Talk:Taiwan/Archive 3

Revert of unjustified mass changes 3/26
Raidentherv made several changes in three saves removing "unwanted content". There is nothing obviously unwanted about it and no justification is found on this page. It was followed up by grammatical edits of his work by Changlc. It is their burden to prove why it is "unwanted".--160.39.195.88 01:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * My edits were as you mentioned, purely grammatical. I have no opinion one way or another regarding the changes as I haven't compared the old and new versions. --Loren 02:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To deal with Jiang's edits, I have reimplemented some of his grammatical changes, though I have left out ones that were either ungrammatical or no better than the original. Jiang, you should not couple grammar edits with content changes. You did not make it clear what you were doing either.--160.39.195.88 01:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no rule stopping me from coupling grammar edits with content changes. It should not matter since if you want to revert me, that's your business and invonvenience, but you shouldnt be reverting me in the first place. I'll--160.39.195.88 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) recap on some of the differences here since this is turning into an edit war.--Jiang
 * For the purposes of transparency and so that others may verify your work. If your work is good, you shouldn't worry about whether it's easy for people to revert or difficult.  Don't say "you" like you mean me.  If you make it hard for people to understand your changes it's bad for everyone.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Everything can be verified via the page history. I'm not hiding anything. --Jiang
 * But as you said, you make it more difficult to revert changes. It is to the benefit of everyone that you do not make your changes especially difficult to revert so that those that have consensus can easily be kept and those that don't won't be accepted.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Reverting is BAD. It should be avoided as much as possible. If anyone wants to do something BAD, they need to be troubled to do it. --Jiang
 * SOMEONE ELSE PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS PLEASE. I don't think Jiang gets it and it's dumb for him to think that he should make it harder for people to revert his changes than anyone elses.  If it's quality work then the quality and the watchful eyes of everyone else will keep it from getting reverted.  Of course reverting is bad, but you seem to do it all the time.  It's necessary to counter bad work.--160.39.195.88 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan (Here you can try to vote Jiang out...)

