Talk:History of the Republic of China

message: I have heard that during the time when the Communists occupied most of the northern region of China and the KMT most of the south, the two sides briefly considered partitioning the country as was (UTC)
"On September 27, 1928 the US recognized the Republic of China". Where can I put this statement? Otherwise, I will have to remove the Selected Anniversary event. Thank you, Ancheta Wis 00:24, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: At Foreign_relations_of_Taiwan? Or possible the final paragraph of History_of_Republican_China#Chiang_consolidates_power...if there's more info about general  international recognition. --Jiang 01:00, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellaneous

message: Is the RoC really deservant of its own episode? for a few decades?
The time frame for this should be part of the Qing Dynasty, as it is just a fallout of yet another dead empire. --JinFX
Ok, first of all, the history of the Republic of China is what connects the Qing Dynasty and the People's Republic, and not part of either, therefore it would be incorrect to insert its entire contents to the Qing Dynasty article. You should note the Qing Dynasty ended in 1912 with Puyi's abdication. Furthermore, on Taiwan the "history of the Republic of China" can be interpreted as history from 1911 to the present. Colipon+(T) 05:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynasty??? 

message: Please do not make destructive edits.  If you wish to split the articles in a different way other than the most obvious way, then state your reasons and do so.  But a revert puts the articles in an even worse state that is really difficult to read.  If you have something better in mind, everyone would benefit from it, and you should implement it, instead of just reverting to something even worse.--218.175.178.18 10:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't do anything until you have the consensus to do so. What dont you understand about wikipedia:summary style? Is there something I need to explain? The "most obvious way" is not the best way, or the way promoted by existing wikipedia convention or the style guide. --Jiang 18:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Length 

message: I think it's best to divide the ROC article into eras like PRC because it really is confusing to tie ROC with Taiwan. Here is just my suggestion of how to divide ROC into eras (since the history is way too long to be on one page). Hope someone else with better knowledge of Chinese history can divide the eras along better dates.
(ROC on China)
* 1912 - 1925:
:ROC history on mainland China as the revolution against the Qing Empire and establishment of a republic. Maybe ending with Sun Yat-sen's death as he was the founder of modern China (both PRC and ROC recognize him as such)
* 1925 - 1949:
:Chiang Kai-shek, WWII and the loss of mainland China.
(ROC on Taiwan)
* 1949 - 1971:
:Authoritarian rule over the island of Taiwan, beginning of martial law (1948-1987) and establishment of PRC (1949) on the mainland raising the problem over two Chinas.
* 1971 - 1987:
: USA switches diplomacy to Beijing which results in the ROC losing the UNSC seat to PRC. Lifting of martial law on Taiwan.
* 1987 - present:
:Lee Teng-hui era, reforms and Taiwan independence movement vs. reunification question.
Note: ROC 1912-2006 (almost half century longer than PRC) vs. PRC 1949-2006. The point is ROC has a much longer history than PRC, so like PRC it should have more than one article page to cover the history. Next point is ROC is not Taiwan but administers the island, it's confusing to write ROC (Taiwan) as it implies they are one and the same (Taipei City actually is not part of Taiwan according to ROC rule)— Nrtm81 09:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple eras 

message: This section is way out of place, and clearly should be deleted, or moved somewhere else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klortho (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats exactly what i was thinking.The US military presence in China didnt change in any way chinese republic history and its of more interest to the US than to this article.Besides Uk and japanese presence was much MUCh larger that the US.If the section isnt moved ill delete the content.--Andres rojas22 20:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "The United States Military ..." section doing here? 

message: I find this hard to understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klortho (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No mention of the Long March? 

message: I was suprised to see this book listed under references. In fact, its the only book listed, which is also a problem. Jung Chang is not a historian, so this is not a good reference source. Unless someone give a good argument why we should keep it, I'll remove it. I hope others can find better references from qualified historians. Also, its unclear what it is exactly referencing.Giovanni33 01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wild Swans as reference?

