Talk:Political status of Taiwan/Archive 3

"De facto"
By stating that Taiwan's status is "de facto independent state", this article is simply sided and biased. jiuzhou 04:21, 03 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you please elaborate? "De facto independent" seems pretty accurate to me. Independent in practice but not nessecarily recognized as such (see de facto). If the article is biased towards something it's biased towards what actually is as opposed to what was or what people wish it was. -Loren 04:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Just take a look at this part: ''In addition, it can be confusing because of the different parties and the effort by many groups to deal with the controversy through a policy of deliberate ambiguity. The political solution that is accepted by most of the current groups is the status quo: that is, to leave Taiwan's status the way it is, as a de facto independent state, without making a formal declaration of independence. ''

status quo is what it is. As to what it really is IS a deliberate ambiguity. I'm afraid that a claim of de facto independent state is not that ambiguous, and thus won't be accepted by most of the current groups. It is biased towards what SOME people wish it is, simply because many people disgree with this claim. jiuzhou 04:41, 03 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned earlier, if the article is biased towards one thing, it should be towards what the situation is in practice. Unlike politicians, we are not constrained by the need to be ambiguous, and quite frankly, an ambiguous encyclopedia is is not much of an encyclopedia at all. Currently, the ROC and PRC are, in practice, seperate political entities, neither of which recognizes the other as legitimate, hence de facto independent, not de jure. This does not seek to speculate on whether this situation is fair, warranted, should be encouraged or discouraged. It merely states what is. If you have suggestions on how to improve on this to make it more accurate, I'd be happy to hear them. -Loren 04:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that an encyclopedia should be ambiguous; please do not distort my words. I'm simply pointing out the flawed logic. An encyclopedia should not be ambiguous, nor should it be biased. I would rather keep things off an encyclopedia than provide biased view and misguide its reader.

The fact that ROC do not have the power to form diplomatic relations at its own will with major countries in the world implies that it is not in practice an independent state.

By pointing out that this article is biased I suggest that it should go through major revision. Correcting this or that little things do not improve its quality much. jiuzhou 05:00, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The ROC's power to form diplomatic relations is very much limited in reality by the foreign policy of the PRC. That, however, doesn't mean the ROC isn't de facto a sovereign state. --MarkSweep&#x270D; 05:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would dispute the notion that the ROC is not functionally independent. It conducts it's own foreign policy, has its own military, civil service, and does not answer to Beijing, see state. That it is not recognized by the UN and many countries points to it being de facto independent and not de jure independent. It certainly has the capacity to conduct foreign relations independently, and does, with mixed results. Going by the State article, nonrecognition by many other states does not necessarily preclude the ROC from being a de facto independent state. Even if one were to define a state as being recognized by other nations this would not preclude the ROC from being classified as a de facto state, as:
 * It is recognized by twenty something nations (who are recipients of generous amounts of foreign aid, but that's another issue)
 * States that it does not have relations with still treat the ROC as independent in practice, i.e., ROC passports as still accepted by nearly all nations, seperate unofficial representitive offices in Taipei.
 * Again, all these point towards the ROC being a de facto state. -Loren 05:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

An independent state can form diplomatic relations AT ITS OWN WILL. ROC's diplomatic power is limited, thus not independent, as compared other truly independent states are. That is the reality. It's even less "sovereign", as sovereign is more of a legal term. ROC is far from legitimate. jiuzhou 05:29, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Which is why it is labeled as a de facto state and not a de jure state. Diplomatic power alone is not sufficient criteria to preclude an entitiy from being a state, and at any rate, the ROC does exercise diplomatic power, however limited it may be. Legitimacy is something discussed at length in the main body of the article. Sovereignty is defined as the exclusive right to exercise supreme authority over a geographic region, group of people or oneself. , which the ROC easily meets for the regions under its jurisdiction. I urge you to read the State and Sovereignty articles. -Loren 05:35, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps an acceptable compromise would be to replace the contentious term of "de facto independence" with "pseudo independence"? The argument here seems to hinge on the definition of the term "de facto". We are basically looking for a term/phrase that signifies that the ROC enjoys certain privileges associated with being a sovereign state without actually being recognized as such. Both "de facto" and "pseudo" are suitable for the task at hand but since "de facto" more strongly carries the meaning "actual", I would argue that “pseudo independence" is the more neutral term to use in this context. Furthermore, I would recommend that the above debate be included in the main page itself as a good example of the sensitive nature of any discussion revolving around Taiwan's status. - Anonymous, 7-Sept-05


 * I'm not quite sure you know what "pseudo independence" means - that would signal that Taiwan is, in fact, ruled by somebody else and not independent at all. &mdash; [[Image:Flag of Austria.svg|15px]] ナイトスタリオン ㇳ–ㇰ &mdash; 19:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Indeed, "psuedo-" means "false," and is therefore the worst possible solution, as Taiwan is pretty independent, even if not always recognised as such for diplomatic reasons. While "de facto" is probably the best, "quasi-," meaning "similar to but not quite" is probably a good term to describe the place.--oknazevad 19:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This artical has high personal opinion over it. Even though this artical is based on cites, but it si clear that the writer has tried to convince people by the tone of speaking, such as "under PRC's pressure" and "the slip of tongue." The artical is not highly reconmended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tami peng (talk • contribs).

Taiwan is independent in all but name
Taiwan is not independent at all even with it's name my friend. There are few facts which support the current situation across the Taiwan Strait:

1. Taiwan has no government but sure ROC has one. 2. Taiwan culture comes from mainland China. 3. ROC constitution applies to Taiwan province.
 * Article 4 of the ROC Constitution specifies that "The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly." In regard to the alleged incorporation of Taiwan into Chinese territory, there is no resolution of the National Assembly on record. Moreover, international law specifies that "military occupation does not transfer sovereignty." The proclamation of "Taiwan Retrocession Day" on Oct. 25, 1945, thus indicating a clear intention and objective to annex Taiwan territory, is a war crime. Hmortar 15:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Truthfully, people in the ROC have exercised democracy in the ROC territory in the past years under the ROC constitution and election body.
 * This may appear to be the case to people who have not studied the relevant laws and regulations, but in fact the ROC constitution is not the organic law of the Taiwan cession Hmortar 15:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Declaration of Human Rights has nothing to do with Taiwan independence my friend. It's not just the mainlanders, but the entire world regards Taiwan belongs to a Chinese body, why?

1. China regards treaty of Shimonoseki as an unfair treaty and should be abrogated; 2. ROC means Republic of China, not Republic of Taiwan; 3. There is a Taiwan province under ROC; 4. UN settled the ROC case in the 70's, the outcome illustrates that ROC ousted and it's China seat recovered by the PRC and there is only one China no two Chinas in this world (like Korea and Germany); 5. No state recognizes Taiwan, but 24 states recognizes ROC now; 6. Taiwan can not grant nation status as a legal entity, or put it more simply, Taiwan can not be legally defined as a country, why? because Taiwan is a province under Republic of China;
 * Taiwan is not a province under the Republic of China. Please refer to the comments given above regarding Article 4 of the ROC Constitution. Hmortar 15:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

There are cases like Taiwan that became independent from an already independent state such as the case of former Yugoslavia now breaks into more than one legally funtioning state. Or in the case of regions that are given autonomous status and enjoys semi-diplomatic functions like what French and British did. Or in the case that legally -bind territories remain the way they are and both the mother country and the protectorate settled down in peace. (African examples? please correct me if my memory is wrong here). There could be another outcome which is a win-win case which is the example of Italy and Vatican City that Italy is legally responsible to provide any necessary aid and military protection to the Holy See in written agreement between the two. Or in the worst case scenario ROC would be the similar case of TRNC.(which currently applies to ROC).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRNC

Anyway, practically, Taiwan would never grant independent status because everything is case-by- case and Taiwan is not Europe nor does the Unites States handles other places in the world as its own.

---

A few facts that rather establishes Taiwan as an independent state, regardless of what our Chinese "friends" may like us to think...

