Talk:Political status of Taiwan/Archive 4

KMT is called Chinese Nationalist Party
"When the Kuomintang visited Mainland China in 2005, the government-controlled Chinese media called this event as a "visit," and called the KMT one of "Taiwan's political parties" even though the Kuomintang's full name remains the "Chinese Nationalist Party."

This is not true: CCTV, a government-controlled media, broadcast this visit and called KMT 'Zhongguo Guomindang', even they emphasize the 'Zhongguo' pronunciation http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/pZ7TNOBDWlw/

Hand15 (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

China's own contradiction
I personally made several changes in that section. I believe most of the content in this section is due to the lack of understanding. C&C welcomed.--StrikeEagle 02:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire article was originally written by pro-independence supporters, who seems not interested in clearly and concisely presenting the Pro-China POV. Redcloud822 18:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Slip of the tongue
Is this section necessary? All those cases were just as the title indicates "slip of the tongue"; compared to official stands those incidents don't carry any weight. It seems a bit childish to use "slip of the tongue" as arguements to support a particular POV. I suggest this section to be removed. I also added the fact that PRC treats Hongkong investment as "foreign investment" as well. Redcloud822 06:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe not under that title, but those incidents are certainly worth mentioning. I don't think they are arguments to support any particular POV. They just show that the complexity of the China-Taiwan relationship presents international diplomatic problems at times. I do think that section needs a better title. "Diplomatic bloppers"? heh --Kvasir 08:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The title reflects the content very well. It's the content of this section that appears very childish. If you believe the section is not used to support only the Independent POV, could you show me anything in this section supports unifiction POV, barring anything added by me two days ago? I believe this secion is very biased, and it ought to be removed. Redcloud822 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You would have to be specific about which incidents in that section are childishly POV. I don't understand how citing foreign diplomats/politicians misrepresenting, misquote, misunderstand the China-Taiwan relation supports either unification or independent POV. They happened and at times created international and diplomatic embarassment. It was what it was. We should define "mistakes" as doing or saying something that is contrary to the official policy of a country. I can only speak about the incident i added -- the wrong anthem played in Grenada. I really can't see there's any POV in reporting that. If the content needs to be reworded, by all means. But the incidents themselves should be included. --Kvasir 06:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what I am saying. All slips of tongue or mistakes did reject of Chinese sovereignty of Taiwan, which were in contrast to official stand. In the Grenada instance, PRC anthem should have been played, but ROC anthem was played. The mistakes of Pres. Ragan and Bush were in favor of rejecting Chinese sovereignty of Taiwan against official stand. In all incidences mentioned (insert an incident here), the mistakes were made to deny Chinese soereignty of Taiwan. Do you think I have been specific enough? Again, all mistakes were made in treating Taiwan as a country. IMO, such is to infer that somehow Taiwan should be considered as a country. Redcloud822 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, are you saying they made those "mistakes" on purpose to make a point? Some politicians indeed say something (sometimes on his/her own agenda) that is against his/her country's official stand. That's why we can't really call them mistakes or "slip of tongue".
 * You are free to speculate the intentions of those "mistakes," actually, those "slips of tongue" are open to any interpretation by anyone. But any serious discussion of ROC's political status has to refer back to the official stand of those identities, which are all committed to "One China" principle. Redcloud822 03:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * They create controversies nonetheless. In Grenada, they didn't play the ROC anthem on purpose to deny Chinese sovereignty on Taiwan. If you think that is the case that is really far-fetched and twisted. Yes, you are correct in that all mistakes/controvesy mentioned in this section were made by treating Taiwan as a country. This is because only some 25 states in the world has formal diplomatic relation with Taiwan, thus recognising it as the country of "China". The rest of the world has diplomatic relaion with the PRC which means in THEORY they SHOULD agree with the PRC's view of a single China. No country in the world recognise both PRC and ROC as seperate country at the same time. Are we saying then that the two China's POV is not represented? If you are able to find instances where, say Nauru, inadvertently referred the PRC as a seperate independent state, then by all means add them to the section to balance it out. The fact is there aren't many of these countries to begin with, you'd be hardpressed to find their diplomatic "mistakes". By citing these instances we are not supporting which side or which POV is correct, we are saying what they say or do is inconsistent with the official policy of their country. --Kvasir 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So you do agree with me that this "slips of tongue" section is bias towards the favoring of Taiwan Independence POV. Now let's talk about why it is childish. 1)Taiwan Independence supporters use "slips of tongue" to support their POV, which as you said were "mistakes." Mistakes were not meant to happen, so to use such "mistakes" to push you POV is unfair to those committed it. 2) PRC conducts far more diplomatic relations and functions than ROC. The chance of "slips of tongue" is vastly against PRC, so emphysizing such "mistakes" is unfair to PRC. 3) By ignoring vastly more times of glichless diplomaic encounters also creats bias. For example, Pres. Ragan and Bush made few "mistakes", but vastly more times Ragan and Bush reaffirmed "One China" principle, and more US Presidents who didn't make "mistakes" are ignored, such as Nixon, J.H. Bush, Clinton. How many times they have reaffirmed "One China" principle. Should we record every incident of US Presidents conducted a glichless diplomatic fucntions with China or reaffirmed "One China" principle? Should we record all other heads of states who reaffirmed "One China" principle. This is the only way to present a NPOV. Don't you think it's too excessive. That's why I say, to use "mistakes" to push you POV is childish. In all fairness, this section should be removed. Redcloud822 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you get it. Why would it be biased when no one is trying to exclude counter examples? As I said, if you find any counter example go ahead and include them. No one is pushing any POV except maybe you, which is what it begins to sound like. You are reading too much into this. When US presidents reaffirm the "One China" principle, they are in accordance with their country's official policy, it's not a mistake nor does it create controversy. When the Vatican invited only ROC president to John Paul II's funeral but not PRC officials, it was also done according to its own diplomatic policy, there is nothing controversial about that. Like I did before, I've always said "mistake" isn't the right word from the get go, nor is it "slip of tongue". Instead of going in circles and nitpicking, why not just change the title. "Diplomatic controversies" or something. --Kvasir 00:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Your arguement is not logical. For example, there is no way for a US president to make a "slip of tongue" in PRC's favor, since when a US president reaffirms "One China" principle, he is doing the right thing. There are only 24 heads of state recognizing ROC, who is qualified to make a "slip of tongue." Yet, actually only about dozon times or less a year those 24 heads of state get a chance to committ such a "mistake." Whereas PRC has to conduct tens of thousands diplomatic functions, a few gliches are unavoidable. So such comparison is inheritantly biased and meaningless. To use such comparison to push you POV is childish. Do you think the world affairs should be re-interpretated through "slips of tongues" according to your speculation? See someone made a "mistake," and they claim they didn't mean it. But you insist that you know the true intentions of those made a "slip of tongue." This is childish, isn't it? That's why it's wrong for this section to push a biased POV of Taiwan Indpendence with "slips of tongue" or "mistakes."  Redcloud822 03:55, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You just repeated what i said. I don't even know what you are arguing about anymore. I personally don't have a POV and am not pushing anything. It's always the ones that have an agenda assume others have one. Again, if you actually read what i commented, I said they were not "mistakes" or "slip of tongue". Whether they did it on purpose or not wasn't the point. No one is counting who makes more "mistakes" than whom, only you are. --Kvasir 05:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't repeat what you said, no need to play games. Cut to the chase. Those who "sliped" their tongues said that mistakes were made. But you believe you know the "true" intentions behind those mistakes. You want the readers to speculate with those selected occurances to push your favor POV. It is simply wrong to mislead readers with your selected events to foster speculation as the "true" intention behind those "slips of tongues". Redcloud822 15:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is simply wrong to speculate what MY intentions are, especially when I only contributed only one incident in that section. And no, I wasn't the one who started this section, check the History if you want. Like you said, if those involved even admit about making a mistake, what's wrong with including them? Besides I didn't say I know what the true intentions were. You were the one back in a few posts (13:12, 26 March 2007) saying mistakes were rejecting this or denying that. Which by the way, how can a mistake be made with an intention? That's an oxymoron. You really have to decide what you are talking about here. --Kvasir 09:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of the "Slips of the tongue" is to highlight how ambigious and confusing Taiwan's political status is rather than to make an argument for independence. Hope this clarifies things. Allentchang 12:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this is not. How many times, Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Ragan, Bush Sr., and Clinton unmistakenly reaffirmed "One China" principle? (TG, not every President is dumb) Stacking up the times US Presidents got it right over the so few times Bush Jr. got it wrong, it clearly shows the issue is not "ambigious and confusing." not to American presidents at least. To selectively present two to three "slips of tongue" of Bush Jr., while ignoring the clear-spoken by numerous occasions of most American presidents post 1970's, in order to claim the issue "ambigious and confusing" is misleading and biased. This tactic is called spinning. Redcloud822 02:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * To ignore those incidents like they have never happened is the real bias here. Besides, I've always been saying we shouldn't call them "mistakes". "Diplomatic gaffe" is more like it, whether those were intentional or not isn't important. What significant about those incidents was that they all create a reaction or an uncomfortable situation with either the PRC and/or ROC. If the issue isn't confusing and it is so obvious, what are we really trying to achieve in this and other related Taiwan/ROC articles then? Would one or two sentence not clear it all up? --Kvasir 09:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Bowrrowing your own logic, to ignore those incidents of "clear spoken," which had occured many many more times than that of "slips of tongue", as if they never happened shows even stronger bias here. When you compare how many times the world leaders "got it right" to the times of "slips of tongue", it becomes clear the issue is not confusing but only obvious. If you want to show something is confusing, you can't only count times people "got it wrong". You need to compare the times people "got it wrong" to the times people "got it right." This is simple logic, why it's so hard? Redcloud822 16:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I agree a little with both of you. Mentioning the mistakes while ignoring the times they got it "right" may seem biased, but then it's really pointless to point out how they got it right because that's what they should. The argument, I believe, is about whether or not to remove the section or to let it be with a different title. Anyway, I've changed the title for now to "Controversies" - that's much more in pace with the rest of the article. IMHO, the times they got it wrong unintentionally should be removed (they caused controversies too, yes, but they're just mistakes and not really relevant), while the time they got it wrong intentionally (e.g. Rumsfeld) should be included. There're problems, of course, but this should be able to keep to Wikipedia's standards best, especially in a political article like this. Aran|heru|nar 09:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

