Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-24/Republic of China

Evidence of Nanjing being the capital of ROC
Here is the E-mail from the government of ROC that prove Nanjing is the capital of ROC and be defined as self-published sources. If anyone need it, tell me your E-mail address so that I can forward it to you.Huang Sir (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ministry of the Interior of R.O.C.: ** 請勿直接回覆本信,若需回覆本信,請至部長信箱網站填寫,造成您的不便敬請見諒 ** 處理情形 : 敬啟者 您好 您於98年4月7日的電子郵件所提意見，茲答復如下： 中華民國首都依民國16年國民政府宣言定都於南京. 嗣後中央政府曾多次遷移辦公，惟首都並未更迭. 目前臺北市為我國中央政府所在地. 本案聯絡人員：林景福 聯絡電話：02-23565281 敬祝 身體健康．萬事如意 內政部部長電子信箱　敬啟 歡迎連結內政部網站填寫滿意度調查問卷 http://service.moi.gov.tw/ecss/bin/ite003q1.asp?IstrMid=010-98010307&IstrUnit=10009000&IstrType=2&mail=hyocean1989@aolchina.com ====================================================== 來信摘要 : [010-98010307] 來信內容 : 敬啟者： 行政院院長電子信箱接獲民眾來函，事屬貴管部分，敬請酌處逕覆，並請副知本小 組結案，至紉公誼. 請確實遵照「行政院暨所屬各機關處理人民陳情案件要點」辦理人民陳情案件，並 對陳情人之身分資料嚴加保密. 敬祝 平安如意 行政院院長電子信箱小組　敬啟 【文號】 [010-98010307] 【受文者】 010內政部  ※回傳「院長電子信箱小組」應注意事項： <收件者> 欄位請填入：hyocean1989@aolchina.com <副本收件人> 欄位請填入：eypo@eyemail.gio.gov.tw <主　旨> 欄位請填入：[010-98010307] (註)：如係總統府總統(副總統)信箱轉來信件，「收件者」欄位請填入： 1.work2@mail.oop.gov.tw及2.民眾E-MAIL位址(如信件內容所附) 【民眾姓名】政治（** 先生） (To protect my personal information, I make some correction here.) 【民眾電子信箱位址】******@aolchina.com 【民眾來信內容】 請問中華民?的首都問題,請給民?一個明確的答案

Here is some laws and some commands from the president of ROC, 謝謝您的來信，您於97年4月26日的電子郵件所提意見，茲答復如下： 一、世界各國指定首都，多有其特殊考量或重要性，有為政治中心，或為經濟重鎮，或為國防需要，而且首都往往隨著時代與環境需求而變遷，因此各國憲法對於首 都的指定，多持慎重的態度，有予以規定者，亦有不予規定者. 我國憲法草擬之初，曾於草案中訂「中華民國國都定於南京」之條文，惟在制憲過程中，各界對於首 都均有不同主張，故最後未能納入憲法明文規定. 二、查民國38年政府遷臺辦公後，同年12月7日總統頒布命令，政府遷設臺北，有關首都之選定與頒布程序皆以行政命令為之. 又憲法第31條規定：「國民大 會之開會地點在中央政府所在地. 」、總統副總統宣誓條例第4條規定：「總統、副總統宣誓，於中央政府所在地，以公開方式分別行之. …」 非感謝您的來信，並祝您身體健康，事事順心 本案聯絡人員：游淑妃 聯絡電話 It is said that after 1949, the ROC central government removed to Taipei.And if capital is decide to be removed, there should be some commands. But until now, there doesn't exist such a command. And it claimed that Taipei is just the seat of central government.

Historically,there used to be a law, 《中华民国训政时期约法》, in which it is said that Nanking is the capital of ROC. Actually, It hasn't been abolished offically, although the constitution has been executed since 1947.

It's not simple but complex. I think only someone with a good Chinese can solve the problem. You have to read and study the history and laws of ROC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huang Sir (talk • contribs) 06:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

But I can agree to edit like this "Nanking(de jure, officially, in principle)" "Taipei the seat of Central government, capital(de facto) recognized psychologically"

Mediator Comments
Hi, Obviously, after assessing the case - the issue is a "Weighing of the scales" issue on the matter of sources and the validation of those sources, the matter on what the capital of ROC must be based on the validility of the sources and neutral status. I would like to ask the parties to assess themselves on what they would do - from a neutral angle - then see the applicable nature of those sources as their is clearly tension between parties, and whilst on the issue I would also request all parties assume good faith - once this has happened; we can progress with the mediation to achieve a resolution.

