Talk:Taiwan/Archive 2

message: I've archived irrelvant older discussions and combined several discussions about two Republics of China.  There was a long proposal at Talk:Taiwan that is related, and perhaps it should be made more specific, summarized, and commented on.--Amerinese 03:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive

message: Shouldn't this article be clearer on the difference between the "warlord" Republic of China of 1912-1928 and the "Nationalist" republic of china of 1917-present? john 08:00, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There should be and I have proposed separating the two.  See Talk:Taiwan--160.39.195.88 21:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you proposed to separate the ROC on the mainland from the ROC on Taiwan, not the warlord ROC from the Nationalist ROC. Given that the same people who were in charge in Nanjing moved to Taipei, I don't see a good reason to separate it. --Jiang 04:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: We seek to follow NPOV, not the Communist Party viewpoint and version of history. If this view is not sufficiently expressed in the article then make it so. Just attribute it. --Jiang 23:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Two "Republics of China"

message: Most people accept the notion that ROC and PRC are both states.
Unfortunately this is wrong. 
When the Qing imperial government was overthrown by Chinese nationalists in 1911, they established a new GOVERNMENT, not a STATE. China already existed. Its offical name during the Qing dynasty is Great Qing.
The KMT changed the offical name of China to Republic of China. Same thing happened in 1949, when Chinese communists overthrew ROC government and established the government of People's Republic of China.
China joined UN under its offical name Republic of China in 1945.
There was only ONE UN member state called China since its foundation in 1945.
ROC was the sole legitimate Chinese government recognized by UN before 1971.
The UN Assembly passed Resolution 2758 in 1971, recognizing PRC GOVERNMENT as the sole legitimate Chinese government and expelling ROC GOVERNMENT from UN.
The ROC is the illegitimate Chinese government since 1971. It didn't have sovereignty on China, Mongolia or Taiwan, because only state can possesse 
sovereignty. Territory can only have territorial sovereignty. 
The states that had/have diplomatic relations with ROC gave/give only GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION to ROC instead of STATE RECOGNITION, because ROC was and is a Chinese government(in rebellion since 1971). 
It is simply the doctrine of succeeding governments under international law.
ROC does exert complete sovereignty over the TPKM area. You may argue that it is not a rightful state - being succeeded by PRC or something - but you cannot deny the fact that ROC exists as a Sovereign State.
--203.173.175.156 10:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROC/PRC: 2 governments of china 

message: Any opinions on whether Taiwan (country) is a logical title for this article?? If not, please explain using as much detail as you can. Georgia guy 23:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it should be Taiwan (country) I fail to see how it would violate NPOV.
That is your own problem. The country's current name is Republic of China, which is clearly stated in its current constitution, the Constitution of Republic of China. Unless the constitution is abandoned or modified in the future and a new country name is given, it will still be Republic of China. Your suggestion do not fit in with the country's de facto status, hence a change of the title like that will violate the NPOV policy of Wikipedia and will be reversed soon. I think I have given you an explanation clear enough so that I will no longer waste any of my time with your biased request.--G.S.K.Lee 04:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: We use "administers" instead of "consists of" because the legitimacy of the ROC is disputed. I don't find any negative connotation in the word "administers".--Jiang 14:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "de facto" administers is clunky as hell.  And administers also makes it sounds like the ROC is separate from the people it governs.  It is democratically elected, do you say the US Government adminsters America?  That is not proper usage of administers.  Consists of, on the contrary, is quite neutral.  The article makes it clear the ROC is disputed and does not clash with consists of.--160.39.195.88 21:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Consists of does not have any legitimacy implications at all.  And in what way does ROC go beyond its current jurisdictions.  No one on either China or Taiwan believes it goes beyond.  And clunky means the style is poor.  Style is obviously an important consideration.--160.39.195.88 01:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Guam is a territory and does not participate in US national elections.  If Guam were upset about that and wanted to declare independence, they probably would have pretty good grounds to.  The US uses it as an important military base and that's why it would not want to give it up, despite shaky legal justification of its continued status as a territory.  Taiwan Island/Penghu/etc are not territories of the ROC.  The people that live there are part of the polity that is the ROC.  Regarding independence supporters view that the ROC should be eliminated in favor of a Republic of Taiwan--that does not mean that today the ROC does not consist of the places that it does.  Same with the PRC viewpoint.  Please read the article on state to see how administers is the wrong term.  Sorry kid, sometimes viewpoints are wrong.--Amerinese 02:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Also I forgot to point out that "currently consists" already implies that possibly it could change.  It is a fact and has nothing to do with POV.  No need to take into account anything besides reality.--Amerinese 02:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: You have an incorrect understanding of POV.  First of all, there is no reason to consider the POV of those that do no think the ROC exists.  In that case, why write an article at all, because anything and everything in the article that is not historical is contradictory to that POV.  Second, NPOV does not mean making a sentence that everybody can agree on.  What the ROC consists of today is neutral enough and factually clear enough that most people will agree that it means Taiwan Island, Pescadores,  etc.  NPOV means that you can explain major viewpoints (because come on now, you can't include EVERY POV) in addition to the mainstream one.  The case here is that there is a single reality, but there are multiple views on what the legitimate jurisdictions should be.  That subjunctive state is arguable precisely because it is subjunctive and not realis.  You should propose what additional information should be taken into account and corresponding sentences and see if you can get a consensus.  I really agree that administer should not be used as it is quite misleading for a democratic state.--Amerinese 07:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: Please do not use contradictory arguments.  You cannot take into account everyone's opinion as there are always some views that are in conflict.  Again, I've already pointed out that the PRC view is that ROC is defunct.  In that case, the whole article is suspect.  Do you want to delete the article?  You also have not established why pan-Blue POV would disagree with "consists of".  Let's also not mix up desires with actual views about reality.  There are disagreements over whether probabilities can be objective or whether they are always subjective.  Those are two POV.  Saying Taiwan should reunify with China or that Taiwan should remain independent is not POV.  Those are desires.--Amerinese 07:48, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "consists of" vs. "administers" 

message: "This article discusses the Republic of China from its beginnings as the former regime of Mainland China to its current existence on Taiwan today."
Without getting into controvery of whether there are really two ROCs (ROC that was on China and ROC on Taiwan), clearly, sometimes people will not want to know about both pieces of the history of the ROC.  I believe I have worded it quite neutrally, despite my personal views that there should be two articles.  In the case that we choose not to split this article, we should explain what we are covering.  See above discussions.--160.39.195.88 22:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See below discussions. It is neither precedented nor necessary to have a blanket statement saying what this article will cover when it is well expected that this article will cover both the ROC on mainland and ROC on Taiwan. It is only when we dont cover both that we need to point this out, and as a disambiguation header, not in the text itself. --Jiang 17:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two topics of the article