"state that currently de facto administers the island groups" --> "state that currently consists of the island groups"
 * Discussed above as not npov. I propose "state that de facto consists of the island groups" ("currently" replaces with more specific term "de facto")--Jiang
 * I disagree. "Currently consists" has no POV implication.  It is also ugly when you try to use "de facto" as an adverb.  There is enough in the article that already discusses de facto / de jure claims.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * please answer above. I have already explained the POV implications. --Jiang
 * Please answer why you want to use "de facto" as an adverb in a nonstandard way. Also consists of reflects the reality that today, now, in reality, that that is in fact what the ROC is the government for.  I have already told you that administers makes it sound like it the ROC is a separate from what it governs when in reality, as a democratic state, it is the political community.  See state.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * We have to qualify "consists of" with "de facto" since this is a politically sensitive topic. For reasons mentioned above, it is improper to imply that the de facto situation is the de jure situation. If you have another way of wording this without implying that the situation is in any way de jure, then I would like to hear it. "de facto consists of" is the best I can come up with now. --Jiang
 * Adverb? Hello?  De facto is traditionally used as an adjective.  The rest of the article makes it extremely clear what all the de facto / de jure issues are.--160.39.195.88 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The adverb form is listed before the adjective in the dictionary, suggesting that it is more common. There's nothing wrong with the adverb. The rest of the article does not make it clear since youve decided to declare the claims to the mainland irrelevant. --Jiang 18:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Definitions are listed in order of importance. Separate entries are listed by historical order.  I was unaware of the much older usage of "de facto" as an adverb, but it certainly is extremely uncommon today (use Google to research).  Also please read up at de facto.  De facto is not a neutral word.  Your attempts at challenging the legitimacy of Taiwan's status as a state violates NPOV.  You are spewing POV.--160.39.195.88 17:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "De facto" used in this context does not seem POV to me. It does not imply illegitimacy, but suggests what is on paper is not what is reality and whatever follows the words 'de facto' is reality. Using "De facto" where "de jure" could be used (ie "The Republic of China is a de facto state.") is POV, but using it in this situation, where de jure cannot be used, is not. --Jiang 22:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "and set up a provisional capital in Taipei"
 * I don't see a reason for removing this. Given that capitals are often used to refer to nation-states, this is important.--Jiang
 * I already said that it is confusing when people don't know that Taipei is the capital of the ROC yet. That's why.  After Taipei is introduced, then you can use it to represent the ROC state, when the context is clear.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * There's nothing confusing about this statement. We've explained the context - the fled the mainland and set up a provisional capital. They called it that. There's nothing inaccurate or misleading here. Please elaborate on your point.--Jiang
 * The original said that the ROC evacuated to Taipei. Well evacuated is a physical verb.  1) It sounds like every KMT monkey was in the actual city of Taipei.  2) Taipei as representative of Taiwan?  They had to set up the capital, then it becomes representative of the politics of Taiwan the way the Washington section of a newspaper means national politics of the US.  Don't put your cart before your horse.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The original has been changed so that's not relevant. The phrase you removed is not inaccurate. --Jiang
 * Since it is changed, show me an example of what you would like to change the current to because we're talking about different things here.--160.39.195.88 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for removing the phrase. Please discuss how the statement is inaccurate or unsuitable. --Jiang 18:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Show me exactly where you want to put it.--160.39.195.88 17:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Same as where it was--Jiang 22:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"The ROC government no longer actively claims sovereignty over mainland China and Mongolia (although the National Assembly has never officially renounced sovereignty over these two areas), and the tense standoff of the Cold War era has largely subsided." --> "Although the ROC constitution has yet to be amended, the ROC government no longer claims sovereignty over mainland China and Mongolia and the tense standoff of the Cold War era has largely subsided."
 * You somehow implied that "amending" the ROC constitution is somehow expected, necessary, and inevitable. This is anti-unification POV. I also note that the ROC constitution makes no territorial claims and therefore needs no amending. There just needs to be a National Assembly resolution. Saying the ROC government doesn't claim sovereignty is also POV and a falsehood. You somehow acknowledged it by saying the constitution needs amending. And why did you remove the link to Mongolia?
 * Statement changed to National Assembly resolution. Why didn't you make the edit?  It is "yet" because they are a democratic nation and there is no desire whatsoever among Taiwanese people to want to claim rule over all of China.  It'd be so funny if they did.  The only reason they don't do it is because China threatens Taiwan with war.  That's why I say yet.  Saying it in the opposite order ("they do not claim but they didn't change their national borders") makes it sound like they still want to take back China but are just taking a break or something.  Absolutely ridiculous.  And then they also say I didn't remove a link to Mongolia.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * You are spouting your own POV when you claim "there is no desire whatsoever among Taiwanese people to want to claim rule over all of China". Half the people probably wouldnt object to reunifying under a democratic China. There are reasons beyond war that people do not want independence. Quite a number of people feel culturally Chinese, are proud of being part of the Chinese civilization, and want to remain part of this glorious culture. I also explained here that it isnt as simple as "retaking the mainland" as you make it seem. Saying plainly that these claims are not being actively pursued makes it clear enough. You cannot say there will never be reunification under compromised terms --Jiang 22:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Glorious culture? Please read something about Communist China and Chinese culture.    Do you know Communist history?  Communism was a complete rejection of ancient Chinese culture, especially of religion and Confucianism.  Communes?  Complete rejection of Confucian family values.       Marxism?  Besides that it was a Western ideology, it advocates the rejection of traditional socio-economic systems, such as feudalism.  Communist China thought that rule under the emperor wasn't so great, and I'm not disagreeing, but what is this glorious Chinese culture that is being upheld by the PRC that you're talking about?  In any case, glorious or not (notice I have not stated my own opinion on it but you obviously have some weird, simplistic idea of Chinese historical culture), cultural unity is not reason for political unification.  I do not make any predictions that Taiwanese will never unify.  But I will state as a fact there is no political will in the democratic society of Taiwan to pursue claims through the ROC that they rule China.  Unification is a completely separate question.  Please do not make the mistake of confusing the two.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * So there are some who want to claim that the Communists, with their cultural revolution and such, have rejected and neglected Chinese culture and the Taiwanese are the true guardians of Chinese civilization.
 * It's not just a matter of "political will" but feasibility. They just can't feasibly "retake the mainland". If the goal is impossible to achieve they rationally stop trying to pursue it. This should not be construed as them not desiring this oal. --Jiang
 * Well, at least you know you're wrong about glorious Chinese culture. It really disgusts me when I hear "5000 years of history" as a source of pride.  If it was so great, what the hell happened in the 19th and 20th centuries?  I think it's an amazing history, with lots of good and bad, but as a source of cultural pride and superiority?  Come on now.  The whole idea of revolution is that there was something seriously wrong, though obviously the communists made a lot of mistakes.  Why is old necessarily good?
 * In terms of measuring preferences, I suggest you think a little harder on this idea of measuring preferences of extreme hypotheticals. First of all, I know you have no polls backing up what you're saying.  Second, the hypothetical is ridiculous (not that I do not wish that were a choice Taiwan were presented with but so extreme as to bring into question whether people would be rational or even know how to respond to such a choice).  So you are making up this ridiculous hypothetical that--what if Taiwan had the opportunity to peacefully unite with a democratic China, that I assume has also lost its nationalistic fervor--would they want to do it?  Okay, well, that's a really silly question to ask, because 1) there is no evidence that China is going to be democratic anytime soon 2) PRC has never offered to unite with Taiwan and offered to become a democratic country in the meanwhile 3) the ROCs desire for the mainland was because of mainlander KMT control of the ROC.
 * Saying they do not pursue these claims any longer says nothing about the future. Hypothetically, Taiwanese could all gain some great love for authoritarian ommunist rule and want to unite with China.  This is seriously a logical possibility, though I judge it unlikely.  You saying "no longer actively" implies that there is a good possibility they are going to pursue these goals in the future, that it is dormant.  Now that it is impossible, they rationally have stopped as you said.  If you want to talk about desires about impossibilities, then you are talking about a desire so weak that it does not lead to action--then what is it?  It won't later on lead to a "not active now but active in the future" pursuit.  Please keep better track of your reasoning, it gets pretty muddled.--160.39.195.88 02:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It is an aspect of Chinese thought to be looking in the past. For all of imperial china, the goal was to emulate "the ways of antiquity", to rule over the perfect harmonious society as the great sage-rulers Huang Di, Yao, Shun, Yu, et al had done. Anything wrong with society was supposed to be a deviation of the past. In the course of Chinese histiography, the time from 1800 to the present (ie 200 years) is very very short (unlike in American histiography). Of course, the Communists were using a European ideology and were more forward looking and unlike Chinese rulers before them werent interested in emulating the mythical past. But if you look at China from the beginning of the Han dynasty until the early Qing dynasty, and compare it with Europe in terms of technological development, you will come up with a different conclusion. Despite the rise of communism (and especially because of its fall), looking into the past, being observant of heritage (geneologies showing one's descent from royalty was always the subject of much admiration) and ritual are still part of Chinese culture, so Chinese people naturally are supposed to be proud of their past.
 * You don't understand your problem yet. You claim that because Taiwan and China share cultural similarities, and because Chinese culture is so great, they should unify.  I point out that most Chinese people do not think so highly of Chinese culture in the first place, hence the possibility for and actualization of the Communist revolution.  Today's China is driven by nationalism, not adherence to tradition.  That is something like "state capitalism", perhaps fascism.  They want China to be better than everybody else.  That has nothing to do with traditional Chinese culture.
 * Your most flawed point is that you think there's a connection between political unity and cultural unity. For all the KMT's flaws, today, Taiwan is a modern day democracy.  Importantly, they have advocated democracy as an evolution of Chinese culture, as compatible with a reinterpretation of Confucian ideals.  China (as well as Singapore) make their screams about "_________ with Chinese characteristics", about how traditional Confucian culture, about how Chinese culture is incompatible with democracy, despite the success of Taiwanese democracy!  Given these radically divergent views of politics based on the "same" culture, you think these two places should unify.  How the hell is that possible?  Canada and the US are much more similar culturally and politically, but no one says they should unify.  Why did the US declare independence?  They fought an illegal war of independence.  Do you think the US should go back to Britain?--160.39.195.88 17:56, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * but we digress...the issue here is whether "does not actively pursue" implies it will be pursued in the future. I still say it makes no such implication. It only states what is being done at present and it could easily change from "does not actively pursue its claims" to "have dropped its claims" as you make it seem. I agree that we should drop the hypotheticals and look at the practical aspects of this. The reason these claims still exist and are kept existing is for symbolic reasons. The PRC and unification supporters want to keep these claims in place because it makes the division de facto - the result of an unresolved civil war - rather than de jure as the result of a formal secession. If we have each side claiming the others' territory (even though one side is obviously not going to get its way), then we still have an unresolved civil war. If one of the side doesn't claim the other's territory, then we have a separation dispute, which makes the prospect of reunification slightly less legitimate due to the "self-determination" argument. Given that these claims exist and have symbolic meaning (as Chen Shui-bian has to explicitly promise not to drop them), it is inappropriate and misleading to cover them up and make it seem as if only an inevitable and simple procedural change is needed. Saying the claims have been dropped (period) is flat out wrong. This is VERY important in considering the current conflict. --Jiang 03:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Today, the Republic of China on Taiwan is known as Republic of China (Taiwan)."
 * Wrong. Today, the Republic of China on Taiwan is most commonly known as. Who uses "Republic of China (Taiwan)" other than the government's English version of its websites (how western centric to make this blanket claim)? See discussion above.
 * Western centric? I know you know Chinese.  Tell me how to translate Zhonghua Minguo into English.  It is by CONVENTION, not meaning that it is translated as Republic of China.  It's the government that defines the name of itself.  Not you.  No one cares what you want the name to be nor what I want the name to be.  ROC government defines it.  They want to be known as ROC (Taiwan) so that people aren't confused?, then I don't have a right to stop them.
 * For an example that blows up your accusation of being western-centric, consider that former President LTH made a speech saying that negotiations between Taiwan and PRC should be made on a state-to-state basis. That's not a translation.  That's the original English because there is no way to make such fine distinctions in Chinese!  English may not be the prettiest language, but it is dominant around the world, and it is very fine-grained.  There are twice as many words in English as in the nearest language (French).  Making alterations to the English name is a subtle change and less than changing the Chinese name, which might provoke China.  Perfectably reasonable.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The ROC government calls itself Zhonghua Minguo and translates this to "Republic of China". "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is a neologism coined by whoever sets the editorial policy for government English publications. I challenge you to find me a reputable source that states the point "They want to be known as ROC (Taiwan)". Please respond here. They could have easily used zhonghua minguo (Taiwan) if they wanted to. If it cannot be verified, it cannot belong. If theyve settled on "Republic of China (Taiwan)" then explain this controversy: The vice president yesterday opposed Yu's reference to the country as "Taiwan, ROC," saying the comma separating Taiwan and ROC reduces Taiwan into a part of the Republic of China. She insisted that Taiwan is the ROC and there shouldn't be any attempts to reduce Taiwan's status. Lu said the discussion surrounding Yu's description of the country as "Taiwan, ROC" should come to an end. --Jiang
 * Yes Jiang. You're right, it's a neologism.  So then if they choose a new one, then the old one cannot claim that it is the true translation that was based on meaning because it itself was a convention in the first place.  People may disagree with what it should be, but fact of the matter is that their President ordered it implemented and as the representative of the people, till he is voted out of office or changes his mind, it as the _GOVERNMENT INFORMATION OFFICE__ of Taiwan says (http://www.gio.gov.tw), Republic of China (Taiwan)--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Chen Shui-bian "ordered" it. Can you quote him? I think you're assuming more significance and implying more widespread application than what actually exists--Jiang 23:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, my fault for implying that he personally ordered it but he's responsible in that it is his administration. Chen Shui-bian administration is what's used in the article so tell me what you think is wrong with that.--160.39.195.88 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that this format exists and popped up during the current administration, but it is clearly not consistently applied, as demonstrated by the links provided in a section above and by the rift between Premier Yu and Vice President Lu over their separate proposals. The administration arguable seems to favor "Taiwan" (by itself, without "Republic of China") as demonstrated by its latest UN resolution--Jiang 18:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