General Order No.1 by General MacArthur
I have not been able to varify the Quation cited in the article on "General Order No.1" by Gen. MacArthur throught the link. The link was broken. If no link available, the quotation should be removed, otherwise it is misleading. I added in the article the fact Gen. MacArthur was never given the command of Allied Forces in China Theater. Thus Gen. MacArthur did not have the authority to issue commands to Allied troops (i.e. Chinese Troops) landed on Taiwan, that reclaimed Chinese sovereignty. Redcloud822 19:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Taiwan was not part of the China Theatre !!! Please get your facts straight before you start writing comments in this section .....  Hmortar 11:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody said Taiwan was part of the China Theater. I said Gen. MacArthur directed Japanese forces to surrender to the Allied Commander of the China Theater, thereby conceding to the reclamation of ROC's sovereignty of Taiwan, again on the basis of Cairo Declaration, Postdam Proclamation, and Japanese Instrument of Surrender. No evidence shows that Gen. MacArthur ever questioned ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan. Redcloud822 20:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Following the acceptance of the surrender of Japanese forces in Taiwan by the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek's government, Taiwan remained de jure Japanese territory. General Douglas MacArthur stated at a congressional hearing in May 1951, "legalistically Formosa is still a part of the Empire of Japan." Hmortar 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You can't reclaim sovereignty just by sending troops. Otherwise America would possess sovereignty over Iraq or some such nonsense. --Rmdsc 12:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are right. ROC claimed sovereignty on the basis of Cairo Declaration, Postdam Proclamation, and Japanese Instrument of Surrender. For 60 years, other than PRC (the civil war rival), nobody challenged ROC's sovereignty on Taiwan. There is nothing similar between Taiwan and Iraq. BTW, if you have no objections, I will revert back on "reclaiming Chinese sovereignty" wording in the article. Please talk it over here before you edit the page. Redcloud822 20:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There was no "reclaiming" of sovereignty on Oct. 25, 1945 -- that was just the beginning of the military occupation of Taiwan. Territorial cession is accomplished by treaty.   In 1895, Taiwan was ceded to Japan by treaty. Any cession of Japanese territory to China would have to be done by treaty as well.  There is a very good summary of all the historical and legal details in Roger Lin's lawsuit, see -- http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/twamended.htm    Considering that the Court will be discussing all of this, it is worth spending some time studying the details in the case. Hmortar 11:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Also see the new 31-page Discovery Requests filed with the United States District Court in Washington D.C. on June 26, 2007. http://www.taiwankey.net/dc/tw1discovery.pdf


 * Which law dictates the transfer of sovereignty has to be done by a treaty? Cairo Declaration, Postdam Proclamation and Japanese Instrument of Surrender provides more than ample legal basis for ROC to reclaim sovereignty over Taiwan. After ROC's reclamation, nobody in the world(except old civil war rival PRC) challenged ROC's sovereignty of Taiwan. China's sovereignty of Taiwan is indisputable. Redcloud822 20:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Which law? It is called "customary law."  China's sovereignty over Taiwan is non-existent, and the Court in D.C. is going to declare it as such. Hmortar 15:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Redcloud's arguments don't hold water. This entire article should be revised to clearly point out that the military occupation of Taiwan began after the surrender ceremonies of Oct. 25, 1945.  None of the Allies recognized any transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to the ROC on that date (or on any later date).  I would challenge Redcloud to prove otherwise. Hmortar (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's not POV push. Also, I invite everyone to check the article Legal status of Taiwan for the detailed arguments for all sides. IMHO, prescription is a very strong pro-ROC argument, and it is incorrect to claim that "customary law" dictates all border changes to be done by treaty. Ngchen 17:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is incorrect. There can be no claim to prescription because "military occupation does not transfer sovereignty."  That is international law.  This is a situation of territorial boundary changes after a war, and the laws of war (including the laws of military occupation) must be considered. Ngchen is incorrect to say that "it is incorrect to claim that 'customary law' dictates all border changes to be done by treaty." Hmortar (talk) 11:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Was "Taiwan under military occupation since 1945"
Quote from historical background section from the article
 * "Japan surrendered it in 1945 at the end of World War II after 50 years of colonial rule, and it came under the military occupation of the Republic of China (ROC)."

