Talk:History of the Republic of China/Archive 1

Miscellaneous
I have heard that during the time when the Communists occupied most of the northern region of China and the KMT most of the south, the two sides briefly considered partitioning the country as was (UTC)

"On September 27, 1928 the US recognized the Republic of China". Where can I put this statement? Otherwise, I will have to remove the Selected Anniversary event. Thank you, Ancheta Wis 00:24, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * At Foreign_relations_of_Taiwan? Or possible the final paragraph of History_of_Republican_China...if there's more info about general international recognition. --Jiang 01:00, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dynasty???
Is the RoC really deservant of its own episode? for a few decades?

The time frame for this should be part of the Qing Dynasty, as it is just a fallout of yet another dead empire. --JinFX

Ok, first of all, the history of the Republic of China is what connects the Qing Dynasty and the People's Republic, and not part of either, therefore it would be incorrect to insert its entire contents to the Qing Dynasty article. You should note the Qing Dynasty ended in 1912 with Puyi's abdication. Furthermore, on Taiwan the "history of the Republic of China" can be interpreted as history from 1911 to the present. Colipon+(T) 05:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ROC is not what connects the Manchurian Dynasty to the Communist, but rather the government of China since the fall of the Manchurians but now with their territory limited to Taiwan. Right now the People's Republic of China and ROC is like North and South Korea, just that for China right now the territory is porportionally unbalanced.

Go read some more. The Republic of China was founded by Sun Yat-sen in 1911, not by Chiang Kai-shek in 1949. The history of the Republic of China is therefore 1911-1949 on the mainland and 1911-present on Taiwan. Colipon+(T) 06:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Split this article in two?
===>This is 35 kbytes Maybe we should split this into two articles: one on the ROC in the mainland, and one on the ROC on Taiwan. Also, the PRC article spreads over four pages, so an ROC one that is half that isn't unreasonable. Justin (koavf) 14:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I tend to dislike splitting articles into multiple parts; it causes a reader to lose context. Plus, it's not so large as to be unmanagable as one part.  --Nlu 21:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * using summary style would be more helpful than splitting. --Jiang 22:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sleep in two article. The problematic of each one is really not the same :
 * In China (1911-1949) that was a clear war time, with battles as the main events, and with the aim to make a reunification
 * In Taiwan (1945-today), really more peacefull, with politic as the main events, with the aim to put un strong chinese gouvernement, build a strong economy, then the democratisation.
 * I think the french version already did this split Yug   10:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

35 kb is not very long comparing to many other well-written articles. Sections with main articles can be trimmed to reduce the size of the article (and main articles can be created to those without). &mdash; Instantnood 14:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is now way too long. It's 51 kb!! I'm splitting it in two with links and introductory info to connect the two. In principle you could move info to main articles, but I think that'll have to wait until there's even more information. Right now, it's just right for a two article split. Lest anyone get all political, what wikipedia does for purposes of ease of access of information has no impact on what the ROC gov't decides to do with regard to independence/reunification =).--218.175.182.6 17:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * simply splitting articles halfway is not how we deal with long pages. We use summary style - see How to break up a page. Besides, an article on the "Republic of China on Taiwan" will be overly redundant with the latter half of History of Taiwan, while the two articles could possibly share subarticles. --Jiang 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * You just basically said that the Republic of China on Taiwan = Taiwan. That would be a case separate from the immediate issue at hand, which is that the article is too long.  If there's overlap, it overlaps regardless if there's one article or two articles.  And looking at the Taiwan and ROC articles, there's overlap there too.  You do not say what should be done about that, so even as a side issue, I don't understand what you're saying.


 * Regarding your point on summary style--summary style is just that--a style that is commonly used in Wikipedia but not policy and not always used. Breaking this article in two is exactly what's been done in other language wikipedias.


