Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-28/Government in exile

Where is the dispute?
government in exile,Republic of China,Taiwan

Who is involved?
Just a list of the users involved. For example:


 * User:mafia_godfather
 * User:Ngchen
 * User:T-1000
 * User:Readin
 * User:WikiLaurent
 * User:Hmortar

What is the dispute?
A well referenced and evidenced contribution has been made to the articles that states Republic of China is indeed a government in exile. Some editors refused to accept the fact and claimed it is a fringe view and based on original research, thus violating NPOV policy. Details of the reasonings of either sides can be found in our discussion in the talk pages of the said articles and details can also be found from a Request for Comment page they have established regarding this matter. The nature of the dispute is I, User:mafia_godfather maintain that the contributions I made were facts and I understood the burden of proof was upon me and I have satisfied wikipedia policies of providing reliable sources that can validate the contribution, see WP:PROVEIT. The opposing editors claim that my contribution is a perspective and disputable. I have demanded references and evidences from reliable 3rd party sources to validate their claim for the burden of proof would be on them to reject my contribution, and they have not complied.

What would you like to change about this?
The desirable outcome is a clearer understanding of facts and perspectives, so we would know if NPOV policy can be applied on a fact with no evidenced disputes(despite disputes from some editors).

How do you think we can help?
I would like wikipedians who are knowegeable in wikipedia policies to facilitate a mediation and provide us more insight on the disctinction of perspective and facts also whether or not a "serious dispute" needs to be referenced. I believe that can greatly assist us in how to resolve this dispute.

Ngchen's position, and his perception of the opposing position
First, a question. Would it be fair to sum up the opposing position then, as follows? (Yes or no - if the answer is no, please explain why not. I'd appreciate it if the response can be indented for easy reading.)

(1a) First, there is the SFPT, which is the ultimate, highest, final settlement of WWII with regard to Japan.

(2a) Second, there are a bunch of sources that validate said the statement above. Therefore, logically, it is a fact that no one can "seriously dispute" that the ROC is a GiE since it does not hold sovereignty over Taiwan, and that it therefore only occupies the island.

The problem with said line of reasoning (or argument) is as follows, and is what myself, T-1000, and Readin have been trying to point out for a while.

(1b) First, the question of sovereignty over Taiwan is disputed, rather than provably being undetermined. A series of arguments against (1a) above are as follows, and yes they have been published in reliable sources. I will try to summarize them here. Note that just because Mafia godfather, doesn't like them, or that Ngchen likes them, or whatever is irrelevant to the purposes of whether they belong in an encyclopedia. Whether the arguments are correct or incorrect also is irrelevant because of the rule forbiding original research, and like it or not, the arguments have been published already. First, there is the classic Japanese Instrument of Surrender which was signed, and which clearly accepts the ultimatum made at Potsdam, which in turn refers to the Cairo Conference. The Cairo Declaration clearly states as follows, "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 from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and The Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China" (emphasis added).

(2b) There has been an open claim of sovereignty, coupled with the exercise of sovereignty (behavior only consistent with being sovereign) over Taiwan by the ROC starting in 1945. As such, it has been 64 years already. Under the rule of prescription, the prolonged and open exercise of sovereignty combined with a continuous claim and lack of protest by others, is sufficient to acquire sovereignty. (The rule exists to maintain the stability of de facto borders and habits - said principle has never been explicitly abolished in international law, and for domestic US examples relying upon it, see Georgia v. South Carolina and Virginia v. Tennessee. Tennessee recently invoked the rule again in a dispute with Georgia over water from the Tennessee river near Chattanooga, although the case has not yet reached the courts, and might not do so at all).

(3b) The uti possidetis argument (Joe Hung's argument). (This principle is a rule for resolving treaty ambiguities). Applying this principle with regard to the treaty of Taipei would make the ROC sovereign over Taiwan, since that treaty did not specifically spell out to whom the sovereignty over the island would go. (I will address counterarguments below). Again, said argument has been published in mainstream publications previously.

(4b) The ambiguity in the SFPT ought to be interpreted consistent with the JIS - to do so otherwise is treacherous, and treachery should receive little protection in law. After all, another rule for interpreting ambiguities is to look at everything in the historical context. The SFPT's intentional ambiguity only was inserted after the outbreak of the Korean War, and before that, the intention was always to spell out the return of Taiwan to the ROC. Analogously, if I orally and repeatedly tell you that I'm selling X to you for $100, and you agree, and then secretly make the piece of paper signed say $100 in big bold letters but have small print hidden away say "ignore the $100, it's actually $10,000," courts would tend to enforce the sale at $100, not $10,000 - treachery should not be rewarded.

(5b) Yes, it is true that the drafters of the SFPT intentionally left the disposition of status of Taiwan out of it. And yes, drafters' intent is also a rule for resolving ambiguities in treaties, which allowed for the French Foreign minister and some others to argue that Taiwan's status was (and is) undetermined. But as lawyers say, ambiguities are bad because one can often apply different rules to resolving ambiguities to reach conflicting results. Here we have a classic case of such a scenario.

(6b) Japan itself has stated that it "firmly maintains its stand under article 8 of the Potsdam proclamation" in official statements to the PRC. Finally, referring to the United States and United Nations (which BTW slightly leans toward favoring the PRC sovereign view by listing Taiwan as "Taiwan, Province of China") and making their somewhat ambiguously stated views dominant risks US-centrism and UN-centrism. Yes it is true that the US has never specifically recognized ROC sovereignty over Taiwan, but neither has it, in a say press conference by the Secretary-of-state or ambassador, flat out contradicted or opposed the claim of sovereignty. Statements opposing sovereignty have tended to be found in reports and such, and IIRC in a Norweigan sovereignty case it was held in arbitration that official protest counts, but oblique and obscure references against someone's claims are insufficient to show a lack of acquiescence.

(7b) Speaking of which, I reread the Phillips article, which was published in 1957. It further argues that the ROC is NOT a GiE because it's not occupying its current location "temporarily," in addition to the sovereignty argument by prescription.

Now, at the very least, claims 1b through 3b have been found in published, reliable sources. 4b through 6b can probably be found too, if we look hard enough. 7b is found in a published, scholarly article. Yes, these points have their weaknesses too. So ultimately, we cannot take sides and say that the a's are determinative, or that the b's are, without violating neutrality. As to what is fringe (and therefore can be ignored, my point, and T-1000's point is that the b arguments are sufficiently mainstream to not be fringe. After all, they (1) have been published, and (2) have prominent adherents such as the KMT, PRC (to some degree), Russia, Haiti, and so on. Do the a arguments have their prominent adherents? Of course. So again we cannot take sides without violating neutrality. We can only describe the controversy. Concluding either that the a's are right, or that the b's are right would be original research. To be crystal clear, I am not trying to convince anyone that the b arguments are correct; rather I am stating that genuine controversy exists. Our job is to describe, not prescribe.

Just because there are sources does not mean they should be used. Please take WP:FRINGE as advice. Sorry, we can't mediate this. Xavexgoem (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)