"Came under the control of ROC" is probably a better way of putting it, while many native Taiwanese did resent the rule of the KMT led ROC, it is incorrect to classify the rule as a "military occupation". It's like, we do not call Hitler's Nazi regime "Military occupation of Austria" or Saddam's Sunni/Baahist Regime "military occupation of Shiite dominated regions of Iraq". the term "Military occupation" is simply not accurate.Philosophy.dude 04:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a biased statement. It should be part of the Taiwan Indpendence arguement. According to ROC, Taiwan's sovereignty was transferred to ROC in 1945 on the basis of Cairo Declaration, Postdam Proclamation and Japanese Instrument of Surrender. No country ever challenged ROC's sovereignty on Taiwan since 1945 except old civil war rival PRC. The UN recognizes Taiwan as sovereign part of China as well. I am about to correct this statement soon to reassure NPOV, comments welcome. Redcloud822 01:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Redcloud made numerous incorrect statements above. (1) According to ROC, Taiwan's sovereignty was transferred to ROC in 1945 on the basis of Cairo Declaration, Postdam Proclamation and Japanese Instrument of Surrender. ==> This is pure ROC propaganda. The Allied Powers recognized no such transfer, hence it is clear that no such transfer took place. Redcloud is mistaken. (2) No country ever challenged ROC's sovereignty on Taiwan since 1945 except old civil war rival PRC. ==> This is total nonsense. It would be more accurate to say that no country ever agreed to ROC's sovereignty on Taiwan since 1945. (3) The UN recognizes Taiwan as sovereign part of China as well. ==> This is incorrect. Taiwan is not recognized as a sovereign part of China. Hmortar (talk) 11:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "According to ROC". That is biased in and of itself. The Cairo Declaration was a press release (hence officially titled the Cairo Communiqué) and, according to the Japanese Library of Congress anyway, was not even signed (http://www.ndl.go.jp/constitution/shiryo/01/002_46shoshi.html). Potsdam is similar and merely quotes Cairo. The Japanese Instrument of Surrender was an armistice. None of these documents can legally effect a transfer of sovereignty. Of course, by allowing ROC to occupy Taiwan, de facto sovereignty was transfered, and that, as you said, indeed has not generally been challenged. What I am saying is that ROC technically placed Taiwan under military occupation, despite or in spite of the ROC or China's claims. How to word that in the backgrounds paragraph I don't know... (BTW, I didn't notice this until I edited, sorry, not trying to start an edit war or anything)--130.216.191.182 05:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "According to the UN","According to the United States", and "According to rest of the world", Taiwan is sovereign part of China(though not necessary PRC). This is same as to say "according to the US" is biased in and of itself so Texas does not belong to the US. Find me any contest of ROC's sovereignty claim on Taiwan in the past 60 yrs, discounting PRC. Find any country claims Taiwan does not belong to China(either PRC or ROC). When the world agrees China's sovereignty over Taiwan, this is called consensus not POV.
 * "According to Japanese ..., Cairo Declaration is press release"
 * Now this is POV, not shared by the rest of the world, understandalbly of Japan a loser of WWII. Japanese Instrument of Surrender was NOT an armistice. Japan surrended unconditionally, no negotiation so no armistice.  Of cause Cairo Declaration and Postdam Declaration and Japanese Instrument of Surrender are ample legal basis of the transfer of sovereignty. It's mind boggling to deny such overwheling evidence for Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan to claim otherwise. Redcloud822 02:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point; whether the Instrument was an armistice or not, it remains nothing more than a modus vivendi, otherwise we wouldn't have had the peace treaty year later. It cannot, by definition, transfer sovereignty. I am not trying argue about the sovereignty claims, btw. --Rmdsc 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I mean when unconditional surrender takes place, there is no armistice. But regardless, what name you call the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. Nothing changes the fact that Japanese Instrument of surrender was signed by the Allies and Japan. The terms of the document had been carried out in 1945, which states Japan "accept the provisions of Postdam Declaration." And Postdam Declaration Article (8) states "Cairo Declaration shall be carried out." Cairo Declaration states "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." So there you have it. Formosa was restored to the Republic of China; this was legally settled when Japanese Instrument of Surrender was signed; and physically carried out when ROC troops landed on Taiwan in 1945. ROC reclaimed Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan in 1945, and no other country contested that ever since. That Taiwan is sovereign part of China (either PRC or ROC) is a consensus of the entire world. This is simple and clear. To throw in all kinds of jargons can only cause confusion in an otherwise simple matter. Redcloud822 00:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Stating POVs is OK as long as they are correctly attributed. A big problem with claiming that Taiwan was/is under military occupation, IMO, is that it is not being run like a military occupation, at least not anymore. Civilian government was established a few scant years after 1945, so to claim that the occupation has persisted would be a stretch. Anyway, the various arguments are laid out in the main article Legal status of Taiwan.Ngchen 18:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but then won't the initial change of control be a military occupation until it ended some at an indetermined time later? That's, I think, the issue here: whether the initial take over was a military occupation. --Rmdsc 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was reading up a little, and apparently the Province of Taiwan was established to administer civil rule only in 1947, so I think there is very strong suggestion here that prior to that Taiwan was under military rule. I'll see if I can find out more before I come back next week. --Rmdsc 05:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

ROC's basis of reclaiming Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan--Cairo Declaration, Postdam Declaration, Japanese Instrument of Surrender were all established before ROC troops landed on Taiwan. So ROC did not militarily occupy Taiwan first then found legal means to declare sovereignty. Rather ROC came armed with legal basis for claiming sovereignty; therefore, there was no military occupation but only reclaiming of sovereignty. Redcloud822 03:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The flaw in your resoning is that, did the ROC claim sovereignty over Taiwan the moment or before it landed troops? Becuase when the basis of their claims was formed isn't directly related to when their claim was made. Of coruse, I am not an expert on the subject, just want to point this out. --Rmdsc 04:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Taiwan's sovereignty was transfered to ROC the moment Japanese Instrument of Surrender was signed, which states
 * Japan "accept the provisions of Postdam Declaration." And Postdam Declaration Article (8) states "Cairo Declaration shall be carried out." Cairo Declaration states "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa(Taiwan), and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China."
 * The landing of ROC troops was only to materialize the reclaiming of ROC sovereignty. ROC was given the check of Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan at Japanese surrender, landing on Taiwan was only to cash the check. Redcloud822 00:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the Cairo declaration was a press release and cannot, by itself, enforce a transfer of de jure sovereignty over Taiwan, regardless of what popular (or rather, Chinese) misconception is. See the Japanese Library of Congress' photo of the document. I don't believe that photo is disputable, if only because Japan does not stand to benefit from either a legal or a non-legal Cairo Declaration. And, since none of the governments party to the Declaration controls Taiwan at the time, they do not have the legal authority to determine the status of Taiwan.
 * ("The Cairo Declaration (in The Pacific Front)", Maxwell S. Stewart, Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 12, No. 25., Dec. 22, 1943, pp. 241-242)
 * ("The Contemporary Practices of the United Kingdom in the Field of International Law - Survey and Comment", E. Lauterpacht, 8 Int. and Comp. Law Q. 186-187)
 * ("The Chinese Recognition Problem", Quincy Wright, 49 A. J. I. L. 333 1955)
 * Secondly, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender merely states that Japan will "undertake... to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith". Thus, even assuming Cairo and Potsdam are legal instruments, Japan has not formally agreed to them. Hence, the Treaty of Peace with Japan was signed some years later, precisely as part of Japan's undetaking to carry out Potsdam's provisions. In the interim, Japan retains de jure sovereignty over Taiwan pending retrocession. That is to say, even though Cairo commmits the Allies, and the Instrument Japan, to the retrocession of Formosa to China (an obligation later superseded by the treaty United Nations Charter), the legal transfer of de jure sovereignty has yet to be formally enacted.
 * (Great Britain, Parl. Deb. (Hansard), House of Commons, Official Report, Vol. 469, Nov. 14, 1949, Col. 1679)
 * (ibid, Vol. 536, Feb 4, 1955, Col. 159)
 * (UN General Assembly, 5th Session, Official Records, 286th Plenary Meeting, Sep. 27, 1950, p.133)
 * This is of course disputed by both Chinas, but for obvious and likewise clearly biased reasons. I would suggest then, that it be phrased as something like: "Taiwan and the Pescadores were then occupied by Nationalist China forces with the intention of re-establishing Chinese sovereignty." --Rmdsc 03:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Your arguments ignore historical facts. Firstly, Postdam Declaration Article (8) states "Cairo Declaration shall be carried out." So wheather Cairo Declaration was signed or not is not the issue as long as Postdam Declaration was signed. And it was by the US, China, and the UK.
 * Secondly, you are fabricating "facts" when you wrote, I quote
 * "Secondly, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender merely states that Japan will "undertake... to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith". "
 * This is a lie. Here is the original text, I quote
 * "We, acting by command of and on behalf of the Emperor of Japan, the Japanese Government and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, hereby accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam, and subsequently to by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which four powers are hereafter referred to as the Allied Powers."
 * Fabricating "facts" is a sign of bad faith, please don't do this again. Japanese Instrument of Surrender further stated, I quote
 * "We hereby proclaim the unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers of the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters and of all Japanese Armed Forces and all Armed Forces under Japanese control wherever situated."
 * Given the statement"proclaim(ing)unconditional surrender to the Allied Powers..", Japan was not in a position to agree or disagree with the demands in Japanese Instrument of Surrender, all demands of Japanese Instrument had to be carried out, including Cairo Declaration. So your arguments are based on fabrication of "facts" and are of no merit Redcloud822 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * At the time the Potsdam Declaration, none of the participating governmnents controlled Taiwan, and were therefore legally incapable of awarding ownership of Taiwan to China. Further, it was signed only by the Americans, with Churchill and Chiang's names written in by Truman. Hardly a solid legal instrument, although we could say it is more disputable than Cairo.


 * Next, I did not 'frabricate' facts, as logically impossible as it sounds. If you bothered scrolling down a little on the very same page you listed, you will come to see "[w]e hereby undertake for the Emperor, the Japanese Government, and their successors to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith...". Please don't go about randomly accusing me of acting out of 'bad faith'. While we're at it, I would also like to see some clarifications as to how land title transfers could be legally effected by an instrument of surrender, which is nothing more than a modus vivendi. Hence why no one needed to ratify it.


 * Finally, an unconditional surrender means that a state agrees to peace with no conditions. It isn't the peace settlement and certainly does not mean that land titles would be lost automatically - that's done by a peace treaty. If you want to insist on unconditional surrender means Taiwanese retrocession, please explain what the Treaty of Peace with Japan was meant to achieve. Please also note that, as you quoted, Japan surrendered her military unconditionally. By the way, it would be nice if you could cite a few professional sources too.--Rmdsc 03:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's see if you are lying, I quote,
 * "Secondly, the Japanese Instrument of Surrender merely states that Japan will "undertake... to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith". "
 * "merely"? Examining the entire the text, as I have quoted part of the original text earlier, Japan certainly stated more than "Japan will "undertake... to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration in good faith". " A white lie is still a lie. This is a sign of bad faith. When you read the entire document, nowhere it implied Japan could retain sovereignty over Taiwan because "Japan will "undertake...Potsdam Declaration"". What prevents from ROC taking sovereignty over Taiwan, just because Japan could pretend accept Potsdam Declaration but not really? I don't understand your logic.