 * You also made a foolish straw-man argument. It isn't "simply splitting halfway" and you know it.  In this case, there's a very natural break, in the history and in the way people talk about these terms.  Republican China is an accepted academic term of the English language, and if someone wrote that article first, we would have two articles now instead of one.  Now that there is so much content, it makes sense to separate the two articles.--218.175.178.18 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The Republic of China on Taiwan is an era in Taiwanese history, is it not?
 * What conventions other languages follow does not matter here. Other languages have decided to make the China, which is linked by hundreds of articles, into a disambiguation page. Do you want to do that too? What matters here is consensus. Now please explain to me how summary style is not suitable here.
 * The natural break exists only to separate sections, each of which should contain their own subarticles. This is because it is beneficial to have an article entitled "History of the Republic of China". Disambiguation pages exists when two separate meanings exist. People dont "History of the Republic of China" to have two separate meanings if they use the phrase at all--Jiang 18:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think the article covers enough about the history of the ROC. History after the Constitutional Protection War is cursory at best, with American involvement in China as a glaring eyesore. Economic development in Taiwan is way too short and uninformative. BlueShirts 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree and want to recognize your many contributions to the history of the ROC. And this is all the more reason to split into manageable articles.  If there's so much content, there needs to be more articles, not clumsily keeping in one unreadable mess.  Think about it here, you spend all that time adding content, only for readers to skim right through because it's become totally unpresentable.  Big waste eh?--218.175.178.18 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. I'd like to make it as long as needed and then worry about presentation. BlueShirts 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Article Length
Please do not make destructive edits. If you wish to split the articles in a different way other than the most obvious way, then state your reasons and do so. But a revert puts the articles in an even worse state that is really difficult to read. If you have something better in mind, everyone would benefit from it, and you should implement it, instead of just reverting to something even worse.--218.175.178.18 10:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't do anything until you have the consensus to do so. What dont you understand about summary style? Is there something I need to explain? The "most obvious way" is not the best way, or the way promoted by existing wikipedia convention or the style guide. --Jiang 18:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

external links?
it would be great to have some external lists regarding the history of the republic of china, just for reference.

Multiple eras
I think it's best to divide the ROC article into eras like PRC because it really is confusing to tie ROC with Taiwan. Here is just my suggestion of how to divide ROC into eras (since the history is way too long to be on one page). Hope someone else with better knowledge of Chinese history can divide the eras along better dates.

(ROC on China)
 * 1912 - 1925:
 * ROC history on mainland China as the revolution against the Qing Empire and establishment of a republic. Maybe ending with Sun Yat-sen's death as he was the founder of modern China (both PRC and ROC recognize him as such)


 * 1925 - 1949:
 * Chiang Kai-shek, WWII and the loss of mainland China.

(ROC on Taiwan)
 * 1949 - 1971:
 * Authoritarian rule over the island of Taiwan, beginning of martial law (1948-1987) and establishment of PRC (1949) on the mainland raising the problem over two Chinas.


 * 1971 - 1987:
 * USA switches diplomacy to Beijing which results in the ROC losing the UNSC seat to PRC. Lifting of martial law on Taiwan.


 * 1987 - present:
 * Lee Teng-hui era, reforms and Taiwan independence movement vs. reunification question.

Note: ROC 1912-2006 (almost half century longer than PRC) vs. PRC 1949-2006. The point is ROC has a much longer history than PRC, so like PRC it should have more than one article page to cover the history. Next point is ROC is not Taiwan but administers the island, it's confusing to write ROC (Taiwan) as it implies they are one and the same (Taipei City actually is not part of Taiwan according to ROC rule)— Nrtm81 09:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No mention of the Long March?
I find this hard to understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klortho (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

What is "The United States Military ..." section doing here?
This section is way out of place, and clearly should be deleted, or moved somewhere else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klortho (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Thats exactly what i was thinking.The US military presence in China didnt change in any way chinese republic history and its of more interest to the US than to this article.Besides Uk and japanese presence was much MUCh larger that the US.If the section isnt moved ill delete the content.--Andres rojas22 20:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wild Swans as reference?
I was suprised to see this book listed under references. In fact, its the only book listed, which is also a problem. Jung Chang is not a historian, so this is not a good reference source. Unless someone give a good argument why we should keep it, I'll remove it. I hope others can find better references from qualified historians. Also, its unclear what it is exactly referencing.Giovanni33 01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

References?
Did this guy steal from Wiki or did Wiki steal from this guy? [specificallly regarding the new culture movement, it's almost word for word]

http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/republican.html

It's a uni, so I'm hoping they didn't take from Wiki, but they seem to be a bit more complete... any thoughts?

