Talk:Taiwan independence

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.

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taiwan independence article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

[edit] no need to sugar coat stuff

There is no need to sugar coat "Japanese colonialzation" by "Japanese nationalism" The nationalism can only be justified when Taiwan officially expresses its will to joint Japan. Xplorer 09:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please start adding Reference

Hi all. This article consist lots of points that require reference. Please starting to do so, especially the sections on the "History." It will give this article a professional and meaningful touch.

Xplorer 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan_independence&action=edit Edit this page Are we allowed to editorialize in this space? If not just erase then...

Not really. The talk namespace is for discussion directly related to improving the article, not a 50 KB essay on the subject. See Wikipedia:Talk page. -- Tim Starling 06:32 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Someone needs to add information about the TI movement under Japanese rule. This is a topic I personally find fascinating, but which no one seems to want to talk about. User:Roadrunner

...the other two being that Taiwan develops an atomic bomb, or if Taiwan comes under "foreign interference." The above sentences is wrong according to the PR China Government's white paper. They say: However, if a grave turn of events occurs leading to the separation of Taiwan from China in any name, or if Taiwan is invaded and occupied by foreign countries, or if the Taiwan authorities refuse, sine die, the peaceful settlement of cross-Straits reunification through negotiations,... So we have to modify this sentence.

According to Five triggers for a Chinese attack on Taiwan, there are five triggers the PRC has made clear either explicitly or implicitly. It adds to the three from the white paper, but it may be more accurate, since not all PRC policy are expressed through white papers.

The first paragraph, before I changed it, was POV, as it assumed Taiwan really is a province of the PRC. But this is exactly what is in dispute; if it weren't, there wouldn't be all this Taiwan sovereignty or independence talk, and US intervention blah blah blah.

There are countless "triggers" which will lead to Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

China can use any excuse as a "trigger" to attck Taiwan, simply because ROC on Taiwan is an illegitimate Chinese government instead of a state.

Pal, you have every right to say your opinions, but if you are trying to convince someone else here, you'd better come up with something more concrete instead of biased gibberish.--G.S.K.Lee 10:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-- Maybe this is important to be added? This statement in a recent news article in Reuters surprised me. Short of quoting the article, it implies that the US is bound legally to defend Taiwan?. The US is bound by which law? This seems to be this one to which Reuters refers? The Taiwan Relations Act Section 2 (b)(2); "It is the policy of the United states to declare that peace and stability in the area are in the political, security, and economic interests of the United States, and are matters of International concern." maybe its just interpretation --Trode 06:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your remark

What I meant was, that ROC is the legitimate Chinese government until 1971. PRC succeeded ROC as the legitimate Chinese government in 1971. According to international law on succeding governments, the rights and duties of the old government transferred to the new government. Therefore ROC/Taiwan is a part of China at this moment and consequently any actions taken by PRC against Taiwan fall within the Chinese domestic jurisdiction.--User:213.148.229.221

A strongly biased Chinese arguement. The old ROC with the Chinese mandate may be succeeded by PRC. However, that ROC with Chinese mandate did not have legal sovereignty of Taiwan according to international law and the treaties. Thus, if anything to be succedded by PRC, it would only Qingmoy and Matsu but absolutely not Taiwan. The current ROC government was given a mandate from Taiwanese people. It is important to take note of the difference between the two states: the old and the new ROC. Moreover, accroding to the laws of War and occupation, even this current ROC is only a regime occupying Taiwan after the WWII and not necessarily have sovereignty over Taiwan. One can get a more neutral presentation of legal arguements from both sides on this regard from the articel legal status of Taiwan.Mababa 01:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it a widely known fact that China, represented by ROC at the time, regained the sovereignty of Taiwan from Japan after WWII? According to international law, the Chinese government DOES have a legitimate right on Taiwan. You can argue it's unfair, or "biased international law", but that's what the fact is.

wow y'all are sum kinda political freaks haha just playin. well da main thin' is during da communist rebellion in china, taiwan wasn't part of china during dat time and when japan lost da war and gave taiwan to ROC and afta da gov. was driven out of mainland, they came to taiwan, so taiwan obviously is still part of ROC. the transfer of state theory is not workable since ROC still exist at da moment, ratha it is more like a boundary change--Freestyle.king 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