1. They have their own government. 2. Their culture is significantly different from that of mainland Chinese. 3. They have the military power and the allies to easily win if China tries to invade them.

Frankly, the Taiwanese people have exercised their right to self-determination, as granted them under the Declaration of Human Rights (which China itself is a signatory to), to establish themselves a separate nation. It does not matter what the mainlanders think, this is how it is.

Unfortunately this will never be added to the article due to NPOV despite everything I have said being true and easily confirmable. Jtrainor 11:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The culture on Taiwan is not significantly different from that of the supposed single unified "mainland chinese" [sic] culture. It's more accurate to view the culture on Taiwan as being a local variant on the Chinese culture, similar to how the culture in Guangdong will be very different from the culture in Beijing. --BenjaminTsai Talk 14:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really, since most of Taiwanese are sinicized aborigines. They were forcibly sinicized by Qing government. Their culture still remains, only to be covered by a "Chinese veil" on the surface.

No 11:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jtrainor, it is not only the "Chinese friends" who think that Taiwan is part of China; this claim has been supported and recognized by 160+ (correct me if the exact figure is drastically different, for I do not have the exact evidence with me at this moment) nations. It is harder to comment on whether Taiwan will "easily" win if China uses military intervention in the near future. If we examine the rate at which the Chinese military is advancing and compare it to that of the Taiwanese, and, moreover, consider the rate at which the Chinese economy (and possibly military) is growing relative to that of the United States (again, I do not have the facts with me right now, but I'm pretty sure you can find the exact figures somewhere), this should give us some degree of skepticism (despite your claim that it is "easily confirmable") regarding the use of the term "easily." I find it interesting that you brought up the argument "Frankly, the Taiwanese people have exercised their right to self-determination, as granted them under the Declaration of Human Rights (which China itself is a signatory to)". I would appreciate it if you provide me some widely-accepted evidence regarding this argument. I would also appreciate it if you tell me the time period as well as the conditions (such as whether this was an exclusive action of the Chinese government under duress or an action that clearly has the voluntary support of the majority of the Chinese people) under which China signed this Declaration. --Spartan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.104.61 (talk • contribs) 08:00, January 12, 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan is not independent nor does it enjoys "de facto" independence. The Republic of China itself is lawfully "de facto" independent not such political or geographical entity called "Taiwan" has sovereignty as a state. The Republic of China (not Taiwan) is more like Northern Cyprus under the topic of international relations.
 * There are no international legal documents which show that the territorial sovereignty of Formosa and the Pescadores has ever been transferred to the ROC.  Without territorial sovereignty, the ROC cannot claim independence. Hmortar 15:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is all so completely insane, on both sides.  Whatever the de jure situation, de facto, the  "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" are the same  political entity, and this political entity possesses all the empirical attributes of sovereignty.  When one says that "Taiwan is sovereign in all but name," one is clearly referring to the de facto, and not the de jure situation, which  is what, er, "name" means.  The de facto situation is that there is a government which claims sovereignty and rules over (basically) Taiwan.  What it calls itself, whether it is recognized as a sovereign government by the international community, and whether its independence derives  from the outstanding status of the Republic of China, or some kind of inherent right of the Taiwanese people to self-government, is only relevant to question of Taiwan's de jure status, not to the question of its de facto  status.  john k 15:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The situation de jure is quite controversial as we probably all know. De facto, the Republic of China is an independent state. The tricky thing is that technically, even on a de facto basis, Taiwan and the Republic of China are closely related but are not identical (since the ROC also controls other non-Taiwan islands), notwithstanding typical English usage. Unification proponents have consistently argued that conflating the two inherently becomes POV pushing. I believe it is something we should watch out for. IIRC people have had a long discussion on naming conventions for Taiwan-based topics somewhere. I don't know whether any consensus was reached or not.Ngchen 18:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Political subdivisions of the ROC
There is still a Taiwan province and a Taiwan governor in existence under ROC, while this important fact is not mentioned at all in this lengthy article on Taiwan's political status. Instead it's trying to give the reader an impression that a Taiwan province doesn't exist and never existed in ROC's history. Some important stuff are being left out of this article, deliberately in my view, and some other controversial stuff are let in, still others are being glided over or distorted. All these indicate the biased view of this article. It simply misguides its reader. jiuzhou 05:49, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If you feel something is missing feel free to add it. I have no objection to mentioning Taiwan Province or its current status, what I object to is deleting the de facto sovereignty part which all parties representing POVs from both sides had agreed to as the best description of reality. -Loren 05:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

All parties agreed? very very interesting.......obviously many many people like me are not counted. the de facto sovereignty part which all parties representing POVs from both sides had agreed to as the best description of reality. jiuzhou 06:04, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * a) You obviously weren't here when the article was written, and b) reality is not democratic. If I can get a majority of people to vote claiming that the Earth is flat does that make it true? If we claim that "Taiwan is an inseperable part of the People's Republic of China" or "Taiwan is an independent sovereign state" does that make it true? I don't think so. -Loren 06:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * how do you know that when this article was written, all parties representing POVs from both sides were involved? It could be just an one sided story since the beginning, or couldn't it? -jiuzhou 06:22, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Which is why we welcome people to make reasonable changes. I have listed my objections to your arguments on the de facto state issue and provided you links to articles defining and differentiating nation, state, and sovereignty, and explained how they relate to the ROC. However so far, you have not provided a convincing argument as to why the ROC is not, in fact, a de facto state, which is why we're still having this conversation since that is the first thing you mentioned. Secondly, your mention that the ROC is illegitimate is already covered in the article under the PRC's position. Again, feel free to make reasonable edits that you feel are warranted, but don't be surprised if someone calls you out on it. Information is welcomed, POV pushing is not. -Loren 06:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Then where is your claim of "all parties representing POVs from both sides had agreed to as the best description of reality" came from, may I ask? Isn't it a lie? Is it based on fact, or distortion of fact? -jiuzhou 06:32, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Feel free to read over the archives, better yet, feel free to look up the profiles and contributions of all those who have contributed to this article. But that aside, of course this article, like all articles, can be improved, of course its not perfect. However, again, you have not provided a convincing argument to back up your initial assertion that the ROC is not a de facto state. In the end, your POV or my POV should have no bearing on the kinds of edits that we make. As I have been saying again and again, if we're going to be biased towards one thing, it's towards what is actually happening in practice. Provide a convincing argument as to why the ROC is not a de facto state and I'll back you up all the way. So far however, you have not done so. -Loren 06:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me say this, I do not need to convince you. why do I need to convince a person with different view, probably biased? I've pointed out that what you claim as a fact is actually still very controversial. With the biased attitude present in the article, its quality is being very much questioned. Whether you are convinced or not is not my primary concern. The reader will tell. -jiuzhou 06:58, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, the reader will tell which is why it is important to provide unbiased information. Let me clarify again, the ROC is the state, the controversy you are speaking of is over whether the entity known as the ROC is a legitimate state, not whether the entity known as the ROC exists. That is why I consider claiming the that the contraversy is over whether it is a state or not to be inaccurate. The question isn't over whether it is a state at all, the question is whether or not it is legitimate. Please read State, as your responses clearly indicate that you do not understand the definition of the word. -Loren 07:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You do not have the judiciary power as to what the controversy is. I'm questioning the existence of ROC as a state, as well as its independency, yet you say that's not part of the controversy. You are good at making claims for the people you don't represent, but that doesn't help you much. ROC is not a state. If you think this is not in controversy then you agree with me?? -jiuzhou 07:26, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, what you are questioning is the legitimacy of the state known as the ROC. In this case, "state" is analogous to "government". The dispute is NOT over whether the governmental entity known as the ROC exists, but whether or not it is legitimate. -Loren 07:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Wrong. The dispute is not over wether the Taiwan regime exist or not, it is over wether the Taiwan regime is a state or not. State is not analogous to government. There is government in HongKong, but it doesn't mean HongKong is a state. -jiuzhou 07:34, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * State refers to a government on the national level, which is why the HK .gov doesn't qualify. The ROC .gov once ruled and officially at least still holds itself as a national level government, functioning independently of Beijing, thus meeting the criteria for a state. A state is an organized political community occupying a definite territory, having an organized government, and possessing internal and external sovereignty. The legitimacy of the ROC, it's right to hold that position is questioned.
 * * de jure state: Exists and is recognized as legitimate.
 * * de facto state: Exists and legitimacy is in dispute.
 * And to address your question of foreign recognition: Recognition of the state's claim to independence by other states, enabling it to enter into international agreements, is often important to the establishment of its statehood, although some theories do not make this a requirement. The ROC does conduct it's own limited foreign policy, and it's passports are recognised as distinct from those of the PRC. Hence, de facto state. -Loren 07:48, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, your attempt to deny the controversy of Taiwan regime's statehood is simply in vain. The existence of Taiwan regime as a state is in dispute, no matter how assured you are. Simply denying this is silly, and a waste of time. -jiuzhou 07:58, 03 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If anyone here is in denial it is you. I have laid out my arguments and backed them up with evidence. You have not attempted to refute them but instead engaged in nitpicking and simply repeating the same claim over and over without providing any solid evidence or arguments. I'm done here. You are welcome to make improvements in any way you see fit, but rest assured that any factual inaccuracies or NPOV violations on your part will be quickly reverted by myself or others. -Loren 08:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Both PRC and ROC claim their rule over both mainland and Taiwan province. By ROC's constitution, Taiwan is just a part of its land (as a province). So, from both PRC and ROC's point of view, Taiwan can't be called a state, even de facto state. Before ROC actually changes its constitution, its status is not de facto state. Actually, PRC and ROC are still in the state of civil war. You can't say either side as de facto state. Strictly, China is a state including both mainland and taiwan.