Retailmonica 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Succession box
Someone added a succession box that has changed a few times, apparently as editors attempted to get an NPOV. However, I don't think we've reached NPOV. In fact I'm not sure there is an NPOV for this. It depends of course, on what "succession" means in this context. For a country where the national boundaries have remained nearly constant, and the successive governments have governed little else, or at least began and ended with the same territory, succession is easy to understand. The succession of government in Japan has little dispute. But the ROC started in one place, and now governs a different place. The territory common to the 1912 ROC and the 2007 ROC is only a tiny portion of either. If we say the PRC is the successor to the ROC, then aren't we saying that ROC is limited to mainland China? Shouldn't ROC be ended in 1949? On the other hand, if we grant that ROC now includes Taiwan, shouldn't we then say that ROC is the successor not just of the Qing, but also of Japan? Should the Japan page have ROC as a successor (concurrent)? For guidance, I went looking for uses of succession boxes in other places that might be similar. It seems these boxes are not the norm. Do we need to have one on this page? Given the history of the ROC, "succession" doesn't really apply, so perhaps we should get rid of the box.Readin 18:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When I get some time, I think I'll make two succession boxes: one for ROC (China) and one for ROC (Taiwan). The ROC (China) box will have Qing->ROC->PRC. The ROC (Taiwan) will have Empire of Japan->ROC. That seems the most accurate way to do things short of deleting the box entirely.Readin —Preceding comment was added at 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you bring up good points. The succession IMO should read something like Qing->ROC->PRC (on mainland). Having two boxes (ROC(China) and ROC(Taiwan)) would be POVing the notion that the regimes are somehow not fully Chinese. Just as the Liao dynasty controlled only part of northern China even at its height, and it is listed alongside the other regimes of its day, the PRC/ROC mess should be set up the same way IMHO. To refuse to list the PRC, or alternatively to list the ROC as "ended" in 1949 would be POV-pushing the PRC and hard-line ROC POVs. The notion that the ROC somehow succeeded Japan is typically ignored, because the ROC was never considered a Japanese government, nor any Japanese government ever considered a Chinese one.Ngchen 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To list ROC alongside other regimes as you suggest, without including the Empire of Japan, would also fail the NPOV because it would ignore Taiwan's history even though nearly all of ROC's current territory is Taiwan. It would thus make Taiwan seem like part of China. How would two boxes, one of which shows that ROC took over Taiwan from Japan, imply that the regime is not fully Chinese (to clarify, I would say ROC (mainland China), not ROC(China) to distinguish)?Readin 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, de facto the ROC is part of China for the purposes of Chinese history. I assume you're talking about the Chinese history box? But Japan was and is not. I would have no objection to noting (I'd be surprised if it weren't already noted) the fact that Taiwan was controlled by Japan 1895-1945 in the history of Taiwan and timeline of Taiwan history articles. With regard to Chinese history, the ROC is part of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngchen (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Chinese History"? Who brought that up? We're talking about a government, the "Republic of China". It surely played a part in Chinese history, but whether it is currently the central actor in Chinese history is disputed. And we certainly are not talking about a "Chinese history box". We're talking box showing succession. In Taiwan, the ROC succeeded the Empire of Japan. For over half of the existence of the Republic of China, it has governed primarily Taiwan and little else. How does the history of Mainland China, where the ROC was preceeded by Qing and succeeded by PRC, more important than the history of Taiwan, where the ROC was preceeded by EOJ and not succeeded?-- Readin (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Question: Should the succession box go on this page or on the main ROC page?  When I created the original succession box on this page, I followed the History of China sidebar and linked from Qing Dynasty to this history page; however, I've looked at former state boxes (Roman Empire, Inca Empire, etc.) and the last link always ends up at the current government, and not a "history of" page.  Is this the correct place to link on basis of succession?  If the vote is for the main ROC page, then how would we explain the succession of PRC from ROC there as well?  Note that the main ROC page does not have the flags and arrows on the top of the states box that could link it to the PRC as a potential successor.  Thoughts? -- Pryaltonian (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Where should this go?
I yanked this paragraph Vice president Vincent Siew met on April 12 2008 Chinese President Hu Jintao. This historic meeting made Siew the highest-ranking elected figure to come face-to-face with a Chinese leader since the two sides split amid the Chinese Civil War in 1949. The Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou, winner of the Republic of China presidential election, 2008, intented to improve economic relations with China and moved toward a resolution of their long-standing political deadlock. Ma wants to sign a peace treaty with China but won't discuss unification during his presidency. because it doesn't seem to be of enough significance to be included in this article. If all events of similar significance were included for the entire history of the ROC, the article would be very long indeed. But the yanked paragraph is not insignificant either. Perhaps it belongs in an aritcle on relations between the ROC and PRC, or perhaps even better an article on the history of those relations. However, if it does get included somewhere, it needs some corrections as shown below. Vice president-elect Vincent Siew met on April 12 2008 Chinese President Hu Jintao. When Siew takes office he will become the highest-ranking elected figure to have come face-to-face with a Chinese leader since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949. The Taiwanese president-elect Ma Ying-jeou, winner of the Republic of China presidential election, 2008, promised to improve economic relations with China and move toward a resolution of their long-standing political deadlock. Ma wants to sign a peace treaty with China but has promised not to discuss unification during his presidency. The inaccuracies and POVs that needed correcting included: Readin (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Siew was not yet Vice-President when he made the trip, so he was not yet high ranking and he should have been labeled "Vice-President-elect", not "Vice-President".
 * Ma was not yet President when the trip was made, so he should have been labeled "President-elect", not "President".
 * It is unclear what is meant by "two sides split amid Civil War". Are the sides PRC and ROC? Mainland China and Taiwan? CPC and KMT?
 * The writer claimed to be able to see into Ma's mind and treated many of Ma's campaign promises presented either as what Ma "intended" to do rather than what campaign promises by politicians are - simply promises that may or may not be followed up. Worse, some of th promises were presented accomplishments that have already occurred.
 * Actually, if the paragraph in question was copied from cnn.com, then it needs to go as a copyright violation. It certainly can be rewritten. Labeling Ma and Siew the president-elect and VP-elect is correct. For the POV mess, I would say that leaving it as "two sides" of the Chinese Civil War would be OK. There is no need to go into the detailed mess here.Ngchen (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was copied from CNN? That's pretty sad to think that a paragraph written by a professional journalist for CNN and reviewed by a professional editor isn't up to the standards of a bunch of amateurs on Wikipedia.Readin (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