" To avoid international political controversy, sometimes Taiwan is also represented as Chinese Taipei, such as in the Olympic Games."
 * Wrong. It is always known as Chinese Taipei in the Olympic games. I don't think this a relevant in the lead section. Maybe it should be made more general and not just limited to the Olympics. The use of "Chinese Taipei" does not "avoid international political controversy". It is avoid international political controversy! It's to compromise with the PRC's view that 1) the Republic of China does not exist and 2) Taiwan is not independence. "Chinese Taipei" was chosen because it can imply neither and the people have Taiwan can conveniently shorten in to "Chinese".
 * I have no issue with you moving it to a more appropriate place. Also, what does "it is avoid international political controversy" mean?  I have no idea what you're talking about.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I meant "it is an international political controversy". The use of Chinese Taipei is to appease the PRC, not to "avoid international political controversy"--Jiang
 * This is now changed. But you are a fool to fight these Orwellian games.  It is international because it is on the forum of multiple nations.  It doesn't refer to any statement about Taiwan's status as a nation.  ROC doesn't call itself Chinese Taipei when it is only China and Taiwan.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"This article discusses both the historic Republic of China that governed Mainland China as well as the current ROC that governs Taiwan."
 * As explained above, no article really states explcitly what it's going to cover unless it will unconventionally limit the scope. This statement gives the reader no additional knowledge. They can find out what this article covers by reading it. Even if they didn't, this is exactly what they expected it to cover. In addition, this implies the mainland ROC and Taiwan ROC are different entities, so that the Taiwan ROC is an illegitimate renegade entity.
 * As I explained above, this article is particularly confusing to a person that may just want to know about Taiwan's political history. What don't you like about a little clarity?  It says nothing about ROC on Taiwan's legitimacy but it does point out that they are very different things.  You can't tell me authoritarian government on China (ROC pre 1949) is anything like democratic ROC on Taiwan today.  Again, nothing challenging legitimacy.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If it's confusing, the provide a not-so-confusing summary in the lead section. This doesnt do anything to clarify the situation since it suggests the ROC on mainland and ROC on Taiwan are entirely different. The use of the term "historic" suggests the polity is defunct and a new one was declared on Taiwan. This smells like the PRC's claims. When you separate the two, you suggest Taiwan seceded via the ROC, making the Taipei regime less legitimate than it already is. Otherwise, you can claim it was the communists who rebelled and that the Taipei government was the original Chinese government. In such an entity opposed to secession like China's historical continuity is very important. And yes, the "authoritarian government on China" is continous with the "democratic ROC on Taiwan today". The same legislature that met in Nanjing in 1948 met in Taipei until 1991 and the current president and first lady served with this legislature in the 1980s.--Jiang
 * Haha, but the first direct democratic presidential election was held in 1992! And it is not the same legislature if you mean the same people.  Again, there is some continuity but there are severe disjunctions.  Give me another example of a government that goes into exile and governs a small area and then may become the long-term legitimate political entity (if a ROC (Taiwan) is not established)!  See the new wording and please continue discussion above.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The first direct presidential election was in 1996. A majority of the people in the legislature before they cleaned house in 1991 were elected on the mainland, so yes, they were the same people. --Jiang

Removal of "the 18-Province Provisional Assembly in Nanjing."
 * What is your reason for removing this?--Jiang

"losing to the KMT and the pro-Unification leaning" --> "barely losing to the KMT and the pro-Unification leaning"
 * I propose to replace this with "thus resulting in the unification leaning Pan-Blue Coalition to keep its slim majority"--Jiang

"the notion of "recovering the mainland" by force has been dropped" --> "notion of "recovering the mainland" by force has been completely dropped"
 * The word "completely" isnt really necessary to convey the point and comes off as too strong. They were still yelling these slogans at Kinmen until September 2004. Omit needless words.--Jiang
 * It is important to say completely to remove any doubt in the reader's mind that there's any desire to do it. Also, Kinmen is a special case, if what you say is true, but it is obviously because they are so close to China and are so vulnerable.  What do you think the psychology of those people is like?  And come on now, even though they said it, no one would have thought what they are saying is something serious.  In a democracy, people say all sorts of things.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you look at the various military badges, you will still see an outline of China with Mongolia included. If they entirely dropped the notion, they would have changed the outline already. Whether they have a chance of succeeding is irrelevant, but whether this has been truly dropped must be more carefully examined. No sane person would think they still have a chance of "retaking the mainland", but as stated above, symbolic actions count. It seems the notion has been dropped, but it hasnt been completely dropped. --Jiang
 * Again, you need to consider the political situation in Taiwan and China's reaction to it. If they do anything that implies independence, then China threatens Taiwan with war.  Given that Taiwan is a democratic society, the pressure applied by China causes some voters to be against such changes.  This is not to say that these voters actually believe that the ROC rules over Mongolia/China.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that the sentence means the same without the word "completely". There's no reason to "remove any doubt in the reader's mind that there's any desire to do it". We can't comfortably say there's no desire to do it as long as their is no chance of doing it. Perhaps half the people in Taiwan would like to see communist China gone, but communist China isnt going anywhere so they dont actively say that--Jiang
 * Again, as above, your speculation on desires about hypotheticals that are currently impossible is quite silly. How do you measure that?  What even slight evidence do you have that anyone in Taiwan desires to take back the mainland by force under the hypothetical that they had the power to do so (like go back 30 years in a time machine)?  And what is the point of taking into account a hypothetical that is looking like it's getting more and more unlikely?  China's military is only growing stronger.--160.39.195.88 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * On the same grounds, you can't say there's no desire to do it and as stated above, this hasnt been totally dropped on symbolic grounds. This symbolism is important here and I've already conceded in allowing you to change the wording from "all but completely dropped". It's "all but completely" since they are still officially claiming the mainland. There's no need to emphasize you point using "completely dropped"--Jiang 18:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"member of governmental trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization under the name Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu" --> "The Republic of China is a member of governmental trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization and APEC under the name Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu"
 * Wrong. It is a member of APEC under the name "Chinese Taipei".

Removal "Although the PRC objects to having other countries maintain diplomatic or official relations with the ROC, it does not object to having the ROC maintain economic relations, though under PRC pressure, the ROC may join governmental organizations under a different name."
 * How are you to explain these silly monikers? The existence of Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices? These are certainly important if you need to get a visa or want your passport renewed. Please dont delete useful information.
 * There are silly monikers because of PRC pressure. Well it absolutely does not belong in the opening sentence.  And in the economic world, the United States wields tremendous amounts of influence; without US support, Taiwan could not have gotten into the WTO.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * We have to explain why there are these monikers. I rearranged it, but you still deleted it. --Jiang

Please be reminded that I am not the one making mass changes. If you want a justification for individual edits, you need to ask for one and explain why. --Jiang 07:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Haha, you wanted to make all these changes that are disputed and are just explaining it now. If you don't justify then I don't need to justify my reverts.  Stop putting your edits on some kind of pedestal.  Justify and make it clear to everyone so that people can verify your work.  That's the whole idea behind this community editing business.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's good to leave edit summaries, but by convention, we dont explain everything we do. This is convention, but it is not convention to force people to explain by reverting. Instead, you ask them--Jiang 22:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you were aware that your changes were controversial. Now that you've explained I have no quibble.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zhonghua minguo shi yi ge guojia (The Republic of China is a state)
I'm getting a little tired of people refering to the Republic of China as a government. The Chinese name makes it clear that it is a state. In Chinese, the government is called Zhonghua Minguo Zhengfu or literally "The Government of the Chinese People's State." Allentchang 02:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reply

I don't think so. Just because it's name includes the word 'country' does not necessary mean that ROC is indeed a state.

