Talk:Political status of Taiwan/Archive 2

Contents related to legal status of Taiwan
Mababa and 66.215.70.31 added some paragraphs under the section #Position of the ROC. These paragraphs are related to the legal status of Taiwan. Should they be kept or move? (contents added) &mdash; Instantnood 20:34 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a same exact text that was added to Constitution of the Republic of China. I really don't like the idea of cross-posting. Leading people to the relevant article will do fine. --Jiang 21:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the both comments. 66.215.70.31 initially added the text and then I did some modification and repositioned the paragraph according to the context of the title. Yes, I am very awared of the corss-posting problem here. I did thought about moving that particular segment into the article legal status of Taiwan; however, some foundamental difference between that article and this paragraph stops me doing so. The article legal status of Taiwan focuses on the legal status of Taiwan according to the international law and treaties; whereas, this segment discussed here criticizes the constitution of ROC actaully would deny ROC's legality to rule Taiwan as part of its territory, which is somehow more a breach of the ROC domestic law than an international law problem. Thus, I chosed to place it here as a argument from Tawianese against ROC. I agree that this would be an interesting/essential footnote on the legal status of Taiwan and perhaps might not be a bad idea to incorporate it into legal status of Taiwan.

Since this paragraph is also an important critique over the application of ROC constition in Taiwan, I think it would be appropriate to add this piece of information to the article Constitution of the Republic of China. We might be able to find a way to place this segment in one article and refering to it in the other article. Question is which article would this critique pertinent to and how we can nicely linkling one to the other without losing this piece of information burried in either lengthy article.Mababa 02:53, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

For some reason, I feel a little uncomfortable that someone added this statement:

Currently, it is de facto independent, governed by a local democratically elected government under the name Republic of China with Taiwan often in parentheses on official documents

Allentchang 08:36, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This article is way too long
I suggest that the subsection 2004 developments should be removed. It's also time to include stuff about the "anti-secession" law. Allentchang 05:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. With a hindsight, Powell's remarks is really unremarkable. Nothing on US cross strait policy has been changed.Mababa 07:21, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The section refering to political scientist Chu Yun-han does not contain much value and should be removed. All we need to say is: some political scientists has different interpretaion on the opinion poll data.Mababa 04:51, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Mababa about Chu Yun-han. Tp kde 02:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My position is either remove the poll data completely, or include Chu Yun-Han. Chu is one of the major researchers in this area, and his polls are useful because 1) they have a consist time scale and 2) he publishes extensive information about the methodology. Roadrunner 23:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Final call for removing 2004 developments
This is the final call for any opinions on removing the 2004 developments section. I will have the audacity to remove it soon. . . Allentchang 02:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Could someone cite this poll? There are a huge number of polls in Taiwan with varying degrees of credibility.  If it is something by "Taiwan thinktanks" which I suspect that it is, then you need to mark it as such with notes on who the people are. Roadrunner 23:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poll over Taiwanese identity

 * In October 2004, just after president Chen's speech on Taiwan's national day, one poll revealed that over 60% of Taiwan's residents identify themselves as Taiwanese only. Those who would call themselves both Taiwanese and Chinese dropped to below 20%, but roughly the same number still identify themselves as Chinese only. That number corresponds numerically to the percentage of people that migrated from China at the end of the Civil War in 1949. Roadrunner 23:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removed polling data completely as it is unclear what it has to do with the political status of Taiwan. Most of the relevance of polling numbers was to support the argument by pan-green that there was a historical trend toward a separate Taiwanese identity. With the December elections and Lien's trip, I think it is highly questionable whether these trends exist.

Roadrunner 23:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that would be the perfect resource to start an article over National identity of the Taiwanese to address the question of how close the Taiwanese are moving toward a nation, the debate in the talk page in the article of Taiwan. As for Lien's visit, I doubt how much would be changed. You should see how his talks in Beijing in the news. There is a reason why he was not elected twice. I belive that he is just gambling his political life. The tension across the strait has to be dealt between governments eventually.--Mababa 01:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Opinion polls conducted by Taiwan Mainland Affairs Council showed a steady trend in increasing fraction of residents identifying themselves as Taiwanese only. According to one opinion poll conducted in Feb 2000, 45% of Taiwan residents identify themselves to be Taiwanese only, 39.4% identify themselves to be both Taiwanese and Chinese, and 13.9% identify themselves to be Chinese only. 1

These numbers have been often interpreted as a sign of increasing Taiwanese identity. However, this interpretation has been questioned by political scientist Chu Yun-han who has studied trends in national identity in Taiwan. According to his poll numbers between 1993 and 2002, the number of people who identify themselves as Taiwanese only has increased marked since the 1990s (from 27.1% in 1993 to 38% in 2002) and the number of people who identify themselves as Chinese only has also shown a strong decrease (from 33.4% in 1993 to 7.9% in 2002). However, his results suggest that the number who identify themselves as both Taiwanese and Chinese has stayed constant throughout the 1990s and in the early 2000s (from 33.8% in 1993 to 50.1% in 2002). More interestingly, older respondents tend to see themselves as either Taiwanese or Chinese while younger respondents are far more likely to see themselves as both.

This needs to be cleaned up, but it might be a good idea to wait a month or two. It's likely that Lien Chan's trip to Beijing will make large parts of this article obsolete. For example, it should be noted that the PRC has not since January explicitly stated that Taiwan is part of the People's Republic of China, and the PRC's attitude toward the ROC is very unclear right now.

Roadrunner 23:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not neutral
Not that politics ever is.
 * Could you be more specific? (And sign your comments?) Thanks. --Loren 03:02, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If there is no detailed explanation about the reason that article is not neutral, then in the next couple of days, I'm going to remove the neutrality is disputed notice. Allentchang 16:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)