CCP vs. CPC
I noticed a discrepancy between this article and the "Chinese Civil War" article regarding the abbreviation for the Chinese Communist Party. This article uses CCP and the other one uses CPC. I'm a beginner at Wikipedia so I don't really have the courage to change articles yet. I also don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to know which one is more correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.79.113 (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Copied from Talk:Nationalist China after malformed merge
It's basically the same thing as Republican China (28-49), both on the mainland, in most common usage. Blueshirts 08:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It can refer to Taiwan pre-2000 (in contrast to Communist China), as my high school U.S. history textbook did. Guomin zhengfu only lasted until 1948--Jiang 16:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

native Taiwanese is accepted term for the group that has lived in Taiwan pre-1940s?
Do a google search on "native Taiwanese" and you'll find that the term is rarely used for just aborigines ("Taiwanese aboriginese" is used instead). You'll also find reliable sources using the term: Readin (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.taipei.org/book/no055/taiwan2004.html "The issue of national identity is a hot topic at every election in Taiwan because voters have a clear idea as to who among them are native Taiwanese and who are from mainland"
 * http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm "...the other major political party is the DPP, whose membership is made up largely of native Taiwanese, and whose..."

When a person who has no knowledge of this peculiar usage of the word "native", he or she will be very likely to be mislead into thinking that "native Taiwanese" means the indigenous people, as "native Americans" means that. Our readers are common English speaking people and we need to target these people.

I spoke to another person today and immediately I was asked to qualify what "native Taiwanese" means. It is just a very ambiguous, and if we know where the term comes from, offensive term.

There is nothing wrong with non-mainlanders. It is like "non-whites". It is part of the English language. It avoids the problem that I raised above and it also includes the indigenous people who were also treated badly at that time in question as well.--pyl (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Native Taiwanese" also includes, but is not limited to, Taiwanese aborigines. It includes families of pre-1940s immigration regardless of how long prior to 1940 the immigration occurred. Readin (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a term that has been used in news media and academia for many years. Link to an article or explain in context if it is misleading, eg put "benshengren" in italics and parenthesis after the English. Just because a well accepted term is not immediately obvious doesnt mean we cannot use it. It is like saying the infobox at North Korea should not carry the official name because it misleadingly suggests that the north is "democratic." It's not up to us to decide!--Jiang (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Jiang. There are further discussions on this subject on Readin's talk page. If you wish to participate in this discussion, we will move it here.--pyl (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh I agree that we can use terms that are not immediately clear. But in this case, it is too ambiguous, as I found lots of results on Google that give conflicting meanings (per Readins Talk page). I don't think North Korea's official name is ambiguous to any common readers. But when we have results to say "A means 1 and 3" as well as results to say "A means 1 only" or "A means 3 only", then we have a problem.--pyl (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of academic references use "native Taiwanese" to refer to bengshenren. But for the interests of reducing ambiguity, why not just do away with the English translation? The terms benshengren and waishengren have clear meanings as they connote provincial origin. The term "Islanders" currently used in the article is clearly wrong and misleading. Aren't waishengren also "Taiwan islanders" now? --Jiang (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. As I have been telling Readin, Islanders is not a term used in Taiwan, and I initially had absolutely no idea what that term means until Readin changed that term to "Native Taiwanese".

if you type in ' "native taiwanese" and aborigines ', you will also see quite a few references using 'native Taiwanese' to describe only the aborigines. There is a government organisation called 'The Commission for Native Taiwanese Affairs' serving the aborigines only. I don't think the number of references is so small that we can discount it altogether.