message: Did this guy steal from Wiki or did Wiki steal from this guy?  [specificallly regarding the new culture movement, it's almost word for word]
http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/republican.html
It's a uni, so I'm hoping they didn't take from Wiki, but they seem to be a bit more complete... any thoughts?
Retailmonica 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  References? 

message: Someone added a succession box that has changed a few times, apparently as editors attempted to get an NPOV.  However, I don't think we've reached NPOV.  In fact I'm not sure there is an NPOV for this.  It depends of course, on what "succession" means in this context.  For a country where the national boundaries have remained nearly constant, and the successive governments have governed little else, or at least began and ended with the same territory, succession is easy to understand.  The succession of government in Japan has little dispute. But the ROC started in one place, and now governs a different place.  The territory common to the 1912 ROC and the 2007 ROC is only a tiny portion of either.  If we say the PRC is the successor to the ROC, then aren't we saying that ROC is limited to mainland China?  Shouldn't ROC be ended in 1949?  On the other hand, if we grant that ROC now includes Taiwan, shouldn't we then say that ROC is the successor not just of the Qing, but also of Japan?  Should the Japan page have ROC as a successor (concurrent)?  For guidance, I went looking for uses of succession boxes in other places that might be similar.  It seems these boxes are not the norm.  Do we need to have one on this page? Given the history of the ROC, "succession" doesn't really apply, so perhaps we should get rid of the box.Readin 18:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you bring up good points. The succession IMO should read something like Qing->ROC->PRC (on mainland). Having two boxes (ROC(China) and ROC(Taiwan)) would be POVing the notion that the regimes are somehow not fully Chinese. Just as the Liao dynasty controlled only part of northern China even at its height, and it is listed alongside the other regimes of its day, the PRC/ROC mess should be set up the same way IMHO. To refuse to list the PRC, or alternatively to list the ROC as "ended" in 1949 would be POV-pushing the PRC and hard-line ROC POVs. The notion that the ROC somehow succeeded Japan is typically ignored, because the ROC was never considered a Japanese government, nor any Japanese government ever considered a Chinese one.Ngchen 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, de facto the ROC is part of China for the purposes of Chinese history. I assume you're talking about the Chinese history box? But Japan was and is not. I would have no objection to noting (I'd be surprised if it weren't already noted) the fact that Taiwan was controlled by Japan 1895-1945 in the history of Taiwan and timeline of Taiwan history articles. With regard to Chinese history, the ROC is part of that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngchen (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Question:  Should the succession box go on this page or on the main ROC page?  When I created the original succession box on this page, I followed the History of China sidebar and linked from Qing Dynasty to this history page; however, I've looked at former state boxes (Roman Empire, Inca Empire, etc.) and the last link always ends up at the current government, and not a "history of" page.  Is this the correct place to link on basis of succession?  If the vote is for the main ROC page, then how would we explain the succession of PRC from ROC there as well?  Note that the main ROC page does not have the flags and arrows on the top of the states box that could link it to the PRC as a potential successor.  Thoughts? -- Pryaltonian (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession box 