Since its founding in 1911, ROC was recognized by other states, at it's own request, as the new Chinese government succeeding Imperial Great Ching government.

Since 1971, ROC was no longer the legitimate Chinese government, that position was taken over by PRC by virtue of Resolution 2758 passed by UN General Assembly.

Allentchang 20:44, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As long as the Republic of China flags fly over the government buildings of the territories that it has soverignty of, the Republic of China is a state. If the People Republic of China's flags start flying on the government buildings of these territories, then the Republic of China is no longer a state.

A state does not exist just because there is a flag flying over some building. Please use more reasonable arguments to prove your point.

Well, a state is merely a description of an area which enjoys effective, sovereign (not necessarily legitimate) rule and control over itself, and has the capacity for conducting independent diplomatic affairs with other sovereign states. No other government, especially not the one in Beijing, exercises effective sovereignty over Taiwan like the ROC government does (claiming sovereignty is not the same as exercising!) and the ROC is recognized internationally as the authority to deal with on Taiwanese affairs (though official diplomatic recognition may not exist). If I'm to go to Taiwan, I do not visit the Chinese embassy but rather apply a visa from the ROC equivalent. As such there should be no doubt whatsoever of the existence of ROC as a state, as its flag flies over the entirety of Taiwan where its constitution also reigns supreme. --203.173.154.190 3 July 2005 11:33 (UTC)

According to modern international law, there is no such thing as "effective sovereignty". ROC government/Taiwan is now recognized as the sole legitimate Chinese government by some 25-30 states in the world. This is called recognition of government in international law, not the recogniton of state. ROC didn't possess sovereignty, because it is not a state. It is merely an illegitimate government of China based on Taiwan in rebellion against the legitimate Chinese government(PRC).

Since the adoption of UN General Assembly Resolution No. 2758 in 1971, PRC government has been recognized as the sole legitimate government of China and hence the successor of ROC government. PRC successed all the rights, possessions and obligations of ROC, including Taiwan in 1971.

After 1971, ROC on Taiwan has become an illegitimate government of China in rebellion against the legitimate Chinese government(PRC).

The reason that you need not to apply for a visa at the Chinese embassy in order to enter Taiwan, is because Taiwan is administered by an illegitimate Chinese government in rebellion.

--Siyac 10:34, 4 July 2005 (UTC)


 * So by your logic, the PRC was illegitimate from 1949 through 1971? The claim that the ROC is in rebellion or even has to answer to the PRC is a POV. --Loren 4 July 2005 09:07 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. From 1949 through 1971 PRC was an illegitimate government of China. ROC was recognized by most states in the world as the sole legitimate government of China during that period, although the number was decreasing by years. UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 recognized PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. Since only one government can represent a UN member state(in this case, China) at the same time, ROC was replaced by PRC.

There is a clear evidence for this: check out UN website:

http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm

According to this table, there was no member state expelled from UN since its foundation. ROC was replaced by PRC as a government representing China as a UN member state in 1971.

According to international law regarding succession of governments, ROC has been succeeded by PRC in all it's rights, possessions and obligations, including Taiwan since 1971.

--Siyac 14:48, 4 July 2005 (UTC)

That does not mean ROC after 1971 and PRC before then are not states. Though in many senses it is true that they were/are illegitimate governments of (mainland) China, this fact in and of itself is not particularly relevant to the case at hand, which is the statehood of ROC. Unless you prove de jure rule (sovreignty) to be part of a state's criteria, I do not believe anyone has claimed East and West Germanies to have been anything other than two states within the German nation. In any case, it can be further asserted that the people of Taiwan chose to adopt the fallen ROC system from China to fill the role of their own government, and endorsed the new state with completely legitimate popular sovereignty.

By the way, please add some more references when you refer to international law etc next time. --203.173.154.190 5 July 2005 06:48 (UTC)

ROC and PRC are 2 governments of China, the difference is that ROC was legitimate government of China before 1971 and PRC is legitimate government of China after 1971. Before 1971, PRC's claim to UN China seat was based on that PRC succeeded ROC as the sole legitimate government of China. This clearly demonstrates that PRC is a government instead of a state. The case of East and West Germany does not apply here, because these 2 states were recognized as state instead of government by international community. It also applies to North and South Korea.

You can only claim "popular sovereignty" if you are talking people of a sovereign state. ROC/Taiwan is not a sovereign state, therefore people of Taiwan don't possess sovereignty. If what you claimed is true, then every state of USA could also be considered a state, since every state of USA has its own territory, people, flag, anthem, government, constitution, democratic election and even army(National Guard).

Or Hong Kong/Macau could be considered a state according to your theory.

According to international law, the requirments of a statehood are territory, people and government.

This does NOT mean that every piece of land on this Earth with its residents and government are automatically a sovereign state.

The recognition by other sovereign states is essential. The only way for Taiwan to achive statehood is to declare independence from China and seek recogniton by other states as a sovereign state.

Please see this website for reference of internatonal law(Mandarin only):

http://myweb.hinet.net/home6/littlefang/index_tw.htm

Please could you also provide some references when you refer to your theory that ROC and PRC are 2 states.

--Siyac 13:14, 5 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe my earlier posts were quite clear on what I hold to be the criteria for statehood, and I've yet to hear of an international law claiming them to be merely "territory, people and government". No, the states of America, HK and Macau can not be considered States, because they do not have the capacity to enter into any diplomatic agreements with other sovereign states. They do not possess sovereignty over their territories. The US states obeys Supreme Court rulings and federal laws are enforced in them. HK and Macau have laws regulating them passed in Beijing. ROC is obviously quite different - as I've said before.

West Germany and East Germany were recognized by only a handful of countries each; what made them sovereign states is the fact that ALL nations acknowledge that they do indeed exist, because it is a fact. ROC exists as a state in evey way; the fact of life is that the Chinese government in Beijing has absolutely no control whatsoever over Taiwan. The legitimacy of their government is irrelevant, especially when it is simply "for China". Both PRC and ROC has a permanent population, a well defined territory, a government exercising sovereign rule over the people and land, and is capable of entering into diplomatic relationships with other countries. Other countries also recognizes their existence, and most has had official relationships with one or another at some point. These qualities mean that they are countries as established in the Constitutive Theory of State and Declarative Theory of State.

Your reference isn't really much.... Got anything else?

Again, the fullfilment of criteria of statehood only means that an entity is qualified for statehood, a recognition as state is still required.

The states of USA, HK and Macau can't be considered as states, because they do not want to declare independence and seek recognition as a state.

ROC is now recognized as the sole legitimate Chinese government by some 25-30 states in the world. This is called recognition of government in international law, not the recogniton of state.

ROC/Taiwan therefore can't enter diplomatic agreements/relations with other sovereign states, because it is an illegitimate government of China.

West and East Germany were recognized as sovereign states by international community. They were admitted into UN in the same year. Since UN member states can only be sovereign states, there was no doubt that West and East Germany were sovereign states.

ROC IS a government of China, it's legitimacy is relevant. ROC rules Taiwan as an illegitimate Chinese government, not a state. ROC succeeded Imperial Ching government as the sole legitimate government of China in 1911 and PRC succeeded ROC government as the sole legitimate government of China in 1971. It was very clear that there was a succession of governments.