 * If anyone bother to check it out, here is the text Japanese Instrument of Surrender


 * Wheather any of the countries had the control of Taiwan at the time of signing Potsdam Declaration is irrelavent, because in Japanese Instrument of Surrender, Japan vowed to "accept the provisions of Potsdam Declaration." Wheather Potsdam Declaration was signed was again irrelavent, because Japanese Instrument of Surrender was signed by all parties, and Japanese Instrument of Surrender dictates, Japanese authority "accept the provisions of Potsdam Declaration."


 * Indeed, it was the Japanese Instrument of Surrender that forced Japan to accept and carry out the provisions of Potsdam Declaration and Cairo Declaration, both of which were cited in Japanese Instrument of Surrender (JIS) as part of Japanese obligation. Therefore, as long as Japanese Instrument of Surrender was signed, Potsdam and Cairo Declaration must be carried out. And it had. That's why signing of JIS returned the sovereignty of Taiwan to ROC. Did Japan ever claim sovereignty over Taiwan after its Surrender? Never. Taiwan has nothing to do with Japan any more after the signing of Japanese Instrument of Surrender. Taiwan's sovereignty was returned to ROC at the signing of JIS before ROC troops landed on Taiwan, no military occupation.


 * Why I am not citing sources? This is a simple matter, as long as you can read and willing to follow the logic. It's all in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender. Ironiclly it was Trumen who said "If you can't convince them, confuse them." Right on. Redcloud822 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

A friendly reminder: talk pages are for discussing ways to improve the article, not for general discussion of the subject. The details of the arguments, I'd like to reiterate, are more appropriately located under the article Legal status of Taiwan, rather than this one.Ngchen 04:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reminder. When I raised this issue, I intended to change the text in the article's claim, transfer of sovereignty didn't take place, only the military occupation. Redcloud822 16:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I want to focus on the military occupation issue too, but it is intricately tied to everything else. Anyway Redcloud, I am glad that we have narrowed the debate down to the Instrument of Surrender. However, it is very frustrating to see you continously sidestepping my questions. You have asserted that the Instrument of Surrender allows for a transfer of sovereignty, whereas I have cited reliable sources right at the start which states that a Peace Treaty was needed to effect such a change. Unfortunately, so far you have essentially ignored them in favour of your own flawed logic.
 * An Instrument of Surrender is by nature provisional ("The Names and Scope of Treaties", Denys P. Myers, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 51, No. 3. (Jul., 1957), pp. 595). Japan stated that she will be willing to accept the Allied conditions in Potsdam in return for a cessation of hostilities. The Instrument, then, obliged Japan to carry out certain terms. ("United States Occupation Policies in Japan since Surrender", Hugh Borton, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 62, No. 2. (Jun., 1947), pp. 256.)("Allied Council for Japan (in Notes and Comments)", Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, The Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 2. (Feb., 1951), pp. 174). Japan's failure to comply with these terms meant reverting to a state of war, untill a peace treaty can be signed that releases Japan from such obligations ("The Timing of Japan's Peace Treaty" Shintaro Ryu, Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 20, No. 16. (Sep. 26, 1951), pp. 165-168).
 * The bottom line: Japan agreed, in the Instrument, that it will give Taiwan to China, in the peace treaty ("The Chinese Recognition Problem", Quincy Wright, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 49, No. 3. (Jul., 1955), pp. 332). Because the Instrument, being provisional in nature and never ratified, cannot legally transfer land titles. As a matter of fact, Japan gave up sovereignty over Taiwan only with the signing of the Treaty of Peace with Japan.
 * And speaking of which, you have not answered my other question either. Why would the Treaty of Peace With Japan be needed if the Instrument of Surrender is sufficient legal grounds to transfer territorial title?--Rmdsc 03:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Very good we can have a rational discussion. You have agreed that the issues raised about the signing of Cairo and Postdam Declaration are irrelevant as long as the Japanese Instrument of Surrender(JIS) was signed by all parties. If you are willing to read JIS, you will see the return of Taiwan's sovereignty to China had been completed. In JIS, Japan vowed to accept and carry out Postdam Declaration and Cairo Declaration, which states "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa(Taiwan), and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." Note, it doesn't say Taiwan should be restored to ROC in the future. This means so as the JIS was carried out, the restoration of Taiwan's sovereignty was completed.


 * So the question becomes whether Japan had been forced to carry out JIS. If Japan still had Taiwan's sovereignty, that meant JIS was not carried out. We can check the record. Did Japan ever claimed it had sovereignty over Taiwan? Are there any evidence to support Japan rejected JIS? Any other country complained that Japan rejected JIS? The answer to all those question is NO. So it's safe to say JIS had been carried out. Since JIS had been carried out, Taiwan sovereignty was "restored" to China. Other peace treaties, Japan signed after JIS, have nothing to do with Taiwan's sovereignty, because Taiwan's sovereignty already belonged to China since 1945. The transaction had already accomplished. Can Mexico sign a treaty and give New Mexico to Panama? I respect your political beliefs, but please respect logic. Redcloud822 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * You are not making your case rationally. The issue here is whether the Instrument of Surrender is a legal means of transfering land title, which it clearly isn't. I have cited numerous, authoritative sources to support my statements, but you failed to even respond to them. You'll forgive me when I say that, on the subject of International Law anyway, I give more weight to the opinions of:
 * 1. a British Foreign Office minister
 * 2. an Inidian Ambassador to the U.N.
 * 3. a president of the Haverford College with a Ph.D in Japanese history
 * 4. the leading founder of modern peace research, again with a Ph.D
 * 5. a chariman of the American Society of International Law's State Department Publications Committee
 * 6. a Professor of International Law at Cambridge University
 * than someone on the internet with obvious partisan feelings who argues with only a so-called logic that fails to impress.


 * An instrument of surrender cannot legally transfer sovereignty, as I have stated again and again and conclusively backed up with reliable sources. Otherwise, it would have been ratified, which it has never been. Or there would have been no need for a peace treaty, which was signed 6 years later. But throughout the entire length of our 'discussion', you have refused to respond to this, choosing instead to show your blatant disregard for the Laws of War and International Law in general. You asked me to respect logic. I will ask that you respect academics, the laws, and the fact that I have mde my case for you to respond to rather than ignore.


 * Furthermore, as I have said previously, and as you have once forced me to repeat yet again, in the Treaty of Peace with Japan, Japan officially renounced her sovereignty over Taiwan. By implication she continued to hold title to Taiwan until the Treaty was signed, something you have continously ignored in favour of fabricating the fantasy that an Instrument of Surrender transfered sovereignty. I would like to point out, once again, that you have not backed up that story in any meaningful sense.


 * By the way, political beliefs don't come into this. I am arguing for your acceptance of historical fact, hence my reliance on impartial sources with the exception of a HK scholar (Professor Hsu) who I accidentally included. I did also cite Dr Borton's works on the same point, though, so it still remains valid. You, on the other hand, are clearly basing your position on political grounds. All of your arguments make use of nothing more than flawed logics and ignoring my rebuttals. --Rmdsc 03:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, it's you who are irrational. Everything is in the Japanese Instrument of Surrender (JIS). As long as JIS was carried out, sovereignty of Taiwan was restored to ROC. What you are trying to tell me is that JIS didn't count. You can't just look at this binding legal document and tell me it didn't count. Doing so doesn't make any sense. JIS was signed by all parties, in which Japan vowed to carry out Postdam declaration, which further states Taiwan should be restored to ROC. JIS was carried out, Taiwan was restored to ROC. It's simple logic. You can make it as complicated as you want, and come out to say whatever you want to say. It's like you can apply high mathematics and all kinds fancy theorems to prove 1+1=3. I am not a mathematician, I can't argue all the advance mathematics with you, but I know you are wrong, because when I count with my fingers, 1+1= 2 not 3.