message: I yanked this paragraph
Vice president Vincent Siew met on April 12 2008 Chinese President Hu Jintao. This historic meeting made Siew the highest-ranking elected figure to come face-to-face with a Chinese leader since the two sides split amid the Chinese Civil War in 1949. The Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou, winner of the Republic of China presidential election, 2008, intented to improve economic relations with China and moved toward a resolution of their long-standing political deadlock. Ma wants to sign a peace treaty with China but won't discuss unification during his presidency.
because it doesn't seem to be of enough significance to be included in this article.  If all events of similar significance were included for the entire history of the ROC, the article would be very long indeed.  But the yanked paragraph is not insignificant either.  Perhaps it belongs in an aritcle on relations between the ROC and PRC, or perhaps even better an article on the history of those relations.  However, if it does get included somewhere, it needs some corrections as shown below.
Vice president-elect Vincent Siew met on April 12 2008 Chinese President Hu Jintao. When Siew takes office he will become the  highest-ranking elected figure to have come face-to-face with a Chinese leader since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949. The Taiwanese president-elect Ma Ying-jeou, winner of the Republic of China presidential election, 2008, promised to improve economic relations with China and move toward a resolution of their long-standing political deadlock. Ma wants to sign a peace treaty with China but has promised not to discuss unification during his presidency.
The inaccuracies and POVs that needed correcting included:
*Siew was not yet Vice-President when he made the trip, so he was not yet high ranking and he should have been labeled "Vice-President-elect", not "Vice-President".
*Ma was not yet President when the trip was made, so  he should have been labeled "President-elect", not "President".
*It is unclear what is meant by "two sides split amid Civil War". Are the sides PRC and ROC? Mainland China and Taiwan?  CPC and KMT?
*The writer claimed to be able to see into Ma's mind and treated many of Ma's campaign promises presented either as what Ma "intended" to do rather than what campaign promises by politicians are - simply promises that may or may not be followed up.  Worse, some of th promises were presented accomplishments that have already occurred.
Readin (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if the paragraph in question was copied from cnn.com, then it needs to go as a copyright violation. It certainly can be rewritten. Labeling Ma and Siew the president-elect and VP-elect is correct. For the POV mess, I would say that leaving it as "two sides" of the Chinese Civil War would be OK. There is no need to go into the detailed mess here.Ngchen (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was copied from CNN?  That's pretty sad to think that a paragraph written by a professional journalist for CNN and reviewed by a professional editor isn't up to the standards of a bunch of amateurs on Wikipedia.Readin (talk) 05:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where should this go? 

message: I noticed a discrepancy between this article and the "Chinese Civil War" article regarding the abbreviation for the Chinese Communist Party. This article uses CCP and the other one uses CPC. I'm a beginner at Wikipedia so I don't really have the courage to change articles yet. I also don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to know which one is more correct.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.224.79.113 (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCP vs. CPC 

message: It's basically the same thing as Republican China (28-49), both on the mainland, in most common usage. Blueshirts 08:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copied from Talk:Nationalist China after malformed merge

message: The section, sourced to flickr and tibet.net, looks questionable. Anyone know whether it is a hoax? I would be surprised if there wasn't more contrversy on the island if it were true. Ngchen (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hoax. Thanks for pointing it out. I missed it earlier.--pyl (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This reply might be a bit late, but the modern ROC does use the Roman salute, which may be confused for a Hitler salute. The ROC adopted the Roman salute from Germany in the 1930s, and is still used today when members of cabinet and the President of the ROC is sworn in (you can search around on Google for photographs of Chen Shui-bian and Ma Ying-jeou, in additions to government employees, being sworn in). Compare to the Bellamy salute being formally used until the 1940s in the United States to pledge allegiance to the flag. --benlisquareT•C•E 16:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hitler Salute]]? 

message: The image for the "Nationalists' retreat to Taipei" is a bit strange.  The the map shows current PRC claims in white, Mongolia in grey, and nothing else.  This makes no sense.  The article is about the ROC. The map should either show the ROC as claimed, or the ROC as it was.  As claimed, Mongolia is should be in white also.  As the ROC actually was at that time, very little should be in white.  As a historical map, the map should show Mongolia in white as it was part of the claimed ROC (and continues to be so). Readin (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ROC did not claim Outer Mongolia between 1946 and 1953. --Shibo77 (talk) 01:34, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationalists' retreat to Taipei image 