I think we can use 'benshengren' if we have to draw distinctions between the groups of people in Taiwan, as it is the correct, unambiguous and most used term in Taiwan. That part of the article is about Taiwan after all. A term like 'native Taiwanese' is ambiguous and can be offensive. It implies people who don't belong to the group aren't so-called 'native' to Taiwan. I think everyone who lives in Taiwan is a 'native Taiwanese', but if we really have to be politically correct, that term should only refer to the aborigines.--pyl (talk) 04:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

We will continue this discussion on the Talk:Native Taiwanese page, as Readin has just made a article on "Native Taiwanese".--pyl (talk) 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The relationship between Taiwan and China is highly unusual and presents problems in English because English doesn't always have words to describe things accurately. That doesn't mean we should resort to foreign words that no English speaker will understand.
 * I admit that based on the reliable source we have, I was wrong to include Taiwanese aborigines as "native Taiwanese". "native Taiwanese" is the term for the non-aborigines who were in Taiwan prior to the 1945 mass Chinese immigration.
 * "benshengren" and "waishengren" don't work because this is an English Wikipedia, not a Chinese language Wikipedia. Also the literal translations are POVish.
 * Available English terms are few and none work work perfectly, but we've had good success for a long time using "mainlander" and "native Taiwanese". Now that we have a page for saying what a "native Taiwanese" is, just as we have a page for "mainlander" there should be less confusion.
 * I believe we should continue using what has worked until we are able to find a better replacement. As for the particular text in question, it should read either "More informally, the native Taiwanese and Taiwanese aborigines remained distinctly under-represented in the top ranks of government[2][3][4] and the party through the early 1990s, suggesting a significant limit to democratization." or "More informally long term residents of Taiwan prior to the late 1940s remained distinctly under-represented in the top ranks of government[2][3][4] and the party through the early 1990s, suggesting a significant limit to democratization."
 * However, I'm not sure what "More informally" is doing there. Perhaps that should be removed or reworded.  Is it trying to say that the discrimination was informally enforced rather than being official state policy?  Also, the clause "suggesting a significant limit to democratization." sounds very OR/Weasal Word/POVish. Readin (talk) 05:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes "native Taiwanese" just like benshengren normally does not include the aborigines unless the context provides for it. But worse than benshengren, "native Taiwanese" takes away a term that the aborigines rightfully are entitled to then exclude them altogether. I hope now you understand why I object the use of the word so much. It is ambiguous and can be so offensive!

I think you missed the other part of the footnotes which say that "native Taiwanese" can also mean aborigines exclusively too. So, "native Taiwanese" is unacceptable for that sentence.

I am happy with your option 2. It is excellent drafting as it says what needs to be said without making divisions in the Taiwanese society based on stereotypes:-


 * "More informally long term residents of Taiwan prior to the late 1940s remained distinctly under-represented in the top ranks of government[2][3][4] and the party through the early 1990s, suggesting a significant limit to democratization."