 * Other than obscure legal mambo jumbo, you don't have any hard evidence to support your position. Did Japan ever challenged ROC on Taiwan's sovereignty after 1945? Did any other non-China country ever claimed Taiwan's sovereignty after 1945? NO and NO. Does the world have consensus on China's sovereignty over Taiwan? Yes. So the above historical facts support ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan in addition to the legal foundations such JIS, Postdam declaration, Cairo Declaration, which also support ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan. What else you want? Which international law says JIS didn't return Taiwan's sovereignty to ROC? Only argument you have is SFPT, but did Japan ever challenged ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan after 1945? Never. That means Japan accepted ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan. So in 1950, by the time of signing SFPT, Japan didn't have Taiwan's sovereignty. So whatever Japan signed off was irrelevant. The sources you cite don't mean much, I can just easily cite source to prove Holocaust didn't exist or space alien has invaded planet earth.


 * Again, I have historical facts and legal documents to support my position, and my position is based on simple logic. What you have is bunch of legal mambo jumbo, that don't make any sense. Your argument is politically motivated. As I mentioned before, Truman rightly said, "If you can convince them, confuse them." It applies perfectly to you.Redcloud822 06:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you don't understand something, that doesn't make it invalid. Take this analogy: even though most people don't understand the theory of relativity, as long as it has not been disproven we accept it as true. You are like an intermediate math student insisting that square root of negative four equals undefined, because you haven't been taught complex numbers yet. Just because you have no idea how international law works doesn't mean my argument is 'mambo jumbo', as you have so elegantly put it. Please, stop insulting my intelligence. You may not be able to understand scholarly works, but not everyone is at your level.


 * Your flawed logic is meaningless because its central premise is false. You assumed that an Instrument of Surrender can legally transfer sovereignty. That is not true, and I have proven it with the works of renowned scholars on international law. Unless and until you can prove otherwise, your 'simple logic' is false. Which part of this do you not understand? None of what you said is valid because you reasoned from a false assumption. Even then I have made an honest attempt to engage you on every point you have raised, and your only response is to dimiss everything I said as 'politically motivated' and 'mambo jumbo'. Is it too much to ask that you try to disprove my points instead of accusing me of trying to confuse you? Even though it is hardly my problem that you don't understand international law. --Rmdsc 00:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

'''HEY! This section above is just two people arguing, it is not discussing any proposed changes to the article. Please take political arguments elsewhere when they aren't clearly related to the Wikipedia article.''' k?thx!bye SchmuckyTheCat 02:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There was no transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to "China" on Oct. 25, 1945. Reference is made to the following US Executive Branch statement -- Office/Agency: National Security Council title: An Issue Undecided date: August 30, 2007 quote: "Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community. The position of the United States government is that the ROC -- Republic of China -- is an issue undecided, and it has been left undecided, as you know, for many, many years." (source: Comments by Dennis Wilder, National Security Council (NSC) Senior Director for Asian Affairs) 118.166.244.78 (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan – St. Lucia Relations
Thanks to That-Vela-Fella for the corrections earlier! According to new news reports though, the restoration of ties between Taiwan and St. Lucia have now been finalized, see: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/01/asia/AS-GEN-Taiwan-China-St.-Lucia.php http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/news/article_1298587.php/Taiwan_and_St_Lucia_sign_communique_on_resuming_ties Thus I have reverted the changes, as the qualifications and footnotes are no longer necessary. I have, however, changed the cite on the article to redirect it to the IHT article, due to its greater accuracy and relevance.Konekoniku 05:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

returned to the Republic of China (ROC}?
Since Taiwan had never previously belonged to ROC, why does it say "returned" under the background section? or am I wrong? Shuttlecockfc
 * What it probably means is that Taiwan used to believe to the Qing dynasty. As the ROC is the undisputed successor government of China at that time, Taiwan was returned to it. Ngchen 12:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's obviously POV. We should reword that statement.-- Jerry 12:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you please elaborate as to why it's POV? At least de facto, there's no doubt that it was returned. Ngchen 14:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * same reason that alsace-lorraine was lost under the french napoleon III monarchy and then "returned" to the french third republic. Blueshirts 17:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ngchen's comments are POV.  The Qing was a Dynasty.   The establishment of the ROC was a total rejection of the Dynastic System. 118.166.244.78 (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

In 1955, United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles confirmed that the basis for ROC's presence in Taiwan was that "in 1945, the [ROC] was entrusted with authority over [Taiwan]" and "General Chiang [Kai-shek] was merely asked to administer [Taiwan] for the Allied Powers pending a final decision as to their ownership."
 * In the words of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, "Chiang Kai-shek . . . took refuge upon Formosa, where he still remains [in 1954]" after he "was driven out of [mainland China] by a Communist revolution." Hmortar 15:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, 6 months to act on an obvious POV violation. Worse, the information wasn't even precise. Anyway, I've corrected it. Readin (talk) 07:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Dead links
Dead links are still valid sources as they can be accessed via internet archives and such like. Although sources should be replaced by others if possible, the text shouldn't just be removed. AndrewRT(Talk) 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Unless the archive link can be seen, the source is pretty much useless. It is only because of Wikipedia policy of "Good faith" that it should be kept. Anything else, it fails to support what is claimed.

Many feel????
Many feel Chinese dynasties administered the island long before this.

What is this sentence doing in the article? If a poll were cited, perhaps it would be interesting to know. But even then, why would many people's feelings about what happened, rather than what actually happened, be important enough to have such a prominent place in the article? If the sentence is going to be included, some information should be provided as to why people feel this way. And there should be information saying why it is only a "feeling", that experts aren't willing to back up with facts.

This should have a short shelf life. If no one is wiling to defend the sentence within a very short period of time it should be removed. Readin (talk) 07:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Since no one rose to defend the sentence I've deleted it. Readin (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Cession, retrocession and self-determination of Taiwan
This section appears to be written from a pro-Chinese sovereignty POV. The entire first paragraph is devoted to the POV of the pro-Chinese sovereignty, simply stating the arguments as fact. The second paragraph begins to give the Pro-Taiwan POV, but rather than stating things as fact, each statement is annotated with words like "supporters of Taiwan independence argue" and "the independence advocates argue". Also, unlike the first paragraph where the Pro-Chinese sovereignty POV is given an undiluted airing, statements in the second paragarph that give the Taiwanese view are often immediately rejoined with an opposing view. Readin (talk) 07:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have basically axed the pro-reunification rebuttal paragraph in the section you mentioned. Can you please see if it is now neutral? If so, please remove the POV tags. Thanks.Ngchen (talk) 17:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You confused me when you said you axed the paragraph. Instead it looks like you took out the rebuttles within the paragraph and also fixed the annotations.  Good job.  Thank you.  I removed the POV tag from the section.  I'm not sure why a POV tag was also put on the whole article.  I didn't put it there and have no objection to it being removed also. Readin (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the article POV tag. It was placed by a user after seeing your earlier objections.Ngchen (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

de jure and de facto
The section dealing with de jure and de facto has these lines: it is regularly argued that Taiwan satisfies the requirements of statehood at international law as stated in the Montevideo Convention. At the same time, there is continued debate on whether UN membership or recognition as a state by the UN is a decisive feature of statehood (since it represents broad recognition by the international community); the debate arises because non-state entities can often satisfy the Montevideo Convention factors, First, is there a reliable source for saying that "recognition as a state by the UN ... represents broad recognition by the international community". In this case non-recognition by the UN appears to represent only the views of the PRC and its ability to persuade others to do its bidding. Is there any evidence that absent PRC pressure other states would still refuse to recognize Taiwan or that the UN would refuse to recognize Taiwan?

Second, there seems to be a contradiction in saying that "requirements of statehood at international law as stated in the Montevideo Convention" and "non-state entities can often satisfy the Montevideo Convention factors". If a non-state entity satisfies the factors of statehood, doesn't that make it a state? I suppose it doesn't if you believe the "Montevideo Convention factors" are insufficient, but that would be POV.

Third, what non-state entities are being described?

Readin (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it amazing to threaten Taiwan with war - this means Taiwan is considered to be a sovereign state anyway. Simplicius (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "In this case non-recognition by the UN appears to represent only the views of the PRC and its ability to persuade others to do its bidding. Is there any evidence that absent PRC pressure other states would still refuse to recognize Taiwan or that the UN would refuse to recognize Taiwan?"
 * Taiwan is not currently recongnize by the UN and majority of international community as a state, that's a fact.


 * Whether it is achieved by the PRC by morally correct or incorrect way is another question, hypothesize what would happen to Taiwan if RPC doesn't exist tho, imo is quite pointless.JonovaL (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

List of applications, votes on RoC membership
Can someone provide a list of RoC applications after 1971, what was happened to each of them, under what name it applied (RoC, RoC on Taiwan, RoC (Taiwan)), for what status (member, observer), what states were in favor and what were against (if there was a vote in SC or GA), sponsor states of the application (if such). 88.203.201.214 (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WBC-TVCM-ORIGINAL.JPG
Image:WBC-TVCM-ORIGINAL.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Map
There should be a map of the world showing Taiwan in black and countries recognizing the ROC in green.