According to the constitutive theory of statehood, a state exists only insofar as it is recognized by other states.

The declarative theory of statehood comes from Article 3 of Montevideo Convention:

The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

Unfortunately, the constitutive/declarative theories of statehood apply ONLY to states, not governments. ROC is a government, not state.

Do you have anything else ?

By the way, please sign your post. Are you afraid or what ?

--Siyac 19:06, 7 July 2005 (UTC)

Its quite clear that I was the one posting. I'm sorry I forgot to sign, but we can all do without the mockery.

Since we're both repeating our posts, let's sort this one out from the basics. Why is it that ROC is a government and not a state? The fact is that there is a region in this world that qualifies for statehood and calls itself ROC. From your point of view, is China the state, while ROC and PRC are both merely governments? Is the United States of America a government of America and not a state? Or do you think a state is a government recognized as a state?

I'll try to reply earlier next time.

--203.173.154.190 03:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Imperial Ching government was overthrown in 1912. ROC was then established in 1912 as the successive Chinese government. ROC didn't declare itself independent, because there was already a state named China, formely known as Great Ching Empire. It merely succeeded Imperial Ching government as a government of China.

Other states in the international community recognized ROC as the sole legitimate government of China. In 1949 PRC expelled ROC from Chinese mainland. PRC succeeded ROC as the sole legitimate government of China in 1971, when Resolution 2758 was adopted by UN General Assembly.

Thus, ROC succeeded Imperial Ching government and PRC succeeded ROC as the sole legitimate government of China.

As to your question: for example, if US government is overthrown by revolution, and US government flees to Hawaii and maintaines itself there. This government still claims that it is the sole legitimate government of USA. It also occupies the USA seat in the UN.

The other 49 states are all under control of a new government. This new government doesn't declare independence, but only changes the name of country from USA to Republic of America. This government also claims that it is the sole legitimate government of USA.

Since USA government on Hawaii can't represent American people on continent, it is expelled from UN and Government of Republic of America is recognized as the sole legitimate government of USA in the UN. After that USA government on Hawaii is considered an illegitimate government of USA.

Hawaii is under administration of USA government, therefore it can't be a state. The only way for ROA on Hawaii to achieve independence is to declare independence and seek state recognition by international community.

--Siyac 15:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

POLL
Instantnood has started a poll on moving "XXX of Taiwan" to "XXX of the Republic of China" at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC. The poll "started" a week ago, with little advertising. He had maybe 2 people voting in his favor and 10 people against, but since then, he's started campaigning and all of sudden, surprise, surprise, it's about even. Could anyone interested take a look and vote if you think one way or the other? Thanks--160.39.195.88 20:51, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Consists or composed versus administers
Just as a side note, the Information Please Almanac usually states in its introduction to Taiwan that "The Republic of China today consists of the islands of Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, and the Pescadores." Allentchang 02:29, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The state is the political community. As such, the article previously stated that the political community administers Quemoy, Matsu, and Pescadores, as if they are not a part of the political community when in actuality, they have full voting rights. The almanac is further evidence that it is correct usage so please refrain from using administers unless you are talking about a territory that is not part of the political community that controls it.--160.39.195.88 16:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Confusing article
There is no other political entity that did what the ROC did and then now pretty much means something completely different from what it has in the past. I added a guiding sentence:

This article discusses both the Republic of China from its beginnings as the former regime of Mainland China to its current existence on Taiwan today.

But Jiang has been scheming for a long time to remove that sentence. I want to hear someone besides his opinion which I generally regard as extremely biased when it comes to anything about Taiwan. He's previously stated that Taiwan shouldn't be independent because Taiwanese should want to be a part of China's glorious culture. If that's not a biased POV and melodramatic, I don't know what is.--160.39.195.88 05:18, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I said that some people believe that Taiwan shouldn't be independent because Taiwanese want to be a part of China's glorious culture. I didn't say Taiwan shouldn't be independent because Taiwanese want to be a part of China's glorious culture. There's a difference.


 * Tell me what people would expect the article to be on and how this article does not conform to their expectations. --Jiang 20:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Close enough. There's nothing glorious about Chinese culture. That description is your opinion anyways. You always try to say "some people believe" or something, but you never cite anything. Anyways, why are you so ethnocentric? You reveal your biases. Ethnocentrism has no place on Wikipedia, your opinion or "some people's belief".

Stop trying to eliminate a topical guide to what the article covers. It covers both the mainland Chinese ROC and the one on Taiwan. It is POV to say that they are the same thing. So the least we should do is to let people be aware that this is what the article does. And why do you keep insisting that Taiwan does not "actively" pursue its claims over China. Cite me someone in important in Taiwan that indicates Taiwan may pursue those claims in the future. Not only is the style of the sentence that you wrote poor English, it is misleading as well. We've gone over all of this. You've still provided no evidence. Don't make changes that you've been reverted over unless you have evidence.--160.39.195.88 16:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I wont bother defending myself against those personal attacks here.


 * The fact that this article covers both pre-1949 and post-1949 ROC is inherent in the second paragraph. People are already aware. There's no need to be redundant. I quote specifically "The Republic of China (ROC) succeeded the Qing Dynasty in 1912, ending 2,000 years of imperial rule in China. Its existence on mainland China was scarred by warlordism, Japanese invasion, and civil war and ended in 1949 when its Kuomintang-controlled government was overthrown by the Chinese Communists. The ROC government then evacuated to Taiwan and set up a provisional capital in Taipei where it continued to regard itself as the sole legitimate government of China." If we've defined things as such, it will follow that we will expand on this definition. We did not say "The Republic of China existed from 1912 to 1949 when it was replaced the People's Republic of China due to the Communist revolution", did we?


 * Here's why it is necessary to insert the word "actively": They obviously havent bothered yet with amending the Constitution. The Additional articles (passed in the year 2000) states: "To meet the requisites of the nation prior to national unification, the following articles of the Republic of China Constitution are added or amended to the Republic of China Constitution in accordance with Article 27, Paragraph 1, Item 3; and Article 174, Item 1:" The new batch of amendments up this year still contains the same text. Officially, unification is still a goal... Here are some military badges and seals still in use: a ROC Army patch, ROCA Infantry 200th Brigade,ROCA Infantry 117th Brigade,ROC Marine Corps badge,ROC Marine Corps flag. Dont need to imply that just because you claim something youre going to pursue those in the future. You could be just bluffing or nostalgic. --Jiang 22:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perspective from the ROC constitution
Regarding the consists, de facto consists, administers, etc, I found the following articles of the ROC constitution might be interesting to add to the discussion:

Chapter 1, Article 2: The sovereignty of the Republic of China shall reside in the whole body of citizens.

In the additional articles to the constitution, it mentions that citizens of the "free area" of the Republic of China has the right to vote in national elections. There is no definition as to what "free area" means.

