isn't an either/or China-Taiwan dichotomy. Hanyu pinyin is the dominant standard and is used in textbooks around the world for Chinese study, moreover its the ISO standard. It's used in places like Singapore, Hong Kong...it's not a mainland-island debate. I'm not saying you shouldn't put up the Tongyong somewhere, but an encylopedia is standardized and that is why we have standards rules. It is regrettable the Korean section can't agree on a standard but that shouldn't be considered a precedent for Chinese. Koira 22:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Article split: three agendas

There are three agendas apparent in the discussion about splitting articles:

1. The article is "cumbersome"
2. Splitting is more historically accurate.
3. Political agendas (which masquerade as (2) above).

The answer to those three in succession is:

1. Trim the existing version. Many section are too long, since they already have existing "Main pages."
2. Historical facts should drive the organization of the History pages , not that of the top-level page.
3. Wikipedia is not the U.N. Nothing can be resolved here. Political partisanship has already killed the Good Article nomination.

--Ling.Nut 14:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

bs (Bosnian version)

Can someone please add the Bosnian version bs:Tajvan of the article to the interwiki section. Thank you, Kseferovic 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Done --  Netsnipe  ►  11:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested edits

It is requested that the {{split}} template be moved onto the main article. Mar de Sin ^{Talk to me!} 19:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Got the Wades-Giles phonix wrong on the 2nd line

The Republic of China (Traditional Chinese: 中華民國; Simplified Chinese: 中华民国; Hanyu Pinyin: Zhōnghuá Mínguó; Tongyong Pinyin: Jhonghuá Mínguó; Wade-Giles: Chung-hua Min-kuo) is a country in East Asia.

shouldn't that be Chunghwaminkuo? if it is, please fix that minor mistake.

AFAIK, "hua" is correct. "Hwa" is used in some alternate transliterations, but not in Wade-Giles. Kusma (討論) 06:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

As it is not UN-recognised and has not declared independence, why does ROC have a country infobox while nearly all of Category:Unrecognized or largely-unrecognized states have "home-made" boxes? (North Cyprus and Western Sahara the exceptions) All of these states are de facto independent just like ROC. EamonnPKeane 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Unlike these places, the ROC was a founding member of the United Nations. It also never needed to declare independence, as China was already independent when it started to be called "Republic of China" after the 1911 revolution. Taiwan declaring independence would be a different thing, though. Kusma (討論) 08:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is wrong

Look at the first few sentences. There is a big error. We need to unprotect and fix. -Long Live Chiang Kai-shek 05:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

FIxed I think. For future reference the vandal in question has used two IP addresses:

• 61.228.130.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 61.228.137.184 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

-Loren 06:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What section would "Media in Taiwan" fall under?

Would it be under Economy or "See also"? I'm referring to this article. -Daniel Blanchette 05:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd think it would fall under Culture of Taiwan or related section. BlueShirts 04:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

History

See also History of Taiwan. 59.112.56.214 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)