There is a similar map for Kosovo. There is also one for SADR/Western Sahara but it isn't as good. ROC/Taiwan should have a similar map. 141.166.230.9 (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight under "Judicial" section?
Does anyone other than myself believe that the "Judicial" section gives the claims of the plantiffs undue weight? After all, to my knowledge almost no mainstream news sources have covered the movement, which is frankly borderline fringe. If the section does suffer from undue weight, then I propose trimming it down to the barest essentials in the spirit of conciseness.Ngchen (talk) 10:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Ngchen (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Move????
Anyone remember discussing this move?

The article is about Taiwan. It is about the ROC only to the extent that the ROC currently governs Taiwan. The PRC also claims Taiwan. Should the article be renamed to "Political status of the Republic of China, People's Republic of China, and Taiwan"?

This will be my first time moving a page. I hope I do it right. Readin (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

PRC as successor to ROC
Do we have any documentation/source for saying PRC claims to be successor of ROC? Readin (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I just added the reference to the PRC's Taiwan Affairs Office white paper, which lays out that successor argument.Ngchen (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Readin (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
Does wikipedia have an official viewpoint on TW? Because I see references to "the nation state Taiwan" which is implying that Taiwan is independant, which is disputed. Would it not be more correct to state "the disputed territory of Taiwan"? -sAnJi1119 (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know about the wikipedia policy is that, the state is called "Republic of China" and Taiwan can be used when it is about a place but not as a country. I believe wikipedia also recognises the reality that outside Chinese speaking societies, the ROC is commonly known "Taiwan", so articles can point that out as well.

I note you added "disputed territory" to describe the ROC in the China article. Please don't do that as it is not a neutral point of view. Some would view (not neutrally) that PRC is also a disputed territory as well. Mainland China is claimed by the ROC constitution.--Pyl (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia tries not to take an "official viewpoint" but instead to ensure neutrality among the various viewpoints. To that end we have adopted certain guidelines on how to refer to things.


 * See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Republic_of_China.2C_Taiwan.2C_and_variations_thereof for details.


 * Pyl is right that our guideline is to use "Republic of China" for the state and "Taiwan" for the place. I don't agree with him that "Taiwan" can never be used as a "country".  It needs to be used very carefully, but Taiwan does meet the conditions for being a country in the sense that Korea is a country or China (in the sense that some people think of China as including more than just the PRC) is a country.  It is also a country in the sense that Wales, and Scotland are countries.  What remains a topic of dispute is whether Taiwan is a country like France is a country.  Taiwan is (from dictionary.com):


 * "an indefinite usually extended expanse of land"
 * "the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship"
 * "any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions, by a distinctive population, etc.: mountainous country; the Amish country of Pennsylvania."


 * Saying a "the nation state Taiwan" is over the line unless in a very particular context such as giving the argument of someone who believes Taiwan is a nation state. For examples "A believes Taiwan is a nation state and that international treaties give the nation state of Taiwan the right to...". Other than that, "the nation state Taiwan" is a problem.


 * In general, use "Republic of China" when talking politics and "Taiwan" otherwise. It can lead to seaming inconsistencies, like the birthplace of a baseball player being listed as "Taiwan" while the same birthplace of a politician is listed as "Taiwan, ROC" or simply "ROC", but that's ok.  NPOV trumps consistency.


 * This is covered in the link I included: Most English speaking people know the Republic of China by the name "Taiwan" so in practice we usually clarify the first usage of "Republic of China" in an article by writing "Republic of China (Taiwan)".


 * One point of confusion is how to handle islands like Green Island, the Pescadores, Kinmen, Matsu, and Orchid island. They are not part of Taiwan island.  Some of them are part of Taiwan province.  Depending on who you talk to most or all of them are part of the country referred to as "Taiwan".  All of them are part of the state that is formally called "Republic of China" and commonly called Taiwan.  In general the articles about Taiwan (like Aborigines of Taiwan) also cover those islands.  But at this point there is no standard for it. Readin (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't object to Readin's usage of Taiwan as a country like Scotland, etc, but given the ambiguity and the high political sensitivity of the word, I personally would find other ways to describe what I want to say without using the word in that context to avoid a possible editing war.


 * I am not sure if a distinction should be made between the birthplace of a baseball player and of a politician: we are talking about birthplaces! Saying Lee Teng-hui was born in Taiwan doesn't by itself say that Taiwan is a country, just like saying Bill Clinton was born in Arkansas doesn't make Arkansas a country (independent of the USA) either.


 * If, by convention, Wikipedia lists the name of the country next to birthplaces, then I guess the most neutral way will be listing "Taiwan, ROC" for everyone. But I don't believe such convention exists because Bill Clinton's article just says "Hope, Arkansas" as his place of birth.


 * The real problem I see is putting the ROC flag or other ROC national symbols next to "Taiwan" such as the following:-


 * 🇹🇼 Taiwan; or


 * Birthplace: 🇹🇼 Taipei, Taiwan


 * I believe that in obvious violation of the NPOV policy because one very clear interpretation of that act is to say that flag represents a country called Taiwan. When a national flag appears, I consider it an endorsement of nationhood. It is called the *national* flag for a reason. Flags may be incorrectly used for another country and that would still be neutral. In the case of the ROC, however, due to the high political sensitivity, that act would be in violation of the NPOV.


 * The same applies to PRC and China too:-


 * 🇨🇳 China;


 * I believe is also in violation of the NPOV policy--pyl (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

ROC rebuttal in PRC position section
Why ROC rebuttal appears in PRC position? Whereas no PRC rebuttals in ROC or Taiwan independence section? Taiwan independent supporters love to pit PRC and ROC against each other and TI came out as winner at the end. Useless tricks, stop dreaming, live in reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.48.136 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Rants don't belong here. Please cite specific instances and/or provide helpful suggestions or links. 83.249.134.194 (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Dubious info
The following statements in my view are dubious. No footnotes are given but one statement appears to assert that Taiwanese people gaining a national identity is true. One statement says in June 2008 the missiles were 1300+. Who said that? PRC or ROC's relevant authorities? And who are the "some scholoars" who made the third statement?

Taiwanese independence supporters may argue that both groups [mainlanders and taiwanese] have begun to lean more towards independence due to growing military threats from China[dubious – discuss], who in 1996 fired missiles into the Taiwan Strait in an attempt to disrupt the presidential elections, and who currently (June 2008) has 1300+ missiles pointed at Taiwan.

Conversely to China's intention, some scholars have posited that China's threat of war has actually caused ideas of a distinct Taiwanese nationality and solidarity to grow stronger.[dubious – discuss]

If, by 9 September 2008, the assertions are not supported by footnotes, I propose to remove the statements as they are in obvious violation of the Wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Given that no one responded to my comments inviting for citation/reasons for the above assertions of facts which I consider as dubious, I will proceed to remove those assertions.--pyl (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"By Government purchased" passport cover


This image has been the subject of a recent edit battle. What exactly is this a picture of? Is it a picture of the passport, or is it a picture of a plastic outer covering that the passport can be placed inside to protect it from dirt and water?