My interpretation with "informally" is that the thing was being done to non-mainlanders but the government didn't talk about it. In other words, it was something that was done but wasn't said or admitted. "Suggesting" is fine as no one can prove that this policy was the *only* factor that significantly limited democratisation. If you have problems with it, the ground should be "original research".--pyl (talk) 09:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hitler Salute?
The section, sourced to flickr and tibet.net, looks questionable. Anyone know whether it is a hoax? I would be surprised if there wasn't more contrversy on the island if it were true. Ngchen (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hoax. Thanks for pointing it out. I missed it earlier.--pyl (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This reply might be a bit late, but the modern ROC does use the Roman salute, which may be confused for a Hitler salute. The ROC adopted the Roman salute from Germany in the 1930s, and is still used today when members of cabinet and the President of the ROC is sworn in (you can search around on Google for photographs of Chen Shui-bian and Ma Ying-jeou, in additions to government employees, being sworn in). Compare to the Bellamy salute being formally used until the 1940s in the United States to pledge allegiance to the flag. -- benlisquare T•C•E 16:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Nationalists' retreat to Taipei image
The image for the "Nationalists' retreat to Taipei" is a bit strange. The the map shows current PRC claims in white, Mongolia in grey, and nothing else. This makes no sense. The article is about the ROC. The map should either show the ROC as claimed, or the ROC as it was. As claimed, Mongolia is should be in white also. As the ROC actually was at that time, very little should be in white. As a historical map, the map should show Mongolia in white as it was part of the claimed ROC (and continues to be so). Readin (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * ROC did not claim Outer Mongolia between 1946 and 1953. --Shibo77 (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for Building on a Strong Start
This article is now in good basic shape and the sections cover basic developments nicely. The length seems about right for most readers, not too brief, not too wordy and academic. The articles on some of the dynasties would be good models. But it needs careful attention to do several things. First, there need to be some references, though probably not too many, since the articles which are linked will have more specific ones. Second, some sections should be added on topics such as culture, economics, social change, etc. Third, general tightening up, editing, amplifying and correcting, and adding links. Fourth, there should be an organized list of Further Readings. I would like to start on this list, but would welcome any help and suggestions. ch (talk)

Former Country infobox
Sorry to undo your work Kauffner, but I have removed the infobox to this talk page due to numerous problems associated with it.

First, the infobox is designed as an application of WikiProject Former countries, with "history" "geography" etc. as sections, while this article is designed as a general historical overview of the polity. General history overview articles do not use an infobox, e.g. History of South Korea. As I explained in Talk:Republic of China (1912-1949), a Former countries template spanning the years 1912-1949 is misleading and inaccurate, let alone 1912-1991. The nature of the complete regime change in the Northern Expedition means that separate Former countries articles for the Beiyang Government and Nationalist Government are necessary. Unlike the application of WikiProject Countries, which is designed as a snapshot of the present, WikiProject Former countries is designed to depict a specific political entity over a period of time, not in the year 1949 or 1991 only. It would be misleading to leave out pre-1928 information, and unfeasible within the confines of space to conclude it. Thus, any fundamental changes in the state entity require the establishment of separate articles. Former countries templates are applied at Provisional Government of the Republic of China, Beiyang Government, and Nationalist Government. Those should be daughter articles of this article, which should not apply the template.

Second, this infobox is plagued by inaccuracies. (1) The Republic of China cannot objectively be said to have been "Exiled". It exercises sovereignty over some territory it claims. (2) Taipei has never be declared a "capital-in-exile". It has been declared the "provisional capital" (with "provisional" being dropped in the past decade). (3) The end date of 1991 is inappropriate, and not assigned by reliable sources. It either existed until 1949 (according to the PRC) or continues to exist; why 1991? (4) The Legislature was not "dissolved" in 1991. Representatives elected in 1948 were merely forced to retire by the end of that year (not the date given) and the Taiwan-elected representatives continued to serve until the term was over in 1992. In any event, dissolution of parliament and new election does not end a regime. (5) I'm not sure "U.N. withdraws recognition" would be relevant in an infobox. The events/dates there are for the regime is established and abolished. (6) Dates given to Yuan Shikai's and Chiang Kai-shek's presidencies are wrong. (7) The infobox effectively ignored the Beiyang period in capital, anthem, leaders, flag, and emblem. The Qing abdication in February 1912 would certainly be an important date; and the fact that the capital was not in Nanjing until 1927.--Jiang (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Republic of China (1912-1949) be merged into History of the Republic of China. Especially problematic is that JohnBlackburne KEPT REVERTING and insisting the ROC(1912-1949) "WAS" a different state than the one on Taiwan now. His arguments are POV for PR China. The content in the Republic of China (1912-1949) article can easily be explained in the context of History of the Republic of China. What do you guys think? Mistakefinder (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Move: zh:中華民國 (大陸時期) corresponds to Republic of China (1912-49). But our Taiwan corresponds to zh:中華民國 (which is an overview of the state itself). So I propose a move of the ROC 1912-49 page to Mainland Period (Republic of China) as it is not a separate state but a territorial change. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 22:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Closing merge proposal given that stale (for almost 2 years) with lack of consensus; not also the reverse of a previous merge attempt due to lack of consensus (see edits around 11:54, 24 February 2017‎). Template removed from the other page some time ago. Klbrain (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)