Talk:Free Area 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. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
Free Area of the Republic of China is within the scope 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. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
[edit] ROC vs Taiwain, revert explanation
I'm going to revert this change [1]. It change Taiwan to ROC, which doesn't make sense in this context. The ROC, which legally has never disclaimed sovereignty over the mainland, also presumes to maintain sovereignty over HK and MO - as they would if they were the successors to the Qing instead of the PRC. Thus, the law mentioned here is about people and goods moving between the "Taiwan Area" and the "Hong Kong Area" or "Macau Area" which are all part of the ROC (in the nebulous way the ROC has any land claims). It's not about moving goods and people between the ROC and the Hong Kong area if the Hong Kong Area is presumed part of the ROC. SchmuckyTheCat 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
- It's always much more complicated that many may have thought. The ROC is legally a successor of Qing, and inherited the claim to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and many other territories ceded and leased to other sovereign states. Yet the ROC had never actively protest against Japanese control over Taiwan (including the Pescadores), until the Yalta Conference (or perhaps a bit earlier). They did not actively request to take over Hong Kong and Macao, though they surely could do so. Nevertheless they did resume control of Weihaiwei and Kwang-Chou-Wan. It's never clear if there's any evidence showing the ROC has evered lay a claim over Hong Kong and Macao. — Instantnood 18:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- (I'm agreeing with you but just adding two cents). They were in power when they resumed control of those two places. The acts governing HK and MO from Taiwan are interesting to read. They aren't making a territorial claim, but it's obvious (just by the existance of those acts) that the ROC think they have a right to make one. I never see or hear about old KMT stalwarts who still want to make a claim to the mainland, but the closed-door legislative rangling with some of the very old yuan members must be interesting when making acts like these. SchmuckyTheCat 19:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- True indeed. The laws have to be carefully worded, or else those guys would be in trouble. — Instantnood 21:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Carefully worded to be nebulous and sloppy, on purpose! :) - SchmuckyTheCat 21:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- True indeed. The laws have to be carefully worded, or else those guys would be in trouble. — Instantnood 21:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- (I'm agreeing with you but just adding two cents). They were in power when they resumed control of those two places. The acts governing HK and MO from Taiwan are interesting to read. They aren't making a territorial claim, but it's obvious (just by the existance of those acts) that the ROC think they have a right to make one. I never see or hear about old KMT stalwarts who still want to make a claim to the mainland, but the closed-door legislative rangling with some of the very old yuan members must be interesting when making acts like these. SchmuckyTheCat 19:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Greater Taiwan
It should not be merged into this article. Although they mean about the same thing, they are used differently. The pro-independent people would use Greater Taiwan instead of this term, that is why there are two articles.--68.98.154.196 15:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
User:Jiang proposed merge of Free China (Second Sino-Japanese War):
- Oppose --- Just because they have the same name, doesn't mean they should be on the same page, seeing as they're two different concepts relating to two different historical periods. That's why we have the whole concept of "disambiguation pages". In general, "Free China" in the eight years' war was equivalent to "territories controlled by the Nationalists (in Chongqing) OR the Communists". Links to Free China (Second Sino-Japanese War) would be, e.g. discussions of people "escaping to Free China", discussion of the "Chongqing government", etc. It would just generate more confusion to cram it onto a page which talks about territory of China controlled by the Nationalists from Taipei and not the Communists. cab 01:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