I would think that "consists of" without any qualifiers is appropriate since the ROC constitution suggests that the Republic of China consists of its citizens in the "free area." Allentchang 20:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe it is necessary to include de facto on the basis of the text you have quoted. If it were not de facto, then they would not have state "The president and the vice president shall be directly elected by the entire populace of the free area of the Republic of China." and could leave out the qualifier: "The president and the vice president shall be directly elected by the entire populace of the Republic of China." The text itself implies that there exists a populace/citizens of the ROC in a area that is not the "free area". Chapter 1, Article 2 makes no such qualifer in defining sovereignty. The intent when they first came up with the term 10 years ago was to avoid implying that the ROC consists of its current territories.--Jiang 22:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Protected
Rather than play revert ping-pong, you'll probably want to discuss how to resolve your differences on this talk page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China is not called Taipei Ministry of Foreign Affairs, putting it Taipei Ministry of Foreign Affairs is incorrect and is not used anywhere even in countries that recognize the PRC, they refer to it as the Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Taiwan. Since this is a page of the Republic of China, the link should be named properly with the short title of Ministry of Foreign Affairs, or either ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The spelling of the ROC de facto embassy in the United States is Taipei Economic & Cultural Representative Office, not Taipei Economic & Cultural Representatige Office. Thus, calling the link Republic of China (Taiwan) de defacto Embassy in the United States is a fact and there is nothing untruthful and clarifies the functions of the institution and avoids confusion.--just signed Wangoverseas 20:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The intro note in italics that the status of the Republic of China is controversial is totally unncessary
I think that the following intro statement in italics by anon user 203.218.222.112 is awkwardly placed and should be removed:


 * Note: The political status of the Republic of China on Taiwan is itself controversial and is described in Political status of Taiwan. To this date, only approximately 26 countries, mostly African and South American countries, acknowledging the existance of Republic of China, for more information about this, please see Foreign relations of the Republic of China.

The main article about the Republic of China already contains the information. To put this note on the top of the article suggests that this information is more important than the rest of the information in the article and could be interpreted as a point of view, especially when you provide immediate links to the Foreign relations of the Republic of China and the Political status of Taiwan at the top of the article. Few if any encyclopedia articles and almanac articles on the Republic of China starts off with such a note. Allentchang 22:38, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is not a disambiguation. Only disambiguations are allowed to occupy that space. --Jiang 00:00, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The statement of the existance of the Republic of China written in the first indroductory paragraph is completely rediculous and should be removed. Although it may be formally recognized by a relatively small number of nations, it doesn't mean it ceases to exist. It continues to remain governing and exist on Taiwan and other nearby islands, even though its loss of the Mainland. This fact is indisputable.


 * Pointing out such dispute is very important because the ROC is not recognized as a country in most part of the world, as described in Foreign_relations_of_the_Republic_of_China. Although ROC exist as an autonomous country/state/area(depends on the view), readers should note that whether or not it's international reconizable. This must be known by the readers before start reading the article to avoid confusion. As for the embassy part, well, it may serves some of the function of other embassies, like issuing visas, but such a office does not serve other, and the more important parts like the presence of an ambassador, which would be used when there's dispute or other diplomatic matter. There is simply no such personnal in that office and thus it should not be called "de facto" the embassy--203.218.227.62 09:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The ROC de facto embassies aka. TECRO/TECO does indeed have a presence of a chief representative/personel equivilent to the Ambassador of any other nation's embassy whose country is fully recognized diplomatically along with all other necessary functions of any embassy. Whether solving disputes or negotiating trade policies between the host country along with other necessary matters, the TECRO chief representative is always summoned upon. Thus, TECRO/TECO Chief Representatives are rotated thru the ROC Minstry of Foreign Affairs, in the same particular way the 25 ambassadors of the ROC are, switching from becoming ambassador to TECRO/TECO Chief Representative. In the US, Senate and Congress members usually refer to the TECRO/TECO Chief Representative as the Taiwanese Ambassador. The Incumbent ROC Representative to the US is David Lee. Plus, Media coverage in Taiwan calls the TECRO/TECO Chief Representative - the ROC Representative to .....Nation. E.g. the TECRO Chief Representative to the US is refered to in the media as - the ROC Representative to the United States Dr. Lee &#39376;&#32654;&#22283;&#20013;&#33775;&#27665;&#22283;&#20195;&#34920;&#26446;&#21338;&#22763;. This applies to all other TECRO Chief Representatives abroad, inc. Japan, UK, France, Korea, Canada, the list goes on. Therefore one may not claim ROC de facto embassies are not equivilent institutions to diplomatically recognized embassies. It would be similar to saying the American Institute in Taiwan with de facto embassador Douglas Paal, isn't the de facto US embassy in the ROC. --Wangoverseas 20:01 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Thank you so much Hunter for reminding me, sorry everyone for the confusion!


 * Next time pleae sign your comment. I think your viewpoint determins on the point of view of the reader, one, like those of PRC, may merely regard it as an representative while some others, like those who supports ROC as an country, regard it as an ambassador. So stating it's name is more appropriate, "de facto" embassy added personal viewpoints. --Hunter 15:14, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to "warn" readers about. Any text about the attributes of the ROC should be left in the article itself, particularly the lead section. This is not an encyclopedia of "countries". Anything goes. --Jiang 09:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not ROC is a country affects even the existance of this article! How can readers not being warned about this. If it's not in the lead section, then it must be in the first paragraph, this dispute must be highlighted. --203.218.227.62 10:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Information should be presented in the lead section according to the NPOV guidelines. All different viewpoints are to be represented. We did not simply ignore the PRC viewpoint so the "warning" doesn't serve a purpose. Even if we were to follow the PRC viewpoint, we would still have an article, saying the ROC legitimately existed from 1912-1949 and the polity currently called the ROC on Taiwan is illegitimate.... --Jiang 10:15, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can you all agree that it is a relevant fact that only a couple of dozen countries give full recognition to the Republic of China? If so then it seems to me that this should be mentioned, but the "scary warning" at the top of the article is not the only way to do it and there can be legitimate differences on this--so the thing to do is seek a form of words that you're all happy with. It should probably be in the introduction. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I propose adding to the end of the lead section: "The ROC was one of the five founding members of the United Nations and was recognized as the legitimate Chinese government by most countries, namely the Western bloc, during the Cold War. Since the 1970s (the ROC was replaced by the PRC in the UN in 1971), international recognition as gradually decreased with most countries switching recognition to the PRC and acknowledging its version of the One-China Policy. Currently, the ROC maintains official relations with 25 countries." The other part of the "warning" is present in the form "The political status of Taiwan continues to remain a contentious issue on both sides of the Taiwan Strait." and "the Communists proclaimed the People's Republic of China and claimed to be the successor state of the ROC over all of China, claiming the Nationalist government in Taiwan to be illegitimate"--Jiang 10:41, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Seems reasonable. Who disagrees? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph is acceptable, some minor changes I feel is necessary. Although I don't feel mentioning that that UN stuff is necessary, I wouldn't against it. This is what I think: (bold for the ease to see the changes only)
 * The ROC was one of the five founding members of the United Nations and was recognized as the legitimate Chinese government by most countries, namely the Western bloc, during the Cold War. Since the 1970s (the ROC was replaced by the PRC in the UN in 1971), international recognition has gradually decreased with most countries  switched to recognize the People's Republic of China (PRC) and acknowledege its version of the One-China Policy. Currently, (delete the) ROC maintains diplomatic relationship with 25 countries." '''For more, please see Political status of Taiwan and Foreign relations of the Republic of China

--203.218.227.62 10:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All your changes (except fixing my typo of "has") made the text ungrammatical. [politicial status of Taiwan] is already linked in the sentence before it. We can piplink [Foreign relations of the Republic of China] as " official relations with 25 countries " --Jiang 11:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Both versions are probably a bit too wordy for the lead. I think you'd probably want to have something that simply stated that, although ROC was one of the original five Security Council members, it was expelled from the UN in favor of the PRC, and its diplomatic recognition has suffered as a result of this and the diplomatic policy of the more powerful PRC. The paragraphs above would be fine for an interior paragraph to give the changes in full detail. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your version is fine, though I don't think "because it's expelled from UN makes its diplomatic regonition suffered", it's because the neighbouring PRC. I feel both Jiang and Tony's suggestions are fine.. --Hunter 11:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Altered (see above). How about that? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's ok for me, however, I suggest to add the full name of PRC since it's never mentioned in the article. --Hunter 11:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