Assuming it is a plastic cover, then where did it come from? The phrase "By Government purchased" is not very clear. Readin (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. That's why I removed it. As far as I know, this is not an official cover. A suspected bogus passport cover serves very little value in this article when that "State of Taiwan" shopping bag is already there.--pyl (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a cover you can put on your passport and it's made by ROC government. The surplus is just like the file about the shopping bag writing 台灣國. Kuaile Long 16:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * When did the ROC government make that? Would you be able to find a newspaper article saying it please? Chinese is OK. I am quite curious about this.--pyl (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I just got it myself. A friend of mine bought it. This is my pic. Even if it would be sold private, then the meaning is the same one as with that shoppingg bag. &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; 134.61.41.204 (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not the same as the shopping bag because the shopping bag is obviously, on first glance, produced by a private entity. The passport cover appears to be the actual passport, and as such it appears to be something issued by the state.  If the passport cover was produced by a private entity, then it would be confusing to have it pictured in the article.
 * If the passport cover was indeed issued by the state, then we need more information about it. We need context. Which ministry issued it?  When?  Was it standard item that was given out with all passports?  Was it something that had to be bought separately?
 * Although Pyl's request for a newspaper article is overkill, we do need enough information for verification. I say Pyl's request is overkill because we don't have newspaper articles accompanying the photos of the compatriot pass and the Taiwan passport.
 * On the other hand, we know which government agency produces the passports and passes and enough people have copies of the real items that they can easily be identified as fakes if that is what they are.
 * The information that provides context is going to go a long way toward providing verification. Readin (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I will start doing that. &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sadly, that is just one hurdle. After we learn more about the image, we'll need to decide whether it is from a notable source.  Expect Pyl to argue that it is not. Readin (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still I want to give it a shot. Imagine it was a misunderstanding and this was or is sold by private persons. How enthusiastic do they have to be to make a cover by themselves, which just has the size of a real passport and are successful by selling it? And then there are enough Taiwanese using this. I never heard about anything else like this in Europe or the States. &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; 04:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The covers are common. Making them to be exactly the same size and having success selling them isn't a result of enthusiasm.  It is a practical matter of keeping your passport in good condition.  You put your passport inside the plastic cover and it is protected from rain, rips, dirt, etc..  I have a passport cover (it has a different appearance than the one in the photo) from a travel agency that I've never heard of.  I like it because it keeps my passport safe.  I certainly don't have any enthusiasm for the travel agency.  See My Tattered Passport for a story similar to my own experience. Here are some pictures of similar passport covers. Readin (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the passport covers are privately made, and they're common, how notable are they? I will argue not notable at all, since anyone can make a passport cover that says pretty much anything. Ngchen (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that if the passport covers were privately made, they are not very notable and certainly not notable enough to overcome the problem that many readers will mistakenly think the privately issued cover is actually the government-issued passport. Readin (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my comment asking for a newspaper article is an overkill. &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; would have understood that if this cover was indeed issued by the government, it would have been a big deal in Taiwan and it would therefore be reported. If Readin has issues with me asking for that, then she does not understand the Taiwanese mentality sufficiently. Regarding the personal allegations of bias which Readin left on my discussion page, they have been replied to.

Readin said:-
 * Expect Pyl to argue that it is not.

Leave these smart arse comments to yourself, as they are not appreciated nor taken to be humourous. Trying to gather support by drawing an "enemy line" is unnecessary when consensus is required in editing Wikipedia articles. Yes, you also need support from your "enemies".

&#24555;&#27138;&#40845; said:-
 * ....I never heard about anything else like this in Europe or the States.

They are common in areas where independence or sovereignty theory is advocated. Embassies are set up. Passports are also produced. See Australian Aboriginal Sovereignty and Principality of Sealand.--pyl (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Customs Form
The United States Customs forms said: Print the name of the country(ies) that you visited on your trip prior to arriving to the United States.

If you were coming from Taiwan to the United States would you leave it blank, write China, or write Taiwan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.99.14 (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Title
Good morning,

I have a problem with the Title "political status".

The article explains the controversy whether Taiwan, including Penghu, should remain effectively independent ... A political status is in my opinion not correct. In the case that Taiwan is independent than it has the legal status as a state, if not than it has the legal status as a province etc. The article discusses in my opinion more the "Taiwan-conflict" or the "future of Taiwan".

Regards Taiwanhiker (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although there is some discussion in the article of what could be called "political status," what is really at issue is the sovereignty question -- i.e. Taiwan's LEGAL status under international law. (I'm not sure how to add a note like this. I'm fjdksla8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.80.125 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of articles where the title is in question but I guess this issues was missed. I also have a problem with the fact that the article is rated as a B-class article but does not meet the criteria. Otr500 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


 * According to Merrriam-Webster, "Politics" is:
 * 1


 * a: the art or science of government


 * b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy


 * c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

It says nothing about the legal status. The definition focuses on how the power to rule the country is wielded. "Legal" only comes into politics when it is backed up by the some force that gives the law a say in how the country is ruled. Right now "Taiwan's LEGAL status under international law" is only relevant to how Taiwan is governed because it is one of many political issues that the party's squabble over and because some countries give different treatment to Taiwan. Readin (talk) 13:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"China" seat etc
Article currently includes: "Since the ROC lost its United Nations seat as "China" in 1971 (replaced by the PRC)....". When the Taipei Government was seated at the UN, it represented the "Republic of China"; it's name at the UN was not simply "China". It wasn't seated as "China"; it was seated as the ROC. The ROC was a founding signatory of the UN. "China", as such, wasn't a state and didn't found the UN. Obviously in the eyes of the UN, the Beijing Government's credentials and decision as to how to title the country were accepted in 1971. But it was never the case that "China" was a UN member. In the eyes of the UN, the Chinese state has had two recognised UN titles: ROC until 1971 and PRC since then. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

File talk:Voting res 2758.png
The map shows, amongst other things: all expressing a view (yes, no or abstain) on the UN "China" vote. How can this be accurate? On what basis is it claimed that these territories were regarded as having expressed any vote on the matter? They were I believe all on the UN list for de-colonisation at the time. Moreover, if these territories get counted then how come Greenland does not. In my opinion, none of them should as I don't believe this is accurate. There are likely other discrepancies too. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Western Sahara (then a Spanish colony);
 * Southwest Africa (now Namibia and then a SA colony);
 * British Honduras (now Belize and then a British colony),

Merge
This article should be merged with Legal status of Taiwan, I simply can't find a difference between the subject matter of the two articles. Charles Essie (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - The idea that there is a legal status of Taiwan that extends beyond the political is a fiction created by those who believe there is an objective thing called "international law" for determining sovereignty. In the case of Taiwan the issues of power (i.e. politics) completely overrule whatever rules have been suggested at various times. Readin (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment It would be possible to make a distinction between the two, but I don't think the distinction would last. The "Political Status" would simply note that the ROC is in charge and then note which powers (countries) support the continued ROC rule and which don't followed by some discussion of how such support affects Taiwan's ability to accomplish its goals in the world. The "Legal Status" would be about the various legal theories surrounding what Taiwan's status should be rather than what Taiwan's status actually is. If you could imagine Martians landing with the power to try the case and award the country to the winner - what arguments would be made? Readin (talk) 13:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Oppose SMS Let's talk    10:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Support, I think it's a no brainer. Frenchmalawi (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Support, per Readin Fitnr (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

opinion 1.voting is not suitable for deciding these things, 2. political question 144.214.126.61 (talk) 04:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Support. The "legal arguments" of the legal status article can simply be a section of this article. Abstractematics (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

HkCaGu and 98.122.109.101's edits
Dear HkCaGu and the anonymous user at 98.122.109.101, I would appreciate (and the rest of the community would) if you both cease edit warring and come to a consensus as to the content which should be included in this article and all other related articles.

Anonymous user, to be honest, I do not think too highly of your edits. Your edits come with a substantial addition of content, all of which are without sufficient context, and without references or citations. It is extremely helpful if you attempt to show the usefulness of your edits by providing context and adding citation.

HkCaGu, I understand that you are a fairly-established user and editor. However, this does not mean that you are immune from being sanctioned for edit warring. Please attempt to establish civility and understanding between both of you, by at least addressing the dispute here, or on the other user's talk page. Thank you. Optakeover (Talk)   05:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The IP has continued to edit war following warnings and has been blocked for 1 month following another block a few months back. I have restored the articles to their previous states before today. Mkdw talk 05:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Noted. Optakeover  (Talk)   05:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I should point out that normally this isn't the status quo for resolving edit wars but this IP has a history of block evasion so restoring to their pre-edit war states will aid in identifying block evading IPs for a short while until other edits become involved -- and one other IP has already come out of the wood work. Mkdw talk 05:41, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I went digging a bit, especially in the article SWAT which has a long history of IP warring. Looks like we're dealing with User:ProfessorJane here. HkCaGu (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

What if Taiwan was attacked by a third party?
If Taiwan was invaded or bombed by a country other than the PRC (North Korea, for example), would the PRC government go to war against the aggressor on the grounds that an attack on Taiwan was an attack on Chinese territory? --GCarty (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Probably yes. Ngchen (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * it's not really an appropriate question because 1. China is the only country threatening to kill Taiwanese and 2.  This forum is for discussing article content, not speculating what would happen in a hypothetical situation. Readin (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The PRC will likely go to war against this third country. Article 3 of the Anti-Secession Law says:-


 * Article 3 The Taiwan question is one that is left over from China's civil war of the late 1940s.


 * Solving the Taiwan question and achieving national reunification is China's internal affair, which subjects to no interference by any outside forces.