 * Incorrect, China is a nation which some parties believe encompasses the Mainland and Taiwan. Second, no one here is claiming that Taiwan is a state. The ROC is the state exercising de facto sovereignty over Taiwan and associated smaller islands. And finally, NPOV means that we do not take any position on the whole thing, what happens in practice are to be reported as facts, POVs are to be clearly labeled as such. That the ROC is a de facto state is a fact, that it is legitimate or illegitimate is a POV. -Loren 06:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether ROC is a de facto state or not is still very controversial. Denying its controversy and claming it's a fact is not NPOV. There is simply no similarity between this issue and your example of "Earth is flat". -jiuzhou 06:30, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say the flat Earth argument is a very relevant example. I have said again and again, provide a convincing argument to show me once and for all that the ROC is not a de facto state and I'll be 100% in favor of removing that as a fact. As I have said before, whether or not the ROC is considered to be legitimate is a completely seperate argument. The US doesn't recognize the current Cuban and Iranian governments as legitimate, and yet that doesn't change the fact that they are states. The PRC does not recognise the ROC as a legitimate state but that doersn't change the fact that the ROC is still a de facto state by the definition of the word. State != Legitimacy. -Loren 06:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Since it seems you haven't read it, let me clarify again the difference between a nation and a state, from the state article:
 * nation designates a people, however national and international both confusingly refer as well to matters pertaining to what are strictly states, as in national capital, international law
 * state is about government, and an entity in international law -Loren 06:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Now you are talking about international law, and yet ROC doesn't even have a seat in the UN. -jiuzhou 7:05, 03 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is why it is de facto and not de jure, functionally a state but not nessecarily recognized as legitimate. Please farmiliarize yourself with the definition of state. -Loren 07:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not just me who think that ROC is not a de facto state. I can easily provide a link to an artile published on Taiwan newspaper that doesn't think ROC is a de facto state. I'm not saying that I agree with all the points of that article, but it shows that ROC's status as a de facto state is sill controversial. So much for debate, yet someone is still trying to deny there is such a dispute. -jiuzhou 12:28, 03 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Sadly, Taiwan is still not a state"


 * And for the n-th time, I am not claiming, nor have I claimed in the above that it is. The state in question is the ROC, the territory in question is Taiwan and other smaller islands. I have explained why I consider the ROC to be a de facto state, and you still have not answered why you do not consider it to be a state. If it is not a state, what is it? And why does it not fit the definition of a state? -Loren 13:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you read the above article at all? It is stating that neither Taiwan nor ROC is a de facto state. Can't you just read it? -jiuzhou 14:20, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have read it and it is wrong at least insofar as a state is defined. Newspaper editorials are hardly an objectove source to use for something like this. And if it wasn't clear enough before, the section in the intro deals with what happens in practice, not the official interpretation of it. Yes, there may be better terms to use then de facto state when characterizing the situation, but so far I haven't heard you make any suggestions. -Loren 14:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * To correct you, that article was written by a Professor of law. -jiuzhou 14:34, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And appeals to authority will only get you so far as there are plenty of professors of law who are skewed to either side of the equation as your other link demonstrates. If you have problems with the definition of a state as it is defined in the relevant article, then you might consider taking it up with the editors over there. Or alternatively, provide an explaination for why it doesn't fit the requirements for a state as defined.-Loren 14:44, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Correction again. I wasn't "appeal to authority". I was simply correcting your brushing off behavior saying that it's "Newspaper editorials". I can tell that you didn't really read into that article evident by making mistakes again and again. -jiuzhou 14:50, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And as I have said before, we're running off of the defenition given for a state in the relevant article. Feel free to dispute that policy here: Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). -Loren 15:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This is not about policy. This is about your denial of the fact that ROC's current status as a de facto state is much in controversy. Resorting to policy doesn't help you. You are trying to evade the focus. -jiuzhou 15:18, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * If anything, you have not stated why you do not consider the current situation to fit the definition of the ROC as a de facto independent state. And as I have said again and again... that part of the intro is not about the controversy. In the interest of ending this debate, would you agree that the following statement is an accurate representation of what actually exists as opposed to what either side claims exists?
 * The political solution that is accepted by most of the current groups is the status quo: that is, to leave the status of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu the way they are, governed by the de facto independent state known as the Republic of China, without making a formal declaration of independence. -Loren 15:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me stress again, that paragraph is not about the official interpretations of the status quo which are controversial, but what actually exists. There is a big difference between the official versions and reality. Newspapers and policymakers can spin it all they want... the question is, how do we accurately characterize the nature of what currently exists on the ground. -Loren 15:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going to let this discussion sit for a while to get more comments so a consencious can be reached, in the meantime I'm going to flag it as NPOV. -Loren 15:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You already admitted that the text is "probably" biased, yet you are going to flag it as NPOV. By stating "de facto independent state", it's already biased. If text is like this below, I wouldn't contend as far as this sentence is concerned:
 * The political solution that is accepted by most of the current groups is the status quo: that is, to leave the status of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu the way they are, without making a formal declaration of independence.
 * It can be further improved as, "without further moving toward independence".


 * Please stop taking my words out of context, I freely admit there is bias and that "Taiwan" is not a de facto state, however I do not agree that classifying the ROC as a de facto state is biased. At any rate, more comments from other editors would be helpful in building a concencous. Should that text be found to be inappropriate, then policies may have to be changed as well. -Loren 15:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Classifying ROC as a de facto state is subjective, and by saying that "more comments from other editors would be helpful in building a concencous", you've already indicated that there is no such a consensus and thus it is controversial, and thus not NPOV. -jiuzhou 15:54, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The prior consensus was that Taiwan should not be described either as an independent nation or as a part of the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia should merely state the de facto situation that Taiwan is governed by an indepedent government/state/regime called the "Republic of China.' As you are disputing this, I feel a new discussion is necessary. -Loren 16:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan vs. the territories controlled by the ROC
Taiwan is just a province under ROC. There are places where they belong to other provinces, even under ROC.


 * If you actually read the Republic of China and Taiwan articles, you would find that that was already mentioned.-Loren 07:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Then why put it upfront and misguide the reader that Taiwan is THE territory of ROC? Typical liar behavior.