TECRO does function as closely as possible to an embassy, but there are limitations. This article in The Washington Diplomat says of the head of Tecro in Washington: "Even so, there’s little doubt Chen feels left out of Washington’s diplomatic circle. He has no access to State Department officials and is prohibited by his own government from talking too much with his counterparts from China." . --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Calling the link TECRO may be more appropriate to avoid any controversy, but naming the link of the ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Taipei Ministry of Foreign Affairs is rediculous and a bias to a sense that the ROC ceases to be recoginzed by any party/state and ceases to exist. The ROC Ministry of Foreign Affairs appoints both Ambassadors and TECRO chief reps. therefore the correct/actual-factual title should be used, deemly not appropriate for a biased alteration of a single viewpoint to its title.--Wangoverseas 20:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting
I think it's been discussed to death and nearly everybody is agreed on the basics--I'm sure editing can proceed now so I'm unprotecting. Thanks to all who contributed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But I'm still confused. Should it be Taiwan then? Although I would prefer ROC b/c that's our party line on that nation, perhaps everyone was right in agreeing that Taiwan should simply be Taiwan. Obviously, as in the Taiwan talk page, everyone already believes it is. Plus, I noticed that all the media in Taiwan refers to Taiwan as Taiwan and no longer ROC. Now I am confused, indeed!--Jianq 00:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) (NB: This comment was not contributed by Jiang, but by an impersonator who has since been banned. --MarkSweep 02:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Two Chinas
It's widely recognized by PRC and countries that have diplomatic relation with PRC that there is only one China in the world, no "one China one Taiwan", no two Chinas, and both the mainland and Taiwan belong to China. I am wondering why pro-Taiwan-independence-ists, such as Jiang, are trying so hard to make "Two-Chinas" in the world. It's not correct to describe Taiwan as ROC, which suggests that "Taiwan is an independent country, now named ROC." This is totally unacceptable.

It's dangerous to make things clear and finguring out what ROC, PRC, and Taiwan are. The ambiguity is the key to compromise. And this is the most subtle (and hard to understand ) part in the politics between the mainland China and Taiwan.

The first step is to stop relacing "Taiwan" with ROC or ROC(Taiwan). It's of no one's NPoV. --Cherico Apr 27 02:57:10 UTC 2005


 * oh great... on the very same I get accused of being a communist propagandist from mainland China, I get labelled a "pro-Taiwan-independence-ist". Now what am I? --Jiang 03:40, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You're a Wiki admin which means you will be admired by many, despised by some, and ignored by pretty much everyone else. ;) --Loren 06:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * First of all, most encyclopedias don't get where they are by being ambiguous. That serves no ones purpose. Second, the ROC and PRC are functionally independent and have been so since 1949. Like it or not there are two political entities calling themselves China. Regardless of whether it makes the old men in Beijing cry. Now the relationship between the PRC and ROC is up for debate as well as the question of Taiwan's ultimate fate. You can even question whether the ROC has a right to exist (though you can be damn sure that I'd be on the opposing side of the debate) but to demand that we all stick our heads into the sand and pretend that the ROC is just a bad dream is just absurd... especially here where the goal is to spread knowledge, not obsfucate it. Present the facts and let people come to their own conclusions.
 * --Loren 06:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * ROC do exist. But ROC and Taiwan are not synonymous. If so, replacing Taiwan with ROC is so biased and conveys the wrong message implying that Taiwan(ROC) is an independent country. Personally, I believe that Taiwan is a neutral term for people to describe everything about the islands (including the Pescadores and Quemoy.) But the term "ROC" should be used carefully as it's so easy to touch someone's nerve and then something ridiculous follows. This is really a mess. I don't know why some people are so kind to replace "Taiwan" with "ROC". Maybe it touches someone's nerve as well. But believing the one-China policy, it's time to stop such actions of the "separatists" of China, trying to make two Chinas and separate the ROC from the mainland. -- Cherico Apr 28 02:13:16 UTC 2005
 * Two responses:
 * Wikipedia is politically neutral and thus should not take sides on the unification vs. independence debate. What you or I believe should happen is of no relevence here. The point is to present the facts.
 * Taiwan is politically seperate from the Mainland. If you visit Taipei you'll find the ROC flag flying and not the PRC one. The taxes I pay when I'm in Taiwan go to Taipei, not Beijing. Again, you're free to make your case on why this is wrong or why you believe it to be immoral etc..., but to claim that there is no seperation is absurd. --Loren 03:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Loren, I believe you may be on to something. And as Dingbat has mentioned on the Taiwan talk page, Taiwan has it's own currency, President, Olympic Team, government, military, flag, anthem, membership in world organizations, and is officially recognized by the Vatican! Maybe we should just redirect ROC to Taiwan.--Jianq 00:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) (NB: This comment was not contributed by Jiang, but by an impersonator who has since been banned. --MarkSweep 02:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC))
 * My puny Taiwanese mind can't figure out if you're being sarcastic or if this is the new policy on ROC/Taiwan/whatever articles. ;) Regardless, it is my POV that the NPOV thing here is to say that the state/region/place/thingy commonly referred to as Taiwan is administered under a government with the official name Republic of China which has been in a state of undeath since 1949. So there is a seperation but it is by no means complete. Consequently the right thing to do would be to call an exorcist equipped with a miniature CKS doll and a bunch of needles (incense not nessecary seeing as Taiwan is filled with temples). Oh and they can try to revive the dead horse in the corner that everyone's been beating as well. The Vatican can officiate. :P --Loren 00:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replaced by or Expel?
Jiang:expulsion is performed by the UNSC; it was replaced in, not technically expelled from, the UN

Referring to the recent changes by me and Jiang, and the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758. Let me explain my reason of using such term, it is because of, in the resolution 2758: ".....expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it."

Therefore, I feel that we should use such term in the article, instead of simply using replaced by, for which is what I interpret as the action of the UN General Assembly. --Hunter 10:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm under the impression that the resolution to expell the ROC was proposed, but CKS ordered a unilateral withdrawl before it could be voted on. --Loren 12:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd view such act as to save face before an imminent action, which is quite equivalent to being expelled. --Hunter 10:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in a manner of speaking, but the ROC was on the Security Council at the time and could have vetoed the proposal. What would have happened next is anyones guess. Nonetheless, there is a distinction between getting kicked out, and leaving when being threatened with it. --Loren 14:58, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

That veto would serve nothing, first, the vote took place in the general assembly, and unlikely normal explusion, this focus on credential, which, the security council have no power to act upon. And actually, I am not that insistant to show this in the article, I just want to explain my view point.--Hunter 16:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks. --Loren 06:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

The vote was to expel ROC government's representatives instead of expelling China, which is a UN member state. The rules regarding expulsion of a member state in UN Charter do not apply in this instance.--80.127.169.179 08:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, and that's why I said it's about the credential. All I want say was that I think ROC(not China) was being expelled. P.S. Even if you are not logged in also please sign your comments.--Hunter 09:13, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

ROC and the UN and other points
Here's a source with some points that we might consider for revision in the article: 

On the replacement of the ROC in the UN

I have yet to read a detailed source that can describe exactly the political background of the passing of resolution 2578. According to the resolution, of course, PRC replaced the ROC. But there were two other resolutions on the table that would have provided recognition for two states and it is not clear which proposal that the ROC supported and whether the lack of support for either of them caused the defeat of both of them and the passing of 2578. So unless someone can point to a detailed source surrounding the politics of the replacement of the ROC, I am hesitant not to attribute an active withdrawal on their part.