Wikipedian2 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment from left field
On issue 1, the name of those from Taiwan: from the perspective, internally, of RoC politics, there is no way to come to one term. It is impossible because the answer depends completely on political biases. Within the RoC, the two political bases are roughly equal. However, from a global, international perspective outside of RoC politics, the only practical and usable term is "Taiwanese". Using the term "Chinese" has an obvious conflict with people in/from what is commonly known as China, the PRC. While the RoC claims the rest of China, they don't control it. Used in an international context (and Wikipedia is written for an international audience) "Taiwanese" is used overwhelmingly and without political bias. Those who have a political problem, based on their biases within internal RoC politics, have a problem with "Taiwanese" - but, again, in the international context, rather than one based on RoC politics, that position is a minority view. Both Naming conflict (see subjective criteria) and NPOV insist that the opposing viewpoint is not to be given veto power.

On issue 2, the capitol city: this issue is actually very easy. The claim is that Nanjing is the de jure capitol city. De jure meaning "by law" should be quite easy to cite an RoC law. On issues and claims of de jure there are no reliable sources except the law. Newspapers and other encyclopedias are not reliable sources on a claim "de jure"! As a point of fact, over four years of this discussion not a single editor making this claim has ever cited a law still in effect. So on this issue "de jure" there are no citations "de jure" which ends any claim of "de jure".

On the other hand, the RoC does in fact state unequivocally, from political eras ruled by both sides that "Taipei is the capitol of the Republic of China" without any disclaimer (ie, provisional, temporary, otherwise). These are official statements in official publications, not emails. The statement "Taipei is the capitol" is a very simple one and asking for some non-disclaimed statement is ridiculous.

There is one user in particular, who is making a very fallacious argument, that because there is no negative proof that Nanjing is not the capitol, it means is still could be. Or because the government claim that "Taipei is the capitol" is not preceded by an adjective like "official" that therefore it could be just temporary. This is asking for negative proof, it is a fallacy and pointless.
 * SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Thanks for your contribution, I agree with what you said except perhaps for the capital. The logic for putting Nanking as the de jure capital is that it used to be the official capital, and since the constitution doesn't mention the "new" capital, we can only assume that it is still Nanking. I presume that's the logic followed by encyclopedia.com too. On the other hand, it's true that we have no primary source for that statement - if it exists I guess it would have to be some old document dating back from the 1920s! Regarding Taipei, I agree that it shouldn't appear as the "provisional" capital, since nobody refers to it as such.


 * IMO, another major issue we're having is that Taiwan, Taiwan Province and Republic of China are split into three articles, which is quite unique on Wikipedia. Countries like France, Germany, etc. all have one single article for both the geographical location and for the state. But Taiwan doesn't, which then allows for all sorts of confusion. For example, strictly speaking, a state is not a country and therefore doesn't have a demonym, so the discussion doesn't make much sense to begin with (we still need to have it though, otherwise there would be a massive NPOV issue on the article). However, it would make sense if both articles were merged. As you said, there's a simple international consensus regarding the status of Taiwan, which unfortunately is not reflected on Wikipedia:
 * Taiwan and the ROC are used interchangeably (therefore there should only be one article).
 * Taiwanese is the demonym of Taiwan (ROC) (no newspaper refer to Taiwanese people as "Chinese").
 * Laurent (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't want to open that last can of worms!
 * The RoC had several constitutions through the warlord and civil war eras. It also had several capitols.  The newest constitution (1947) invalidates all previous old ones - and notably does not name a capitol.  The capitol is where the government is.  That seems like a pretty practical assessment for a government that had nine different capitols changing sixteen times over a span of only three decades.  While it is clear that Chiang Kai-shek always proclaimed Nanjing was the capitol, it was only his words, and not law.  The generalissimo leader of a single party state engaged in a civil war tend to make lots of slogans ("we will take back the mainland!").  Those slogans certainly are not binding or relevant to a modern democratic state.
 * The logic followed by encyclopedia.com is that for 30 years the slogans and propaganda of CKC were taken at face value during the cold war, and nobody has revised their text since. Don't underestimate inertia.  The advantage of a user-edited encyclopedia - Wikipedia - is that we can always update based on better references so we do not present stale information.  Wikipedia should not be using other encyclopedia as a reference.  It's lazy - we should be investigating our own references or finding and repeating theirs, but not using them as a reference. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Mediator's Comments
Obviously there is basis around whether to analyse previous laws and constitutions or current "official" definitions, I must say we must look at the 21st century and present views on the subject rather than looking at perhaps what some would describe as historical context. I also believe than a consensus need to be reached that regard latest data and information from principal and reliable sources.

Wikipedian2 (talk) 11:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)