 * Did you even read the article?
 * Quote:
 * The Republic of China (Traditional Chinese: 中華民國; Simplified Chinese: 中华民国; Wade-Giles: Chung¹-hua² Min²-kuo², Tongyong Pinyin: JhongHuá MínGuó, Hanyu Pinyin: Zhōnghuá Mínguó, Taiwanese POJ: Tiong-hoâ Bîn-kok) is a multiparty democratic state that today is composed of the island groups of Taiwan, the Pescadores, Quemoy, and Matsu. In English, as in Chinese, the name "Taiwan" is often used synonymously with the modern Republic of China, while the term "China" usually refers to the People's Republic of China (PRC), or mainland China with or without Hong Kong and Macau.
 * The political organization of the Republic of China was originally based on a constitution written in 1947 in mainland China, just before the fall of the ROC to the Communists. Therefore, the primary division under the national government is between the actually governed Taiwan Province and Fuchien Province with nonfunctional provisions for all other province of China. -Loren 07:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Then why here:

Republic of China, the state; Taiwan, the territory Is somebody trying to downsize "ROC"? Trying to give readers that impression that "Taiwan" is synonymous with ROC is a relatively new attempt to deceive world readers.


 * Would you prefer that I include in every single conversation Taiwan, Penghu, (both part of Taiwan Province), Kinmen, Matsu (Lienchaing County of Fujian Province), associated islands in the Spratlys, Diaoyutai, Green Island, Lanyu, and smaller rocks? As the article states, Taiwan is a convenient reference for all the areas under the ROC's jurisdiction. I suggest you read the articles before making easily refuted complaints about them which leave you picking at nits. -Loren 07:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is unusual, when stating the territory of a claimed "state", ignore impartant parts of it under the excuse of "convenince".


 * Had you read over my previous posts you will find that I refered to "Taiwan and associated islands". And neither Taiwan or Republic of China attempt to claim that Taiwan is the ROC. In fact, they both explicity mention that the ROC runs both Taiwan Province and parts of Fujian Province. Your ignorance of the articles you are complaining about is showing. I leave it to the readers and other editors to judge for themselves the outcome of this little debate. Good day sir. -Loren 08:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Those islands like Jinmen and Mazu are not "associated" to Taiwan, neither geographically, nor administratively. They are under a separate province. Just ask those people who live there about how they feel about the place they lived being called associated islands. In simple Chinese term, you should at least say "TaiPengJinMa", which includes Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen and Mazu. This is short, and "convenient". How can one left out a province completely when stating a "territory" with any good reason?


 * They are associated with the ROC which runs Taiwan as mentioned in the numerous articles I have pointed out. If it makes you feel better then I will use "the areas under ROC jurisdiction" from now on in this conversation. I still maintain that you are being overtly sensitive about the whole thing and using it as a straw man argument to sidestep the question of the actual cross straits status, as I have made clear numerous times in the above that there is a clear diffference between "Taiwan" and "ROC". -Loren 14:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It is a sensitive issue and I'm not overtly sensitive at all, given that people living on those islands are sensitive to this, too. Also given the fact that there is a movement in Taiwan going on, trying to deceive people and make them think that Taiwan is synonymous to TaiPengJinMa, make this issue all more important. I would laugh on that those people spent so much effort trying to make a wrong impression, yet it is just a straw. In fact, putting a parenthesis Taiwan parenthesis after ROC, and stating Taiwan as its THE territory, is considered just part of that effort, and thus very much biased.


 * As is leaving it out. As a reference it would be criminal of us not to include the fact that for all practical purposes, Taiwan and ROC are used interchangebly in popular speech in English speaking nations, and most people have no concept of the difference between the two, if they even know of their existance at all. The articles on Taiwan and Republic of China clarify and address this issue stating that ROC is the government adminstering Taiwan and the other islands off Fujian and elsewhere. -Loren 14:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say it is criminal for someone to take a "constitution" as trash, by its own "citizen".


 * Clarifying confusion between Taiwan and ROC is hardly "taking the constitution for trash", nor is characterizing the situation as it actually is vs. what governments say it is. -Loren 14:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, instead of clarifying issues, it is misleading the reader. Putting parentheses in the official name of a "state", and trying to make people think that they are equal, is like taking the constitution for trash.


 * This was discussed extensively before and the results posted here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), which incidentally also covers much of what we have discussed. Naturally, you are free to dispute this policy on the relevant talk page. -Loren 14:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * From the link that you provided, it says the term "Taiwan" should only be used when referring to the island itself., but apparently this article is doing just the opposite.


 * As I have said before, if you feel it is inaccurate, then change it. My objection was to your assertion that I was intentionally substituting Taiwan for ROC in my responses to you. If that was not your initial intent, then I apologize for my misinterpretation and we'll just leave this part of the debate at that. -Loren 15:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not want to start another debate on what your intention is by doing that. It would be a waste of time. I've pointed out that the text is biased, and even the link your provided supports my opinion.


 * Is it biased? Probably, as most articles are to some extent. My disagreement with you isn't over that, but over the de facto state issue. -Loren 15:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * your biased attitude is further evident by your denial of the controversy on ROC's current status as de facto state.


 * And you completely missed my point of official interpretation vs. practice again. -Loren 15:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

ROC is a Chinese state whereas Taiwan is a Taiwanese state which many in the island of Taiwan claim. PRC, a communist state (currently defines itself a state that engineers "socialist market economy"), which is an one-party Chinese state and the official stand of it to Taiwan is that Taiwan is part of PRC because of the historical tie with ROC and the issue of Chinese representation in the world. PRC has never ruled Taiwan one day, however it did attack Kinmen island in the past in the name of liberation war. Kinmean island and Matsu island are legally defined a part of Fuchien province of ROC based on the ROC 1947 constitution and the subsequent ROC elections in ROC constituencies after 1949.

Taiwan was ceded to Japan from China in 1895 in the Treaty of Shimonoseki and Japan renounced territorial claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (Pedascores) in the San Francisco Peace Treaty in 1952. Taiwan's status remained undecided until the KMT government of ROC lifted martial law and allowed elections and opposition party (especially the DPP, which supports Taiwan independence via public referendum.)in TPKM and other small islands.

ROC is not recognized by PRC (PRC considers ROC Chinese history before 1949), certain amount of people and groups in Taiwan and most countries. ROC is recognized by 20 something nations in the world only. Either Taiwan chooses to unify with PRC or claim independence, ROC's legitimacy in this world will be challenged even destroyed. Status quo is accepted by many because ROC represents the status quo between PRC and possible Taiwan independence in the future (as feared by many in this group b/c of PRC economic attraction of Taiwan business people).

So, one can not rule out all sides of possibilities when talking about Taiwan's status (especially "US-led", "Japan based" "situational" military reactions and possible PRC military counterattacks mainly from it's missiles and navy when there is any unease or destablization across the Taiwan Strait). Practiacally, yet, with the presence of ROC, Taiwan can choose either to be returned to PRC since ROC is not the legitimate China anymore (from ROC's viewpoint PRC is not recognized and ROC represents whole China, but it would be highly unlikely for the ROC to take back mainland China and Mongolia (and many lost pieces of ROC-defined territory in the past) by force in the future) or claim independence through public referendum.

The official position of the PRC
It's ridiculous for someone here to claim that "the de facto sovereignty part which all parties representing POVs from both sides had agreed to as the best description of reality".

I provide here a link to the white paper of the government of China on this issue.

-jiuzhou 12:57, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "White Papers On Taiwan Issue"

Also this link to an article from FAS:
 * "TAIWAN"
 * In 1979, however, the United States officially recognized the government of the People's Republic of China. The PRC regards Taiwan as a breakaway province, and in establishing formal relations with China, the United States agreed to regard Taiwan de facto as a part of China.