 * The PRC will consider an attack by a third party on Taiwan, as an attack on China. Normally, that would be a ground for a declaration of war.--pyl (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Depends on who exactly that third party is. If it's an ally of the PRC, then most likely that the PRC would be acting through that ally as a way to attack the ROC, but also being able to deny any involvement.  Though, who would actually attack Taiwan that's not already allied with the PRC against Taiwan and/or the Western world (including Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and other technically Eastern nations but are more Westernized)?  Answer: no one.  Taiwan's only real enemy is the PRC (and by extension its allies, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) but only directly threatened by the PRC. 68.18.25.136 (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with ply, although the PRC seems to be the only threat currently to the island of Taiwan, if another party attacked it (which although unlikely is still a possibility), the PRC (since they consider Taiwan their territory) would react in the same fashion as if Beijing itself were attacked, with a retaliation force, regardless of what nation attacked Taiwan. This is the reaction that the vast majority of states would have if their territory is attacked and this seems no different. Bennyj600 (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the only foreign country threatening to invade Taiwan is China, an invasion of Taiwan by another party would almost certainly be at the request of China. China's reaction, to avoid fighting their ally, would be to 'diplomatically intervene' to persuade their ally to leave Taiwan so that China could 'liberate' the dramatically weakened nation.
 * If for some unimaginable reason it were a country not allied with China, China would most likely wait for that other country to wear down Taiwanese resistence, and then step in militarily after both sides were exhausted so that China could conquer Taiwan with minimal resistence. Readin (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey! Actually Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China (Currently ROC controls only two provinces of China, Taiwan province & a small part of Hokkien province). The Republic of China is FREE CHINA while PRC is RED CHINA (or COMMUNIST CHINA). So when you say "since the only foreign country threatening to invade Taiwan is China", you actually mean Taiwan is not a province of the Republic of China and the Republic of China (in Taiwan) dose not exist. That's weird.113.108.133.52 (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * China would not invite another nation to invade Taiwan for her, and would not let any foreign nation (ie. US) interfer with sovereign Chinese internal affair.72.81.233.159 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this question just proves how totally peaceful the Pacific has become under American control. Hcobb (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pacific is not under American control. Not for long at least.

It would be pretty ironic if that occurred, as it would unite both nations again. Assuming China doesn't, you know, just take them back over right after, haha. 203.206.11.70 (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane


 * There is exactly one country in the world with the capability to invade and conquer Taiwan. It's that country that has the 10 amphibious ready groups and 10 carrier strike groups. (Fortunately it's kinda busy on the West end of Asia at the moment.) Hcobb (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe the wording "no interference by any outside forces" is adressed to the US, who has repeatedly (though ambiguously) voiced support for the 'Taiwan Question' to be solved by the Taiwanese themselves. When US president Clinton ordered a carrier to the Taiwan Strait in response to the PRC live fire missile tests in the waters off Taiwan in connection with Taiwan's 1996 presidential election - a move widely seen as an attempt at intimidating Taiwans voters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_China_presidential_election,_1996) - the PRC saw it as 'interference'. 83.249.134.194 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, as Beijing government won't want to made things become complex, usually if that's small scale, Beijing would tend to let Taiwan handle that themselves and only oppose attacker vocally, but if TW government aren't going to or cannot handle that, they might handle that themselves, as seen from how both government handle diaoyu islands conflict since 1990s. Or if Beijing government want to be aggressive, they might want to send out a large number of army to Taiwan which not just defeat attacker but also to place Taiwan under its own control afterward.144.214.126.61 (talk) 05:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Legal status dispute under international law
"On the other hand, a number of supporters of Taiwan independence argue that Taiwan was only formally incorporated as a Chinese territory under the Qing Dynasty in 1683, and as a province in 1885."

This point doesn't make any sense and it should be included in the article why it doesn't. Taiwan had been colonized by the Dutch and taken by the Japanese as well. This could be an argument why Taiwan aborigines should have the right to be independant, but it's the PRC and ROC arguing whether the island belongs to the one or the other. Nonetheless, both PRC and ROC agree that the island is part of their respective definition of China. Taiwan aborigines have no voice in this dispute since they form only 2% of the island's population. The ROC retreated to Taiwan and outnumbered the aborigines. This whole argument would be only valid if there was be a third party of Taiwan aborigines who would like to kick out all the Han Chinese. --2.245.201.56 (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Political status of Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090530064822/http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2004/31649.htm to http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2004/31649.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081029155949/http://www.mac.gov.tw/big5/mlpolicy/pos/9710/9710a.pdf to http://www.mac.gov.tw/big5/mlpolicy/pos/9710/9710a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:23, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

"Taiwan independence"
In some parts of the text the term "Taiwanese independence" refers to the independence or the legitimacy of the Republic of China, while in others they seem to be about a Republic of Taiwan independent from the Chinese state (both R.O.C. and the P.R.C.) ¿wouldn't it be better to replace the former to "Republic of China legitimacy" or "Republic of China independence". Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

List of alternatives incomplete
The stated political alternatives are: (1) remain as territories being controlled by the Republic of China (ROC); (2) become unified with the territories now governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC); and (3) declare independence to become the Republic of Taiwan.

However this is wrong, as there are two variations of the second option. These should properly be split, to become "(2) become unified with the territories now governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) under the rule of the Republic of China", and "(3) become unified with the territories now governed by the People's Republic of China (PRC) under the rule of the People's Republic of China".

It was apparently conveniently overlooked that the Republic of China claimed (arguably still claims) to be the legitimate government of all of China. It actually has a better claim to this than the regime currently controlling the mainland (for historical, legal, constitutional and democratic reasons).Royalcourtier (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand your point that the current phrasing might mislead readers into believing that the Republic of China does not claim to be China. But your proposed modification would delete the current (1). I suggest that the whole list be changed to: (1) remain the status quo; (2) become unified with the territories of Mainland China under the rule of the Republic of China (ROC); (3) become unified with the territories of Mainland China under the rule of the People's Republic of China (PRC); and (4) declare independence to become the Republic of Taiwan. --Matt Smith (talk) 02:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I had updated the paragraph, but didn't include (1) because that one doesn't seem to be a solution. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Political status of Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dpp.org.tw/news/common/ProductDetail.asp?prd_id=3068
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mac.gov.tw/big5/mlpolicy/pos/9411/po9411ch.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140319065743/http://www.fmprc.gov.cn:80/eng/ to http://fmprc.gov.cn/eng/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080308013743/http://www.gwytb.gov.cn:8088/list.asp?table=WhitePaper&title=White%20Papers%20On%20Taiwan%20Issue to http://www.gwytb.gov.cn:8088/list.asp?table=WhitePaper&title=White%20Papers%20On%20Taiwan%20Issue
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724011803/http://www.chinataiwan.org/web/webportal/W5023216/index.html to http://www1.chinataiwan.org/web/webportal/W5023216/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Austronesians and Dutch
"Taiwan (excluding Penghu) was first populated by Austronesian people and was colonized by the Dutch, who had arrived in 1623," the article says, in what must surely be one of the more bizarre sentences ever written on the subject of settlements. It may very well have been first settled by Austronesians, though I have the impression this is the subject of some anthropological speculation. What if some "Austronesia" was settled by proto-Taiwanians? Either way, if so, when? And what was their culture? What was its relationship with the later Han rulers? Etc? "Colonized" by the Dutch? Um, the way the Dutch colonized Japan by putting a few traders in rotation on an island off Hiroshima? Or the way they ran today's Indonesia for a couple or three centuries? I don't know, and I'd like to know which. David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Archaeological researches discovered that Taiwan was first populated by Austronesian people. More information can be found in the first paragraph of article History of Taiwan, in which Taiwanese aborigines (Austronesian peoples) is mentioned.


 * The information of how Dutch colonized Taiwan can be found in article Dutch Formosa.


 * --Matt Smith (talk) 07:32, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

First sentence
I can see how an "issue" might hinge on which of a certain list of things should happen, but I don't see how the same can be said about a "status". Maybe "Taiwan issue" should really be the title of the article, or else the first sentence should really be about what the status is. W. P. Uzer (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Edit war?
Is there going to be any discussion here about which of two very different forms of the article is preferred? Rather than just oscillating between one and the other while throwing out accusations of vandalism? In my view, at least esthetically, this version seems superior to the one that's been restored today. W. P. Uzer (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Omission of Taiwan from maps of China is blatantly misleading as it relies on a single source which states a single map application (Apple Maps) classified Taiwan as a province of China. This is by no means worth its own article. 93 (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am redirecting the page myself as per above. 93 (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have merged it into the Controversies section with a single line that was longer than the original article. If Prisencolin claims again that the "omission of Taiwan from maps of China" is a notable controversy he should use more than just a single source that doesn't even support his claim. 93 (talk) 09:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)