- The division of China is caused by the Cold War. If there were no Korean War and victorious Kuningtou Battle on Kinmen by the ROC KMT forces, Taiwan would be considered the ground of continuing Chinese civil war and militarily Taiwan would taken by the PRC and there would be no signing of Mutual Defense Treaty between the ROC and the US (later abolished due to Beijing's pressure on the eve of diplomatic recognition from the US, and replaced with the Taiwan Relations Act by the US Congress with different level of context and content.) It is a fact that ROC is a state and PRC is another state and both of them called China and claim the other as it's own. Both PRC (People's Republic of China )and ROC (Republic of China) have legal dispute against each other regarding territorial boundary on Mainland China/Outer Mongolia/Taiwan/some other small islands across the Taiwan Strait according to PRC and ROC's national constitution and law.

If a sovereign state wants to establish diplomatic relation with PRC the first and formost requirement is to accept that Beijing is the only sovereign state that represents China and Taipei is only it's provincial government, on the other hand Taipei does not have such requirement since recent years. What Beijing wants is to isolate Taipei and ultimately unify Taiwan without force. What Taiwan endeavours is not to be unified by PRC except some very small portion/perentage of population within the ROC that want eventual Chinese unification.

[edit] Multiple definitons

I think the lead section is too confusing. I don't think the statement "to formally declare that the Republic of China government in Taipei is (and has been) sovereign over the lands currently administered by the Republic of China" is really accurate since it's been stressed time and again by Taipei that the ROC is a sovereign state. We should go by the common definition - that Taiwan independence refers to the creation of an independent Republic of Taiwan. The DPP (according to its website at least) still states that the creation of the Republic of Taiwan is a goal. The current stance is only because "there is no consensus" to "declare independence". --Ji ang 06:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I cut out the second definition in the lead, but I'm not sure whether to replace it with "Alternatively, lesser steps, such as declaring that the Republic of China is only sovereign over the areas it controls (as opposed to claiming all of China), are sometimes considered to be declaring Taiwan independence." It really gets murky here. --Ji ang 06:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding 228 incident

To all friends: the 228 incident and its associated White Terror is a historical fact of Taiwan (“the government admits its past mistake and sincerely apologize for it.” Li Teng-Hui, Taiwan President), the denial of which would be akin to Holocaust denial. Neutrally and objectively speaking, discussion on the Taiwanese independence movement is incomplete without some reference to the incident, because the movement consists of its supporters, who are at least in part influenced by the incident. As such, please retain at least one reference to 228 in edits of the article. Random removal of the reference should be seen as vandalism. Thank you very much. Shawnc 12:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Archive of RFD nomination

The Taiwanese nationalism → Taiwanese independence redirect was nominated for deletion at WP:RFD on December 6, 2005. The result of the nomination is that Taiwanese nationalism has been redirected to Taiwan independence to avoid a double redirect. The nomination is archived below in accordance with RFD policy. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 11:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Taiwanese nationalism → Taiwanese independence (effectively a double redirect) -- Taiwanese nationalism is not synonymous with Taiwanese independence. Taiwanese nationalism is the promotion of Taiwan as a nation, while Taiwanese independence is the promotion of Taiwan as a state. You can have a Taiwanese nation (such as by promoting a Taiwanese culture that is separate from Chinese culture) but no independent Republic of Taiwan, just like there is a Tibetan nationality, but no independent Tibet. We can perhaps say that the Democratic Progressive Party, in playing identity politics, favors a Taiwanese nation, but is not promoting Taiwanese independence through the Five Noes.--Jiang 00:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Section(s) removed until valid references are provided (Everyone is welcome to add to this section