 * The portion of the intro in question is not about what the PRC or the ROC consider as reality but what the situation actually is on the ground. Controversy surrounding the differing interpretations of the status quo is covered in the main body of the article. I contend that the current situation in practice is de facto sovereignty by the definition of the term, even if it is not acknowledged as such. I refer you again to the definitions of state and nation. If you or someone else could come up with a more concise description of what happens in practice, I'll be happy to accept it. What I oppose is something that tiptoes around the entire issue not mentioning what is actually going on in practice. Simply saying that the currrent status quo is ambiguous gives no hint of what is actually going on. -Loren 13:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Did you see the "de facto" in the quote? yet you still insist that the de facto status of ROC is not controversial?  Whatever the status quo is, your description of the status quo is biased. That fact is, people do not have a consensus on what the status quo is. There is only one true status quo, yet the description of status quo as a de facto independent state could be very much biased. I've pointed out the flawed logic in the text, and the biased attitude. As I said, this article needs to go through major revision, which I'm not that interested to do. If you think that you are not a biased person, at least you should remove that QUTOE ...Taiwan's status the way it is, as a de facto independent state UNQUOTE from the text. -jiuzhou 14:00, 03 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You're resorting to the straw man again, in case it wasn't clear enough before: I am not claiming that the de facto state is not controversial as an official interpretation. You're missing the whole point of that section. The interpretations of the status quo are what is ambiguous, not what is happening in practice. That section is intended to give the reader an idea of how things are actually going on the ground. As I have said, if you can come up with a better way of characterizing what is actually happening in practice as opposed to the official interpretations, I'm all ears. -Loren 14:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * To anyone who has a fair command of English language, this sentence is misleading and tries to give the impression that most groups accept that the status quo is that Taiwan's current status is de facto independent state. This is so wrong. If the idea was to tell the reader how things are going on, it is doing just the opposite. This is just one example on how biased this article is. -jiuzhou 14:29, 03 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The political solution that is accepted by most of the current groups is the status quo: that is, to leave Taiwan's status the way it is, as a de facto independent state, without making a formal declaration of independence.

Loren, you are just repeating your claim of "de facto state" of Taiwan. But I don't see any reasonable argument. You said "status quo" is something ambiguous. Here is the definition of "status quo": Status quo is a Latin term meaning the present current, existing state of affairs. (from wikipedia) The fact is even from ROC's point of view, Taiwan is not a state, or a "de facto state". There are only two governments on the land of traditional region of "China": the PRC and the ROC. There is no such regime as "Taiwan". So what you said about "de facto state" of Taiwan is ridiculous and absurd. If you want to talk about fact, the fact is that ROC is not recognized by UN and most countries in the world. Taiwan is a "de facto province". That is the most accurate interpretation. --zllwy

The political solution that is accepted by most of the current groups is the status quo: that is, to leave Taiwan's status the way it is, as a de facto independent state, without making a formal declaration of independence. This is very controversial. The fate of both parties of Taiwan Strait is not determined by anyone but all the Chinese people. The solution is accepted by most of Chinese is a peaceful reunion of mainland and Taiwan. If you don't agree, you can make a poll among mainland Chinese, taiwan Chinese and oversea Chinese. --zllwy

Also, the status quo should make consensus among most Chinese. Not anyone else can exert an arbitrary definition and description over us, even in the English version. --zllwy


 * You did not get my point. The interpretation of the status quo is controversial and has multiple answers depending on which POV one subscribes to. The main body of the article covers this and that is not where my objection lies. The actual status quo is what condition actually exists in practice. There is only one answer to that, either the ROC exercises sovereignty over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, or it doesn't. This says nothing about whether the sovereignty the ROC exercises is legitimate or not, or what it's future fate should be, but merely express the condition that exists. What you are referring to is it's future fate, what I am referring to is what exists right now. The two are related, but seperate questions. And to clarify again, since it appears you didn't see it when iI mentioned it earlier: Taiwan is not equivalent to the ROC. Taiwan is a territory, the ROC is the governing body of that and other territories. My argument is that the ROC is the de facto state, not Taiwan. -Loren 22:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Texas is a state. Alaska is a state. Regardless of the sovereignty of Taiwan, it too is a state. It is simply a matter of how the word "state" is used in the English language. "De facto" and "de jure" are used as contrasting terms in the English language. "Status quo" just means "the way things are" and does not INFORM as to what that condition might be. This is an encyclopedia, not an official anything. We can call a spade a spade. And must. WAS 4.250 20:33, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you mistake reality for wish. Example: "The fate of both parties of Taiwan Strait is not determined by anyone but all the Chinese people. ". I believe the U.S. 7th Fleet has a "vote". (At least until Red China has a stronger navy.) WAS 4.250 20:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The current consensus
As Loren pointed out above, the prior consensus was to characterize the ROC as a de facto independent state. I don't see anything wrong with that as a description of the facts. Of course, not everybody is happy about those facts, and the various positions about what should be the case, or what could be the case in the future are also discussed in the article. But we also have a duty to describe what is factual and real at the moment. The reality is this: there is an independent political entity, the ROC, which exercises sovereign control over Taiwan island, Mazu, Jinmen, Penghu, etc. It doesn't matter what you prefer to call this political entity ("Republic of China", or "the Taiwanese authorities"), I don't see how anyone could reasonably dispute the fact that it is de facto independent. We need to start with a description of facts, and then move on to describe how various parties' views, perceptions, plans, wishful thinking, propaganda, etc. affirm, depart from, distort, deny, ignore, or embellish those facts. I see absolutely no reason to change the current working consensus in this regard. --MarkSweep&#x270D; 22:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

A cigar is just a cigar
This posting can boil certain people's emotions, and I would caution these people in terms of a emotional control system to maintain their negative feedback system rather than to let positive feedback overwhelm them.

Since I wrote the section about Freudian slips, let me add my own comments: a cigar is just a cigar. True, there is a government that tries everything it can do (including getting its citizens to file lawsuits over mental anguish ) in making everyone say that a cigar is a p______. But, when you try to use the object under dispute, it functions as cigar and not a p_____. Still, somehow we have a dispute about this cigar and therefore have an article getting different group's point of views about this entity. Saying that the cigar is a p_____ and that all other point of views on this matter must be squashed and surpressed sounds like the practice of a certain authoritarian communist regime that never apologizes, assumes that it itself is always correct, and purges people for their free speech despite having a "Hundred Flowers Bloom" campaign.

It also sounds like Emperor Nero forcing everyone to hear him sing in concert and to praise his talent even though certain people try to politely leave saying that they have a heart attack or is about to give birth to a baby.

I recently altered the term "de-facto" into "functional." In the past, I also altered references to "de-facto" and made them "in practice" or "effective." Better to use a little more baihua (vernacular language) when subsitution of words are easy and non-wordy.