message: Sorry to undo your work Kauffner, but I have removed the infobox to this talk page due to numerous problems associated with it. 
First, the infobox is designed as an application of Wikipedia:WikiProject Former countries, with "history" "geography" etc. as sections, while this article is designed as a general historical overview of the polity. General history overview articles do not use an infobox, e.g. History of South Korea. As I explained in Talk:Republic of China (1912-1949), a Former countries template spanning the years 1912-1949 is misleading and inaccurate, let alone 1912-1991. The nature of the complete regime change in the Northern Expedition means that separate Former countries articles for the Beiyang Government and Nationalist Government are necessary. Unlike the application of WikiProject Countries, which is designed as a snapshot of the present, WikiProject Former countries is designed to depict a specific political entity over a period of time, not in the year 1949 or 1991 only. It would be misleading to leave out pre-1928 information, and unfeasible within the confines of space to conclude it. Thus, any fundamental changes in the state entity require the establishment of separate articles. Former countries templates are applied at Provisional Government of the Republic of China, Beiyang Government, and Nationalist Government. Those should be daughter articles of this article, which should not apply the template.
Second, this infobox is plagued by inaccuracies. (1) The Republic of China cannot objectively be said to have been "Exiled". It exercises sovereignty over some territory it claims. (2) Taipei has never be declared a "capital-in-exile". It has been declared the "provisional capital" (with "provisional" being dropped in the past decade). (3) The end date of 1991 is inappropriate, and not assigned by reliable sources. It either existed until 1949 (according to the PRC) or continues to exist; why 1991? (4) The Legislature was not "dissolved" in 1991. Representatives elected in 1948 were merely forced to retire by the end of that year (not the date given) and the Taiwan-elected representatives continued to serve until the term was over in 1992. In any event, dissolution of parliament and new election does not end a regime. (5) I'm not sure "U.N. withdraws recognition" would be relevant in an infobox. The events/dates there are for the regime is established and abolished. (6) Dates given to Yuan Shikai's and Chiang Kai-shek's presidencies are wrong. (7) The infobox effectively ignored the Beiyang period in capital, anthem, leaders, flag, and emblem. The Qing abdication in February 1912 would certainly be an important date; and the fact that the capital was not in Nanjing until 1927.--Jiang (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Country infobox 

message: I propose that Republic of China (1912-1949) be merged into History of the Republic of China. Especially problematic is that JohnBlackburne KEPT REVERTING and insisting the ROC(1912-1949) "WAS" a different state than the one on Taiwan now. His arguments are POV for PR China.  The content in the Republic of China (1912-1949) article can easily be explained in the context of History of the Republic of China. What do you guys think? Mistakefinder (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing merge proposal given that stale (for almost 2 years) with lack of consensus; not also the reverse of a previous merge attempt due to lack of consensus (see edits around 11:54, 24 February 2017‎). Template removed from the other page some time ago. Klbrain (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Now links to Second Revolution (China) have a standalone article to point to rather than a section in the middle of a longer article. Looking for feedback regarding content and tone. --Prisencolin (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article [[Second Revolution (Republic of China)]] 

message: has been pushing the idea that the history of the ROC is divided into the First, Second, Third and Fourth Republics of China, and that therefore the 1949–1991 period, as the "Third Republic", should have an  here (largely copied from the  at Taiwan, to which Republic of China redirects). It seems that this idea does not appear in the literature, and constitutes original synthesis. Kanguole 23:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Chinese sources if that is correct or not. The 1949 to 1991 period is actually but closely accurate: ROC began to use Taiwan as the main base of government from 7 December 1949 which would mean unofficially “Taiwan under Chinese nationalist rule” until the major heavy constitutional reform from 1 May 1991, meaning the original constitution is amended and the National Assembly hasn’t existed since 2005 while the Control Yuan hasn’t had a role of the parliamentary chamber since 1993. Silver yuan was the de jure currency of the ROC. The Second Syrian Republic had existed from 1950 to 1963, the First Republic of Armenia from 1918 to 1920 and the First Republic of Korea from 1948 to 1960, so why not debate that? (The infobox was copied from the Nationalist government) —184.146.39.97 (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is about the "History of the Republic of China", not Syria, Armenia or Korea. How about you find some sources for this "Third Republic" before trying to force it in. Kanguole 22:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a proposition User:Kanguole: the infobox you deleted should end up in its own articles: Republic of China (1949–1991) or History of the Republic of China (1949–present) which you might oppose the idea. However, some information of the removed infobox might end up on the Taiwan article. -184.146.39.97 (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: "Republic of China (1949–1991)" would be based on your idea of a "Third Republic of China", i.e. that ROC (1949–1991) is a former country, which it seems is not found in the literature.  If "History of the Republic of China (1949–present)" were created, it would be subarticle of the relevant country article, namely Taiwan, and would not merit an , which belongs in the country article (where it is already present, and much the same as your infobox). Kanguole 22:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First, Second, Third and Fourth Republic of China?