Talk:History of the Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

[edit] Dynasty???

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)

ROC is not what connects the Manchurian Dynasty to the Communist, but rather the government of China since the fall of the Manchurians but now with their territory limited to Taiwan. Right now the People's Republic of China and ROC is like North and South Korea, just that for China right now the territory is porportionally unbalanced.

Go read some more. The Republic of China was founded by Sun Yat-sen in 1911, not by Chiang Kai-shek in 1949. The history of the Republic of China is therefore 1911-1949 on the mainland and 1911-present on Taiwan. Colipon+(T) 06:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split this article in two?

===>This is 35 kbytes Maybe we should split this into two articles: one on the ROC in the mainland, and one on the ROC on Taiwan. Also, the PRC article spreads over four pages, so an ROC one that is half that isn't unreasonable. Justin (koavf) 14:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I tend to dislike splitting articles into multiple parts; it causes a reader to lose context. Plus, it's not so large as to be unmanagable as one part. --Nlu 21:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

using wikipedia:summary style would be more helpful than splitting. --Ji ang 22:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the sleep in two article. The problematic of each one is really not the same :

In China (1911-1949) that was a clear war time, with battles as the main events, and with the aim to make a reunification
In Taiwan (1945-today), really more peacefull, with politic as the main events, with the aim to put un strong chinese gouvernement, build a strong economy, then the democratisation.

I think the french version already did this split Yug (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

35 kb is not very long comparing to many other well-written articles. Sections with main articles can be trimmed to reduce the size of the article (and main articles can be created to those without). — Insta ntnood 14:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is now way too long. It's 51 kb!! I'm splitting it in two with links and introductory info to connect the two. In principle you could move info to main articles, but I think that'll have to wait until there's even more information. Right now, it's just right for a two article split. Lest anyone get all political, what wikipedia does for purposes of ease of access of information has no impact on what the ROC gov't decides to do with regard to independence/reunification =).--218.175.182.6 17:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

simply splitting articles halfway is not how we deal with long pages. We use summary style - see Wikipedia:How to break up a page. Besides, an article on the "Republic of China on Taiwan" will be overly redundant with the latter half of History of Taiwan, while the two articles could possibly share subarticles. --Jiang 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You just basically said that the Republic of China on Taiwan = Taiwan. That would be a case separate from the immediate issue at hand, which is that the article is too long. If there's overlap, it overlaps regardless if there's one article or two articles. And looking at the Taiwan and ROC articles, there's overlap there too. You do not say what should be done about that, so even as a side issue, I don't understand what you're saying.

Regarding your point on summary style--summary style is just that--a style that is commonly used in Wikipedia but not policy and not always used. Breaking this article in two is exactly what's been done in other language wikipedias.

You also made a foolish straw-man argument. It isn't "simply splitting halfway" and you know it. In this case, there's a very natural break, in the history and in the way people talk about these terms. Republican China is an accepted academic term of the English language, and if someone wrote that article first, we would have two articles now instead of one. Now that there is so much content, it makes sense to separate the two articles.--218.175.178.18 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of China on Taiwan is an era in Taiwanese history, is it not?

What conventions other languages follow does not matter here. Other languages have decided to make the China, which is linked by hundreds of articles, into a disambiguation page. Do you want to do that too? What matters here is consensus. Now please explain to me how summary style is not suitable here.

The natural break exists only to separate sections, each of which should contain their own subarticles. This is because it is beneficial to have an article entitled "History of the Republic of China". Disambiguation pages exists when two separate meanings exist. People dont "History of the Republic of China" to have two separate meanings if they use the phrase at all--Jiang 18:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article covers enough about the history of the ROC. History after the Constitutional Protection War is cursory at best, with American involvement in China as a glaring eyesore. Economic development in Taiwan is way too short and uninformative. BlueShirts 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and want to recognize your many contributions to the history of the ROC. And this is all the more reason to split into manageable articles. If there's so much content, there needs to be more articles, not clumsily keeping in one unreadable mess. Think about it here, you spend all that time adding content, only for readers to skim right through because it's become totally unpresentable. Big waste eh?--218.175.178.18 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I'd like to make it as long as needed and then worry about presentation. BlueShirts 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Length

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)

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)

[edit] external links?

it would be great to have some external lists regarding the history of the republic of china, just for reference.

[edit] Multiple eras

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 - 1945:

Chiang Kai-shek, WWII and the loss of mainland China.

(ROC on Taiwan)

1945 - 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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_the_Republic_of_China_3fcd.html"

Categories: Unassessed China-related articles | Unknown-importance China-related articles | Wikipedia CD Selection