The People's Republic of China is a one-party people's democratic dictatorship that despises buercratic feudalism, supports socialism with Chinese characteristics, and talks about peace while pointing 700 missles at Taiwan (perhaps I should start a category on Chinese oxymorons or Chinese contradiction terms). In any case, in terms of ONLY political thought (but at this point, not economic or social), it is a type of Borg collective with the Communist Party has the Borg Queen: anything the borg queen says, all the Chinese people also say as Borg drones. Only when the borg drones regain their political individuality and humanity would I possibly buy the claim that all people in China do believe that Taiwan must be part of China. Allentchang 02:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Just a quick comment: I am from Singapore, and I generally do not agree with Taiwanese independence (but I do not agree with unification either unless the PRC turns truly democratic). Am I a Borg drone, or is my government effectively a provincial government of the one based in Beijing?--Huaiwei 15:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Huaiwei, I think the distinction here is this: Being an advocate for eventual unification (as you are) is very different than being one who insists on unification at all costs and under all circumstances (which I think was what Allentchang was referring to with the "Borg drone" comment). The question is this: would you advocate that China attack Taiwan if Taiwan, after a fair and democratic plebiscite, declares independence?  Further, would you advocate that Singapore assist China in that attack if China makes such an attack?  I hope your answers to both of those questions (and particular the latter) is no.  If that is the case, there's your distinction.  (For the record, as a Taiwanese-born "BSR" (i.e., local Taiwanese ancestry) American, I do not support Taiwan independence, but I support the right to declare Taiwan independence if it is the will of an informed people.)  --Nlu 18:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Nlu and Allentchang, you are now discussing the PRC's government and Taiwan's right to declare independence. Thus you have moved into the area of legitimacy and interpretation. "I hope your answers to both of those questions (and particular the latter) is no." This is the opinion of some groups (including you). Is it legitimate for the Taiwanese to declare independence (after a fair and democratic plebiscite) if it goes against the opinion of the majority of the Chinese people (including the mainlanders)? It has been verified by many polls that the vast majority of the Chinese people think of Taiwan as part of China (you can double-check me on that). "I support 'the right' to declare Taiwan independence 'if' it is the will of an informed people." Are the Taiwanese "an informed people" or "a purportedly informed PART of a people"? Now this is no "A cigar is just a cigar" issue is it (consider, as an example, if California were to declare independence from the US by popular sovereignty though it is UNpopular in the US as a whole)? It is unjust and insulting to the mainland Chinese, who understand their own history and culture better than any outsider, to label them as "Borg drones" who have absolutely no opinions as a people but only derive their opinions from the Communist government. Any people who value their history and love their culture would be passionate supporters of national integrity. The same applies to the Chinese mainlanders, who have no need to be reminded daily by their government to support reunification despite the actions of the people they consider to be rebels. Your ridiculous "Borg drones" claim stands as nothing other than an insult unless you can back it up with "hard facts" (widely accepted, non-controversial, or simply one that we can be 100% confident that it is "true") regarding the Taiwan reunification/independence issue. --Spartan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.104.61 (talk • contribs) 08:00, January 12, 2006 (UTC)

You said "Any people who value their history and love their culture would be passionate supporters of national integrity." I value the history of the Chinese civilization, but I know that ultimately having a government instilling way too much Nationalism into its people is NOT the answer. It was the cause of the previous World Wars. And as ethnically one fourth Manchurian, I well know that much of the boundaries of the China that we know today was more or less the result of the Manchurian conquests rather than Han Chinese conquests. As for your knowledge of US History, I have some doubts about that: Calfornia, which was then the California Republic, willfully (caveat: in terms of its non-hispanic citizens) joined the United States and the Constitution of the California Republic is still in effect. Texas, which was once the Lone Star Republic, approved by referendum to join the United States. The thirteen original states, which were effectively soveriegn states, voted to join a Federal Union. Taiwan never voted to join the People's Republic of China (nor did it vote to join the Republic of China). We Chinese literally treated the Formosans as a separate race in the early twentieth century (Mao included here) and actually encouraged them to break away from Japan and form their own country. But when the Allied powers had a statement about giving Taiwan to the Republic of China, many of us became territorially greedy again.

The Chinese Civilization is great and is the world's oldest continuous civilization. But it is wrong to force everyone to believe that an entire civilization must belong to one country.

As for "Borg drones," the PRC doesn't give its people true political individuality in the sense that it will crush anything that opposes its will. It has yet to allow true dissent to exist or tolerate a permanent population with a difference of opinion, prefering to reeducate them. Falun Gong members get reeducated for joining a so called evil religion.

When Seven of Nine was liberated from the Borg Collective, she was so used to being in the Collective (as she was assimilated as a child), that she threatened Voyager at once by trying to recontact the Collective. Captain Janeway would not allow Seven to rejoin the collective untill she could develop true individuality and decide for herself if she really wanted to rejoin the Borg collective. In the end, she decided that Voyager was her collective. I don't see that happening in China yet.

Yes, I can see how strongly you feel about what I wrote: otherwise, you wouldn't even leave a message on my user page telling me to come here and read your message. Just chill it and tolerate my opinion even if your are uncomfortable with it just as I must chill it even if I am uncomfortable with your opinion. Allentchang 13:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have read carefully, my point is that you do not have "hard evidence" that most people in China passionately support reunification because they were FORCED to do so by the government; that's why I mentioned that it's an insult to say something offensive you do not completely know about. I do not see how your wonderful explanation of how the US came into being is relevant to my argument (which states IF California were to declare independence by popular sovereignty in our times). Taiwan was nevertheless settled by the people from the mainland (though there are also natives), and most mainlanders feel that the Taiwanese are "brothers" who are trying to break away. I understand that you are one of the people (I'm guessing you're not a mainlander, and it is clear from all of the polls that if you were, you'd be in the minority) who oppose nationalism. However, does what you mentioned about nationalism PROVE that it is always wrong and always starts wars? Nationalism in the World Wars involved the invasion of foreign nations (such as Germany invading Poland). However, about China "invading" Taiwan (which is a controversial matter and not clear-cut by any means) is a totally different issue from Germany invading Poland and the other countries. China, by the way, was the first (though I'm not sure if it is now the only one) nation to pledge not to be the first to use nuclear weapons (you can find that fact somewhere) or to invade "other nations" (I'm sure you can find that too). There had been no cases so clear-cut and non-controversial where, in recent history, China blatantly invaded another nation and took over its lands, as the Japanese did (or the United States when it invaded Iraq recently, for unlike in the Persian Gulf War, Iraq did not invade another nation like Kuwait before being invaded by the US). You said "we Chinese" treated the Formosans as a "separate race", do you have proof that the Chinese PEOPLE felt this way? I find your "But when the Allied powers had a statement about giving Taiwan to the Republic of China, many of us became territorially greedy again" statement preposterous because it was stated as if the Chinese want "more" territory, as if the Taiwanese and the mainlanders had no common history and culture, as if Taiwan had not been a part of China before. Your mention of Falun Gong (which is, by the way, a VERY controversial issue) doesn't prove a thing about the claim that the people support reunification because the "Commie Government" forces them to do so. It's one thing to state an opinion (such as my support for reunification), but it's another to state something insulting (about a people) that you cannot prove. Spartan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.166.104.61 (talk • contribs) 07:16, January 13, 2006 (UTC)

Academic praise
I attended a lecture on the PRC-ROC dispute about Taiwan held by professor Tom Hart of the Stockholm School of Economics earlier this week as a part of my Mandarin class at Stockholm University. He explained to us that he had been looking for information to prepare for the lecture and that he was very pleased with the content he found here at English Wikipedia. He focused particularly on this article and said "there is not a word in there I didn't agree with", and that's a direct quote.

His own POV is slightly pro-ROC in the sense that he believes that the political status should be decided by the citizens of Taiwan, but other than that I got the impression that his lecture was very objective. I don't know about you guys, but I could love to get comments like that from a college professor on articles I had worked on.

Peter Isotalo 14:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Political status of Taiwan & political status of the ROC
The title of this article and the introductory paragraphs are clear telling readers that this article is about the political status of Taiwan, i.e. the main part of the ROC. Nevertheless some materials down the article talks about the political status of the ROC in the international arena, e.g. its foreign relations, diplomatic recognitions. Even worse many other articles are pointing at this article regarding the political status of the ROC. Is there any way that the matter can be better defined? &mdash; Instantnood 08:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, quit trying to pretend they are different things and that the island of Taiwan has an international political status independent of that of the country of Taiwan. SchmuckyTheCat 15:58, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This article, as well as the legal status article, talk about the political views to and legal legitimacy of ROC rule over Taiwan, i.e. the transfer of Taiwan from Japan to the ROC in 1945. The status of ROC after losing the territories on the continent in 1949 is another matter to be discussed, and is already covered by articles such as foreign relations of the ROC and China and the United Nations. &mdash; Instantnood 17:22, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