However, the fact that the Chinese government gives no voice to the 30% of the people who support a form of independence and even states that it will attack Taiwan "if it drags China's feets" (meaning opposition to the indefinite maintenance of status quo that certain anti-unification elements such as KMT legislator John Chang) shows that if China does take aggressive moves against Taiwan, it will be doing so for the support of only five percent of the 22 million Taiwan residents. Whether a country that is striving for social democracy is willing to risk its crediblity by violating the self-determination rights of the 22 million people of Taiwan is an issue that is worth observing in the coming years. Xplorer 04:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot even know the population of Taiwan, stop writing. It is 24 millions, not 22 --Xplorer 04:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the following from the same user:

However, unofficial surveys conducted in China by international agencies shows that 70% of mainland Chinese people do not even care whether Taiwan should be part of China. Moreover, Chinese government repeatedly fails to recognize that a significant population of Taiwan, not just the minority they claim to, actually supports some form of political separation. The fact that a world power would blindly ignore this reality suggest that its strict adherence to the "One China Principle" is a political card for to hang on to the legitimacy it has in ruling China.

The surveys in questions need to be cited. And the last sentence is blatantly pov, unverifiable speculation. --Jiang 01:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to upload a graph from The Mainland Affairs Council, ROC[[1]]. It is a line chart of polling data on Taiwan public opinion regarding Unification or Independence between Aug. 1999 and Apr. 2006. I understand the interpreation to this chart will be subjective. So, I will point out one of the crossing points and let the readers to form their own opinions. However, I think the source of this data is very important for academic research and I hope wiki users could keep it there. --Chcyang 08:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing it. —Nightst a llion (?) 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to upload the file but it was deleted immediately. Therefore, I would leave the web link here[[2]]. Maybe I will try to insert it into the section "Support" if I can figure out a way to do so.--Chcyang 16:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing Bias and incorrect grammar

There are several parts of this article which are definately biased. Particularly toward the PROC position and the entry is obviously not that of an English Speaker because the grammar was very bad. Anyways, I have removed "about his non-supporting toward's Taiwan independence, aligning with the Chinese President's interest," because the US has a One-China policty, but the US policy does not align with the interests of the Chinese president, because the US supports a free and democratic Taiwan, if not independent from China. I replaced that sentence with a neutral-standpoint which doesn't state alignment of interests with US policy, rather, the simple fact that officialy the US supports a single, unified China, at the moment, formalized peacefully and no-coercively. Infinitelink 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Added NPOV warning tag, this article is full of bias towards the PRC. Shaun Eccles-Smith 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

Can you elaborate (beyond what Infinitelink has already corrected for)?--Jiang 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Criticism Section?

Why is there no criticism section to discuss the POV of those who oppose TI? It does not neccessarily have to contain only those POVs from the CCP, but also those from the KMT or third party observers. Here's an article from a former professor of mine we could use, and I happen to agree with his views on this issue: Taiwan Voters Slow Independence Push--Lssah 88 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, there would have to be a similar section for Chinese reunification. Given that there isn't (and that it would probably lead to many disputes), perhaps it's best if actually we keep the same format for both pages. John Smith's 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, I think getting an article from the "Calgary Herald" is a bit daft just because he's an ex-prof of yours. There are plenty of commentaries by larger newspapers/organisations. John Smith's 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

//Can someone add an "Arguments for and against" section? I've been trying to get TIers (haha, Taiwanese Independence or Tibetan Independence? Texas Independence anyone?) to explain their point of view, but it always tended to degenerate into a flamefest. :( 195.225.107.17 15:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ...

I deleted the "Taiwan Province" under the picture under "Support", because Taiwan Province doesn't exist.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerrypp772000 (talk • contribs) .

It does as an administrative division under the Republic of China. License plates in Taiwan often carry the designation for "Taiwan Province" (台灣省).--Jiang 00:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It also exists under the People's Republic of China system. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites) 00:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move

I reverted the move to "Taiwan independence". This not just a movement; it is a concept with different interpretations. One of these interpretations is that Taiwan independence already exists and is not something that needs to be attained.

Besides, "use common names" calls for using "Taiwan independence" as the article title over "Taiwan independence movement"--Jiang 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/i/Talk%7ETaiwan_independence_8b13.html"

	This article is part of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance for this Project's importance scale.