Talk:Declaration of independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Taiwan 2 Lists 3 MIxed up article 4 South Africa 5 What about the CSA

[edit] Taiwan

The position of supporters of Taiwan independence is that Taiwan has always been independent of the PRC. Most supporters of Taiwan only grudgingly acknowledge the existence of the Republic of China.

--- Roadrunner

That statement implies that Taiwan is an independent and sovereign state and is therefore not NPOV. They only say what they do because they equate the ROC with "Taiwan" and the ROC is an independent and sovereign state. As it is worded now, it is too misleading. --Jiang 03:43, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

My statement is that supporters wan independence believe X. X is POV. Saying Y believes X is not POV. My problem with what you said was that it Bold text'Bold text''''Poop head!!!'isn't want supporters of Taiwan independence believe. I happen to think that most supporters of TI accept the idea of the Republic of China only out of political convenience, and that Chen Shui-Bian would junk the ROC in a second if he could get away with it.

I added the position of supporters of Chinese unification to add balance.

--Roadrunner

I read an interview on cnn.com a couple years ago in which Chen Shui-bian said something in the lines of "Taiwan is an independent and sovereign country whose official name is the Republic of China, which has been in continued existence since 1912." Indeed, if you go on gov't websites, you'll see comparison charts in which official name of China=PRC and official name of Taiwan=ROC. If they can use that term, why can't we? (Even if it is for "political conveinience".)

Keep in mind that I'm extremely anti-Taiwan independence, and in explain what supporters of TI believe, I don't necessarily believe it myself (and I don't). My purpose is to explain why supporters of Taiwan independence on Taiwan no longer think that a declaration of independence is necessary. Most of them, including Chen, don't care about ROC, and ROC Independence is only means by which they can achieve Taiwan independence.

The notion that ROC is the official name of Taiwan is very new (i.e. you won't see it pre-Lee Tenghui), and moves the situation very much toward Taiwan independence.

This statement is a little murky: "Supporters of Chinese reunification on Taiwan also see no point in a declaration of independence in that they argue that the People's Republic of China has never administered Taiwan and that Taiwan is and should be part of a greater entity of China."

Again, this statement implies that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent state, which reunifications dont believe in.

You can reword that a bit. Keep mind though the reunificationists on Taiwan have the play the same sort of games that TI supporters have to play. I've heard speeches by Soong Chuyu that sound very much like what Chen says. Chen has to talk about ROC. Soong has to talk about Taiwan sovereignty and ROC independence.

Don't they argue that Taiwan independence would be a needless name change, and would do nothing to improve the status quo?

The argument would be that a declaration of independence is not possible right now and would lead to an invasion which no one in Taiwan wants. But the overall strategy is to make ROC=Taiwan, and then gradually get rid of ROC.

One thing that you have been keep in mind in politics is who your adversaries are and what they want. Ultimately, most TI supporters want peace and we all share a single small planet, and so all of us have to compromise and be sort of nice and civil to each other. At the same time, one has to be clear that want I want is very different from what TI supporters want, and while everyone is subscribed to a compromise and truce that defers a lot of the controversial topics, we don't see the world the same way, and we don't want the same things.

--Jiang 03:56, 30 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is there a general consensus that the new state would be titled Republic of Taiwan? --Jiang

Yes, but I changed the statement from ROT to Taiwan, because it's pretty clear that a formal declaration of ROC independence would also likely trigger some pretty strong action from the PRC. -- Roadrunner

---

[edit] Lists

Is there a possibility of having a separate article like, Lists of Declarations of Independence? What qualifies DoIs to be included in the list of example DoIs? Probably half the nations on Earth have DoIs, almost all of which are interesting to read. --seav 11:54, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] MIxed up article

Who mixed up two different legal concepts??? A Unilateral Declaration of Independence (always capitalised) and often written as UDI, is an extra-legal declaration of independence that never becomes a reality because it is not accepted by the international community.

Examples:

• Rhodesia in the mid 1960s
• the Irish Republic in 1919

A Declaration of Independence is a legal declaration that may be extra-legal and accepted subsequently or which may be declared in full conformity with international law and accepted immediately (which is why it is different and so belongs on a different page!).

They are two different things with different legal meanings, different procedural modalities and different legal outcomes. What the heck are the two doing merged in this page? (And what the heck is independence doing lowercased? A Declaration of Independence is capitalised because it refers to a formal document whereas when written as an independence declaration it is lowercased, because one refers to a specific legal document by name, one refers generically to the process. More of this nutty lowercasing of things that are formally uppercased, like a when someone tried to lowercase Letter of Credence even though it is uppercased when referring to the formal name of a legal document, lowercased when written generically of as credentials. Yet more nutty semi-literary on wikipedia. When people edit pages about legal and constitutional topics it would help if they actually knew what they are doing!!!

So now all the UDI pages on wikipedia point to the wrong page, not to mention the wrong facts, and a definition that is wrong for a UDI and a DI!!! FearÉIREANN 01:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that the Declaration of Arbroath can be called a UDI or indeed a Declaration of Independence. Scotland had regained its independence by 1314, with the decisive victory at Bannockburn in that year. The Declaration of Arbroath, which was written some six years later, simply sought papal recognition of that independence - it did not "declare" it in the usual sense of a declaration of independence, of announcing a severance: it neither recognised that Scotland had ever de jure been anything other than independent of England, nor proclaimed a severance from England (which a UDI would have involved). That is not at all to doubt its significance as a document, particularly as an exceptionally early assertion of a legal right to depose a King (the Scottish, not the English, monarch). It could be described as "akin" or "similar" to a declaration of independence, not least as it affirms that independence and also sets out many of the claims and grievances of the nation; but it is not the same thing.139.149.1.203 11:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] South Africa

South Africa free from the Westminister in 1996? South Africa gained full independence as a republic in 1961 and left the commonwealth, but was that independence and constitution never recognized by the UK? —This unsigned comment was added by 81.233.220.208 (talk • contribs) 12:36, August 17, 2005.

[edit] What about the CSA

Wasn't the the CSA's declaration of independence unilateral as well? Cameron Nedland —This unsigned comment was added by 66.205.108.8 (talk • contribs) 20:33, September 17, 2005.