If there is no objection I will go ahead and trim the sections on the foreign relations of the ROC, since strictly speaking that's not immediately related to the political status of Taiwan, and is already covered by other articles. &mdash; Instantnood 17:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Please show exactly what you propose to change before doing so. SchmuckyTheCat 17:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd want to hear more feedback before going ahead. &mdash; Instantnood 12:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we should complicate things further with a Political status of the Republic of China The fates of the Republic of China and Taiwan are strongly connected (for now, that is).  Allentchang 15:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I see it, the political status of the ROC is about diplomatic recognition, its status in the international arena, and its relations with respect to the PRC. The political status of Taiwan is to do with its retrocession by the ROC, and the issue of its possible independence, either by seceding from the ROC, or by proclaiming popular sovereignty and amendment to the constitution. &mdash; Instantnood 17:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should place the comment about the political status of the Republic of China in the subsequent sections of this article rather than in the introduction. The introduction is getting bloated with too much information that can make it difficult for the reader to absorb. Allentchang 13:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree in present days the political status of the ROC and that of Taiwan are closely connected. Perhaps another option would be changing the title instead, for this article is really talking about the two different but connected concepts together. &mdash; Instantnood 17:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Commented out "territorial integrity"
PRC's conception of territorial integrity and the UN's (everyone else's) doesn't appear to be the same if anyone bothered clicking the link. Thus:
 * The position of the PRC is that the ROC ceased to be a legitimate government upon the founding of the former on October 1, 1949 and that the PRC is the successor government of the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China, with the right to rule Taiwan under the succession of states theory based on the UN Charter which advocates states' rights to territorial integrity. Whether the ROC, on the other hand, still has the legitimacy to retake the mainland is not widely accepted, but disputed.

has been commented out. China's "right" would be against someone else like, let's say the US, promoting an independence movement in Taiwan, not against the ROC. IN FACT, again, if anyone bothered reading, if it were applicable against the ROC, then the ROC in Taiwan is a legitimate state!!! Fuck, no one reads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs)


 * I don't see why that paragraph needs to be commented out. It's reads like a neutral, accurate description of the PRC's position to me. It doesn't matter whether you or anyone else agrees with that position.  The PRC has consistently and aggressively advocated that position for a long time, and so it needs to be documented. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 19:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What the hell? Mark, did you read the linked article territorial integrity? I'm not talking about my position! I'm talking about the definition of territorial integrity! Please read and comment on something substantive rather than just giving an opinion that it is neutral. Jeez... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs) 03:20, December 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * the paragraph says "the position of the PRC is that... based on the UN Charter." Thus, it is the PRC's interpretation of the UN Charter. sounds neutral to me. --Sumple (Talk) 22:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Freudian slips
I'm curious why theses slips-of-the-tongue are classified as Freudian slips, which are mispronouncements that (may) reflect what the person is thinking about. It seems to me some of these slips are more likely to be due to simple habit of referring to states/territories as countries, rather than an underlying belief of Taiwan being a separate country. This would almost certainly be the case with the Chinese premier. In any case, we don't know what they are actually thinking, so I think it's a bit presumptuous to think they're all Freudian slips. --Sumple (Talk) 00:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The Brawls
shouldn't there be something on the recent taipei brawls that shattered civilization in the west as we know it?

De-facto embassies
I urge caution in describing the exact status of the de-facto embassies. According to Section 3306 of the Taiwan Relations Act:

[The AIT is authorized] to assist and protect the interests of United States persons by performing other acts such as are authorized to be performed outside the United States for consular purposes by such laws of the United States as the President may specify.

Section 3309:

(c) Privileges and immunities Upon the granting by Taiwan of comparable privileges and immunities with respect to the Institute and its appropriate personnel, the President is authorized to extend with respect to the Taiwan instrumentality and its appropriate personnel, such privileges and immunities (subject to appropriate conditions and obligations) as may be necessary for the effective performance of their functions.

Go to Yangminshan and you will see a lot of foreigners with diplomatic license plates. Traffic curfiew on Yangminshan on weekends and holidays were partially made from pressure from de-facto diplomats. De-facto diplomats do not pay traffic fines even though the fine is recorded. The Russian de-facto diplomats are the worse violators.

A recent Taipei Times article mentioned about the Japanese de-facto ambassador claiming that his residence in Taipei is the property of the Japanese Government!

One would have to write a separate article describing those de-facto embassies rather than to make potentially misleading statements here. Allentchang 16:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Taiwan Relations Act is a US law only, I believe TECRO is not only have a "office" in the US? Also the act does mentioned that "...the President is authorized to extend...". Is there evidence for such authorization?


 * For Yangminshan and the Japanese de-facto ambassador, is it possible that its only an unilaterally act of Taiwan authorities to give out such immunities and land? (i.e. The country where TECRO is located does not give such recognition to its staff and the de-facto ambassador. )


 * For these reasons, I believe the description although they do not enjoy many diplomatic privileges, they cannot provide any consular protection and their staffs do not have any diplomatic immunity. The location where the office is located is still the land of the host country. should be added. Hunter 17:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Unilateral Taiwanese recognition doth not international law make.
 * If they are not de facto, are they de jure? I doubt it. --Sumple (Talk) 00:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about in "Unilateral Taiwanese recognition doth not international law make.", are you trying to say that it's not in international law for Taiwan recognition and therefore TECRO does not have dipomatic immunities that sort of thing?


 * And I am just trying to say TECRO is very similar to a consulate general in many sense, but with some exceptions. Hunter 05:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a slight error in what you wrote: although they do not enjoy many diplomatic privileges, they cannot provide any consular protection and their staffs do not have any diplomatic immunity. That's the main reason I felt extremeley uncomfortable with that statement.  Diplomatic privileges: villas over at Yangminshan (can't take pictures out of privacy concerns, the ability to travel on diplomatic passports, diplomatic license plates, continued collection of senority at the State Department.  We would have to write a letter to the AIT to see if they do or do not offer consular protection, but they wouldn't give a clear answer of course.  Diplomatic immunity: immunity for those massive traffic fines that all Taiwanese have to pay when those wonderful traffic cameras take pictures.  I do know that the British Trade Office website is very clear that it lack diplomatic status, cannot provide notairy service, and cannot protect its citizens in Taiwan if they get into trouble.  One could argue that the AIT provides some form of protection by urging all American citizens to register with the AIT when they visit Taiwan just like American citizens are urged to register with US embassies and counsulates.  The AIT also deals with parent-child abduction cases.  I think the bottom line is that we would need a paragraph (not in the introduction, but somewhere else in the article) that gives a little more comprehensive descriptions of the intricacies of these de-facto embassies. Allentchang 13:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we have been talking about TECRO, what AIT enjoying in Taiwan is irrelevant. It is likely that this recognition is NOT bi-directional because of the political statu sof Taiwan. Hunter 16:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Political status of the Republic of China
I really like to avoid the use of the term "political status of the Republic of China" if possible. I haven't seen any scholarly publication uses that term and I don't think we should coin such term if this is such the case. Of course, you might want to argue about the term "political status of Taiwan" being a coined term; however, there are publications that talk about the "question about Taiwan's political status" and I've heard people in Taiwan explicitly use the term "Taiwan's political status." Allentchang 21:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In the first paragraph, this sentence reads: "The controversy over the political status of the Republic of China hinges on whether its existence as a state is legitimate and recognised." This would appear to me to be a typo, as the legitimacy of the Republic of China doesn't seem to be WIDELY disputed (if at all). It is internationally recognized as an independent state/country, even by its political 'enemies'. - Rohnadams


 * Well... not exactly. The PRC considers the ROC to be defunct and thus illegitimate. Nontheless I agree with the current title "Political status of Taiwan" as that seems to be the term most commonly used. -Loren 23:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Everyone recognises that there is a regime which calls itself the Republic of China - but whether it's a state or country or whatever, that's disputed. --Sumple (Talk) 01:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Wishes for the free Republic of China (Taiwan)
I hope that the Republic of China continues to prosper and remain free, and I also hope that one day Communist China will be able to experience the same freedoms also.

Good Wishes to Taiwan

pal, remember that ROC is now considered by radical pro-independent taiwanese as a illegal government and they evet want to overthrow it! Just call that island taiwan.--StrikeEagle 02:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not really, the fact is that ROC is a Chinese illegitimate government currently administering Taiwan, the only way to achieve independence of Taiwan is to declare independence by ROC's elected "president" in his capacity as heaf of executive branch of ROC government.

