Talk:List of disputed or occupied territories

message: Subnational and dependent territories are also non-independent. This title is confusing. Move to [List of disputed or occupied territories]? --Jiang 20:39, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Also, what qualifies a territory to be on this list? There are a few listed on dependent territories that are claimed by more than one country. older≠wiser 18:48, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

message: What is this supposed to mean: Mongolia (claimed by Republic of China on Taiwan)? Nichalp 18:56, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)
:the Republic of China (by means of the National Assembly) has never changed the official borders to disclude Mongolia. But along with the claim over mainland China, this is largely ignored (and I think they recently exchanged representative offices, giving de facto recognition of the independent state of Mongolia's existence). Many maps published in Taiwan still portray outer Mongolia and Tuva as part of China.--Jiang 06:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mongolia

message: It says "Mainland China (People's Republic of China, claimed by Republic of China on Taiwan)", which in order words, means the ROC does not lay claim to the two SARs?--Huaiwei 09:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know. The ROC government has never stated its position explicitly. Before 1997/1999 it acknowledged Hong Kong and Macao were colonies of the UK and Portugal. Throughout its rule on the mainland it had not attempted to takeover these two territories by force. As it has never recognised the PRC government, and had already broken its formal diplomatic ties with the UK and Portugal, it did not recognise the joint declarations between the UK and the PRC over the question of Hong Kong, and between Portugal and the PRC over Macao.</p>Technically we may say Macao, as well as Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (south of Boundary Street) of Hong Kong, which were ceded, are still legally part of the UK and Portugal from ROC's perspective. It's a bit more complicated for the New Territories which was leased. Since the ROC considers itself the successor of Qing, when the lease expired the sovereignty would be restored to the ROC. Nevertheless it's obviously not realistic for the ROC to express such views which is based on technical and legal grounds. Currently the ROC government treats the mainland, and Hong Kong and Macao differently, without mentioning its position over the latter. — Instantnood 10:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. This map  does not even seem to bother showing the two territories being individual territories. Does this possibly indicate that the ROC has not recognised British and Portuguese claims, just as it refuses to recognise Mongolian independence?--Huaiwei 11:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: No clue to tell if the ROC government officially recognised the British and Portuguese territories, but the fact they were not under its administration was acknowledged. — Instantnood 11:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So can we determine exactly what their territorial claim is before including this entry in this page, because this can be a serious error? In addition, should this list include Mongolian territory?--Huaiwei 12:08, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I guess we do have adequate evidence it did acknowledge British and Portuguese existence. It considers Hongkongers and Macanese huáqiáo before 1997/99, for instance. FYI, (Outer) Mongolia is included on the list already, although Tannu Uriankhai is left out. — Instantnood 12:57, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Technically we may say Macao, as well as Hong Kong Island and Kowloon (south of Boundary Street) of Hong Kong, which were ceded, are still legally part of the UK and Portugal from ROC's perspective."  Can you cite that before anyone does try and put it in an article? SchmuckyTheCat 13:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my deduction: the ROC is a successor of Qing, and the ROC has not concluded any treaty with the UK or Portugal to nullify the 19th century treaties. — Instantnood 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please clearly label your deductions as such and do not preface them with "we may say", because we may not say them. SchmuckyTheCat 16:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm not putting it into the article. I was using it on this talk page to explain that the situation of Hong Kong and Macao is not as apparent as mainland China. — Instantnood 16:44, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hence "Mongolian territory", not "Mongolia", coz the boundaries dont tally exactly. Just compare  with any PRC+Mongolia map. It also similarly lays claims to parts of Arunachal Pradesh (currently claimed by the PRC), which this list does not indicate well. Whatever the case, I dont think the Huaqiao thing is definitive at all in this. For how long did it use that term on these people, btw?--Huaiwei 14:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It  may be argued that Arunachal Pradesh, and formerly Mongolia, are/were considered to be part of mainland China, and Tannu Uriankhai is considered part of the Mongolia Region (dìqù), by the ROC government. — Instantnood 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So do we at wikipedia consider Mainland China to include all territory as listed above?--Huaiwei 15:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The only way to present their claims clearly is to create a map. — Instantnood 15:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be even better to find an existing map that can be reproduced.  An existing map that could not be reproduced would be an excellent (even necessary) citation for such as this. SchmuckyTheCat 16:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Hence the existing entry in this article is horribly inaccurate, and a serious violation of NPOV even, if one thinks about its implications. This is as good as us assuming that the Chinese mainland and Mongolia already includes those disputed territories somehow. I would propose we edit it as soon as possible or even remove them totally until something concrete can be done about them. And yes, I am still curious if their claims extends to the two SARs. Anyone has access to the ROC constitution?--Huaiwei 17:35, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mainland China

message: Occupied by whom? Who claims sovereignty over that territory? Where are the sources? The article Gaza Strip does not support the inclusion here. Ejrrjs | What? 08:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Strip is not yet fully sovereign in that Israel retains offshore maritime control and controls its air-space. On the ground, however, the Palestinian Authority has the upper hand over the various minor militant fractions. This is a somewhat similar arrangement to that which exists between the United States and Palau and the Marshall Islands, but unlike Gaza, both of these two states are internationally recognized and maintain the functions attributed to a state. Gaza Strip has never been a sovereign state nor has it ever (in modern times) been integrated into any other state. No other state recognizes it as a de jure separate geo-political entity on its own, since both the United Nations and the Arab League wants to see it coupled with the West Bank as an exclave of a future state. --Big Adamsky 12:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So if it is not occupied nor disputed...perhaps it does not belong here...BTW, the Palestinian Authority is controling Rafah doors. Is it not enough? Ok, let's wait ;-) User:Ejrrjs  says What? 01:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gaza Strip]]