Military occupation from 1945-1952

So what exactly is the deal here? Taiwan was occupied on behalf of the allied powers by the ROC? That is not clear in the article at all, though I would like to read another credible source on this period. This should be changed in the article if it pans out. It sounds right, but I do want to see another source. --DownUnder555 03:32, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well the postwar situation is kind of confusing due to conflicting statements between the Cairo Declaration which says:
 * It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pacific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen form the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China.
 * and the Potsdam Declaration:
 * Until such a new order is established and until there is convincing proof that Japan's war-making power is destroyed, points in Japanese territory to be designated by the Allies shall be occupied to secure the achievement of the basic objectives we are here setting forth. As well as McArthur's General Order No. 1.
 * Now I'm under the impression that when the ROC troops arrived in Taiwan, the original intent of the Allies was, as you said for the ROC occupying it on behalf of the Allied powers, much like the model that was used for Germany and Japan. My guess is the formal transfer of sovergenty was intended to be carried out eventually (but most likely there was confusion among the Allies about what that was supposed to mean).
 * To add to the convoluted situation when the ROC forces arrived in Taiwan they jumped the gun and immediately proclaimed the establishment of a Taiwan province, which is of course, contraversial as Japan hadn't actually renounced sovergenty yet (and when they did in the 50's, they didn't say to whom).
 * Now I'm a scientist, not a lawyer so someone else will have to determine if Cairo is legally binding. If you haven't already, you may want to check out Legal status of Taiwan. --Loren 04:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

The other proposed resolutions on the tabel in 1971 were meant to admit PRC as a UN member state and transfer the UN Security Council seat to PRC. And at the same time ROC remained a UN member state. These proposals didn't get the approval of majority UN member states, becuase these proposals were oppossed by both PRC and ROC. Both PRC and ROC insisted that there was only one China in the world and that PRC/ROC is the sole legitimate government of China. It is not possible for 2 governments to represent a UN member state at the same time. ROC was expelled because it had not administered Chinese mainland since 1949, therefore it could not be considered as the sole legitimate government of China.

--User:Siyac 11:42, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

Here we go again
"is a multiparty democratic state that is composed of the island groups of " --> "is a state that is de facto composed of the island groups of "
 * "multiparty democratic " is redundant as it is explaned in more depth in the third paragraph. it is only de facto composed of its current territories and not de jure composed because the national borders were never official changed.

"The Republic of China (ROC) began on the mainland as the government of China, succeeding the Qing Dynasty in 1912 and ending 2,000 years of imperial rule." --> "The Republic of China (ROC) succeeded the the Qing Dynasty in 1912 and ending 2,000 years of imperial rule in China."
 * The Republic of China is a state and a political entity, not a government.

"From its early days to its move to Taiwan, the Republic of China has been closely associated with the Kuomintang political party as well as with its primary historical leader, Chiang Kai-shek." --> "From its early days to its move to Taiwan, the Republic of China has been closely associated with the Kuomintang."
 * "Kuomintang political party" is a redundant phrase. The ROC has not been fully associated with Chiang Kai-shek. He cannot be objectively labelled "its primary historical leader" because the ROC is very often associated with Sun Yat-sen, warlords, and various power struggles.

"the ROC government ended claims of sovereignty over mainland China and Mongolia" --> "the ROC government longer actively claims sovereignty over mainland China and Mongolia, "
 * Lee Teng-hui is not the National Assembly and could not change the national borders. He didn't even declare them to be changed: he simply "acknowledged" Communist Party rule on the mainland.

" Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). " --> "Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945). "
 * avoid redirects

Removal of "After the defeat of the Kuomingtang in 1949"
 * KMT is misspelled and the defeat already mentioned in the previous paragraph

"Current Politics " --> "Politics"
 * per wikiproject countries

"official independence" --> "Taiwan independence"
 * what the is "official independence" supposed to mean? saying taiwan is already independent is POV. saying it is not officially independent is also POV.

and the infobox belongs after the lead per wikiproject countries. --Jiang 05:35, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not so clear it's again
So my bad, if there has been a previous consensus with all this stuff. But Jiang is promoting a view that makes ROC's governance sound really tentative when it's not at all. I would say that it's heated but the only thing that's going to change the status quo looks like for now to be war--which is not a judicial action at all. The article is pretty good in my view about hashing out the various sides about legitimacy (although again, I feel like votes on the Taiwan side and possible war between the two are the real determinants, not arcane treaties), but what's the deal with de facto and even weirder, what's the deal with putting it in italics?

ROC is the state and not the government
 * If what you're saying is correct, I wouldn't even call the old ROC and the ROC on Taiwan the same thing since the "political communities" are completely different. We mean the state for the current ROC but we me mean mainly the government for the historical part (that's what the article does anyways).  The word can take on two meanings anyways as well.

"official independence"
 * I'm not sure what Jiang means by saying that Taiwan is independent is POV. It's not officially independent because it never declared and there may be constitutional issues, etc.  But can you tell define independence so that I can understand how it's a POV issue?

redundancy arguments
 * Redundancy is good for readability. In the opening talking about Taiwan as a multiparty democracy is a good adj summary of what it is.  Later it is talking about the process of move towards that era.  That's also why I added after their defeat they moved to Taiwan bit in 1949 as well.  I'm not unaware of the redundancy but for readability's sake I think it's important.

no longer actively claims bit
 * I read the Lee Denghui thing, and I'm following the recent developments in Taiwanese politics as well. It looks like the National Assembly, if nothing goes wrong, won't be deciding the national borders.  The key is, even if that's not true, there's nothing intrinsic about the National Assembly being the only action that can be taken as "official".  Because for example, as is happening now, the constitution could be amended and it could be changed by referendum.  I've never read anything saying anything about allowing anyone in China to participate in ROC elections or for any government appartus to function over mainland China.  Why do you insist on that kind of odd wording as if they don't want to today but maybe tomorrow are about to go to the UN and ask to be restored as the rightful ruler of all of China?  I'm sorry, I don't get it.

Whew, this was long.--DownUnder555 06:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

KMT and One Country (China?) Two Systems
Got a question on the most recent edit (emphasis mine):
 *  KMT Party Chairman Lien Chan reiterated his party's belief in the  "One China, Two Systems"  policy that states that there is only one China controlled by two governments and that Taiwan is a part of China. PFP Party Chair James Soong expressed the same sentiments during his visit in May.

Whoa... did Lien actually agree to 1Country2S or is this yet another case of tricky wording? It would be a surprise to me seeing as this could (and may be?) construed as 1 Country 2 Systems which both he and Soong have publiclly stated that it is unacceptible numerous times in the past. There was talk on other formulations of the status quo including "One China", but I didn't think that 1C2S was one of them. Can someone please clarify? (I've temporarily changed it to One China)--Loren 04:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The Taiwan newspapers I've read said he agrees that "One China, Two Systems" is how things currently are. Since they're English language translated from Chinese, there's a chance there is a mistake, though. That he supports "One China" is definite. He was not reported to say that the ROC should be abolished when reunification happens, which lends credibility to the reports of his support for the "two systems" half. I'll dig around more here in Taiwan to see if I can find more details.Xuanwu 06:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, don't mean to nitpick but it does seem awfully close to One Country Two Systems. I was under the impression that he favors One China while remaining somewhat ambiguous about what that entails. --Loren 14:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't that it is PFP's James Soong agreees "Two side, One China"(&#20841;&#23736;&#19968;&#20013;)? I did not recall Lien Chan have said anything of such. (at least in the recent trip) --Hunter 06:49, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Soong proposed "One China Two Shores". Lien stated stuff along the lines of One China and anti-TI, but I really don't recall anything on One China Two Systems. Of course I could be mistaken, but I'd imagine that it would be splashed all over the headlines if he agreed to One China Two Systems. --Loren 14:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Taiwanese newpapers nor media never supported or reported that Lien Chan and James Soong supported, One Country Two Systems, infact both of them opposed it even before they made their China trips. The two support, One China, Seperate Governance &#20841;&#23736;&#20998;&#27835; and the 92 Consensus 92&#20849;&#35672;, &#20841;&#23736;&#19968;&#20013;, so this One Country, Two Systems thing is a myth!--Wangoverseas 05:38, 30 May 2005 (UTC)