Talk:Taiwan/Archive 3

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Zhonghua minguo shi yi ge guojia (The Republic of China is a state) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  POLL 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Consists or composed versus administers  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Perspective from the ROC constitution 

message: 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)
thread_title: Protected

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: Altered (see above).  How about that? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:31, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The intro note in italics that the status of the Republic of China is controversial is totally unncessary 

message: 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)
thread_title: Unprotecting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Understood, thanks. --Loren 06:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Replaced by or Expel? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Here we go again 

message: 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)
thread_title: It's not so clear it's again

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: KMT and One Country (China?) Two Systems