No 02:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Recommend reading this BBC article
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4758410.stm

I'd like to invite everyone involved in this discussion to read the above article, especially the first and fourth (last) interview. I was born in Taiwan originally and return to visit at least once or twice a year. I think the opinions expressed in the BBC article is pretty accurate in describing how many in Taiwan feels.

For the pro-unification camp (pan-blue), many believe in eventual reunification under democratic terms. But very few will support absorbing Taiwan into PRC as a province, under single-party CCP rule. If we look at past proposals put forth by the PRC government, they usually involve high degree of local autonomy, with Taiwan maintaining its own armed forces, and no PLA forces stationed in Taiwan. This reflects a realistic approach to the dispute from the PRC side, as they know even pro-unification supporters in Taiwan do not like the idea of being ruled by the CCP.

For the pro-independence camp (pan-green), if you look at the last (fourth) interview, this reflects the extreme pro-TI view where people knew for fact that they were originally from China, but seek to distance thesmelves as far as possible from being "Chinese". There are even pro-TI web sites out there claiming that "Taiwanese" is its own race.

However silly that might be, I'd like to point out that many people in the US were originally from England, yet they do not consider themselves English, or European. It's also said that 1 in 8 child born in Taiwan today are from inter-racial/ethnic mix (Taiwanese-Vietnamese/Cambodian/?). So realistically it's not impossible for a distinct Taiwanese identity to develop and become majority-view over time.

On the other hand, with the economic reforms in China and gradual opening of PRC-ROC/Taiwan trade and direct-travel, there is also a trend of eventual economic integration between the two sides -- if not already integrated, considering the number of Taiwanese companies with factories in China. Also, approx. 1 to 1.5 million Taiwanese now live and work in China, and there is an increase of PRC-ROC marriages over the past decade. How will this economic and demographic shift affect the politics on two sides in the future, I cannot say for certain. But it'd be an interesting development to watch.

In closing, I'd like to say that it's quite sad to see Han-decendents going at each other's throats over the TI-issue. It's about as bad as the Japanese-bashing from China and Korea. At this rate, I think it'd be another 50+ years before we catch-up to the Europeans and form some kind of Pan-Asia Economic Union. -- Adeptitus 00:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Question of sovereignity
Independence advocates point out that at the end of World War II, allied powers agreed that the Republic of China was to "temporarily occupy Taiwan, on behalf of the Allied forces" under the authorization from General Douglas MacArthur's General Order No. 1 of September 2, 1945.

Where do these claims keep coming from? There is only one instance mentioning Taiwan (Formosa) in the actual document: Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers - General Order no. One (September 2, 1945):
 * 1 a. The senior Japanese commanders and all ground, sea, air and auxiliary forces within China (excluding Manchuria), Formosa and French Indo-China north of 16 north latitude shall surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.

The order given clearly states that the Japanese in Taiwan are to surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. Where is the evidence to support the claim that ROC was only to "temporarily" occupy Taiwan on behalf of the allied powers? See also Talk:Taiwan for references which clearly shows:
 * Japan accepted defeat in WWII on the conditions that included giving Taiwan and the Pescadores to the ROC.
 * Japan had clearly stated to the PRC in 1972, that they maintain their stance under "Article 8 of the Postsdam Proclamation" which recognizes sovereignity of Taiwan by the ROC.

Taiwan independence supporters even go so far as to claim that Taiwan is an overseas territory of the United States, See: http://www.taiwanadvice.com Let's stop the misinformation please. — Nrtm81 11:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your analysis unfortunately totally ignores the laws of war. According to the laws of war, the disposition of territory, i.e. the specifications of a territorial cession, are made in a post war peace treaty.   Such specifications of a territorial cession are not made in Proclamations, Declarations, or in the Surrender Documents.   Moreover, according to the laws of war, the surrender of Japanese troops in Taiwan on Oct. 25, 1945, can only be regarded as the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan, there is no valid claim to a "transfer of sovereignty to the ROC" on that date.  In regard to the concept of military occupation, it is a "transitional period," or a period of "interim status."  Hence, the claim that the ROC is exercising control over Taiwan temporarily is absolutely correct.  Later in the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty, the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan was not awarded to the ROC, hence Taiwan remains under the jurisdiction of the conqueror and principal occupying power -- the United States of America.  This is not misinformation, it is the truth.   Hmortar 10:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me point out to you that after the San Francisco Peace Treaty signed on September 8, 1951 (coming into effect on April 28, 1952, the Republic of China concluded their own Peace Treaty with Japan (Treaty of Taipei signed April 28, 1952) that recognized the ROC's sovereignity of Taiwan. Japan didn't conclude a treaty with the PRC until September 29, 1972 (Joint Communiqué where it stated to the PRC that although Japan now recognized the PRC as "China", Japan maintains its stance that Taiwan is ruled by the ROC "entity". Stop spreading misinformation that Taiwan's status was not resolved. In reality, Taiwan has no option, it can only delay the time until the PRC annexes the island. I don't support the PRC but let's not create a fantasy situation that doesn't exist and has no evidence to support it. (Independence supporters are grabbing at straws) — Nrtm81 10:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is total misinformation.  The Treaty of Taipei did not, in any way, shape, or form, recognize ROC sovereignty over Taiwan.  Article 2 of this Treaty (which came into force on Aug. 5, 1952) clearly states: "It is recognised that under Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace which Japan signed at the city of San Francisco on 8 September 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the San Francisco Treaty), Japan has renounced all right, title, and claim to Taiwan (Formosa) and Penghu (the Pescadores) as well as the Spratley Islands and the Paracel Islands." So ....... when we consider that as of April 28, 1952, Japan had already renounced all claims over Taiwan, there is no way that the Treaty of Taipei (which came into force on Aug. 5, 1952) could make any further disposition of these areas. In regard to Article 10 of the Treaty of Taipei (nationality issues), there is an excellent essay on the internet which explains the details, and overviews the legal complications.  See -- http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/rcitizen6.htm

Hmortar 01:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Independence supporters use many baseless claims such as Taiwan is still part of Japan or is part of USA. It's certainly interesting to hear their views but ultimately there's a complete lack of evidence to support any of their claims. Can someone fix the sentence in the article? — Nrtm81 11:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

how do you all have the patience to do deal with these chinese nationalists and their complete disregard for logic or common sense? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.163.43.126 (talk • contribs).

There was an original sentence in this article to the effect that -- Because of anti-communist sentiment at the start of the Cold War, the Republic of China was initially recognized as both the sole legitimate government of mainland China and of Taiwan by the United Nations and most Western nations. However, this is incorrect. There are no international legal documents which show that the sovereignty of Taiwan has ever been transferred to the ROC. The ROC in Taiwan is merely a government in exile. Hence, I have edited this sentence to read -- Because of anti-communist sentiment at the start of the Cold War, the Republic of China was initially recognized as the sole legitimate government of mainland China by the United Nations and most Western nations. Hmortar 10:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "There are no international legal documents which show that the sovereignty of Taiwan has ever been transferred to the ROC.  The ROC in Taiwan is merely a government in exile." Please demonstrate evidence by balance of authorities. Note WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR. A statement about international "legal documents" or lack thereof is not acceptable to Wikipedia unless it can be backed up by reliable sources. --Sumple (Talk) 03:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV in "Position of ROC"
I added the NPOV tag some time ago, and had someone ask me about it on my Talk page. After I reviewed it, I decided that I had added the tag after too many hours of reading. :-) I am not convinced that it is NPOV, I just can't point to what exactly is the problem.  I've also come to the conclusion that it might just be some poor word choices that give it the ... the ... TONE of a POV.  I know that's vague, but that's the best I can say right now. Mdotley 20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mongolia's status
I thought I had seen that Taiwan had recognised the independence of Mongolia, and seems to point in that direction. Does anyone know any more details of the development after 2002? Mlewan 10:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Taiwan has removed Mongolia from official maps; but in legal terms the claim has not been renounced. Not that it makes any sense, of course, but that's how things is here. There's also a representative office established. --203.118.178.245 03:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)