Talk:Republic of China/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Not a state

I realize there is an enormous amount of debate about what the Republic of China actually 'is', but one thing it is not, is a state. Therefore "The Republic of China... is a state in East Asia" is inaccurate and misleading. I agree that it's more than just a government, but that's not reason enough to call it a state.

How is it not a state? If you're talking about the lack of international recognition, there are still some lousy small countries and the Vatican maintaining diplomatic ties with the ROC. Please elaborate. BlueShirts 20:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
My point is that de facto statehood is not de jure statehood. To me, the critical point is that both the ROC and PRC agree that there is only one Chinese state. In that sense, it's more like a government in exile. Using the language of Stephen Krasner, the ROC has 'negative' Westphalian sovereignty, but critically lacks 'positive' international legal sovereignty. Therefore, it's not a state. RSammy 00:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
It obviously has considerable de facto status as a state -- as you say -- and a degree of recognition as such, notwithstanding that its own legal claim may have differed from the facts on the ground, never mind everyone else's. It may have an element of the character of a government-largely-but-not-wholly-in-exile, that itself would only partially be true. You could make a similar argument about the Republic of Ireland prior to its modification of its claim to N.I. (similar in kind, obviously differing greatly in degree), which no-one would have described in such terms. "State" might be questionable, "not a state" would be much more so. Nothing better suggests itself that'd be concise enough for the intro, unless possibly simply "de facto state". Alai 00:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well if we can agree that neither "state" nor "not a state" are entirely accurate, perhaps we can agree to change the intro to "The Republic of China ... exercises elements of de facto statehood, but is not regarded as a state in the full sense of the term." ... Or something far less wordy to the same effect. RSammy 20:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The Republic of China on Taiwan is a state. You may say it isn't because you're listening to the propoganda of the Communist regime in Beijing. The Republic of China succeeded the Ching Dynasty. Therefore, it replaced it as the sole and legitimate government of all of China. The "People's Republic of China" came afterwards and they only established control of the Chinese Mainland, not all of China. Therfore, the PRC never officially defeated the ROC, so it cannot replace it. The ROC is still the sole and legitimate government of all of China (although Chen Shui-bian doesn't like saying that), while the PRC is just a rebel state. The ROC is 100% a state. (Chiang Kai-shek 03:10, 21 May 2006 (UTC))

A de facto state is still a state, even if not formally recognized as such. I see no reason not to call de facto state a state so long as the de facto status is mentioned, which it is in this article. -Loren 02:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

CSB doesn't not like saying it. He flat out says both Taiwan and China are two different countries. Read the news.

It seemed a decision had almost been made by RSammy, that Taiwan's statehood should be qualified as being de facto. The comment regarding 'propaganda' seems unencyclopoedic; A view needs to be given that represents both sides of the argument. Technically statehood requires more than just the de facto acceptance of it, or saying that it is one - people may not like the fact that Taiwan isn't technically a state, but it is fact - it had already been established that de facto and de jure statehood are not the same.
Also, given that the fact that it is not legally a state is central to most discussion on Taiwan; (hence the need to qualify diplomatic ties, embassies, etc, all as being de facto also) this deserves and needs to mentioned from the outset of the article. Wikipedia is not short of space, after all, and adding this qualification about their statehood would make the article more accurate. Mattimeus 09:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Saying that the Republic of China is not a state because the PRC forces most people to say so could be considered as a bandwagon fallacy. That is, people saying that x is not y under pressure does not necessarily imply that x is not y. The Montevideo Convention addresses the potential of a bandwagon fallacy. The Republic of China is more than a government: it has its tax-paying citizens who participate in elections and travel to everywhere in the world (except China) under the Republic of China passport and it has territories where it governs under its flag. The assumption that China was always one Chinese state for 2000 years can be misleading, especially when the Chinese word for state is guo (國) Allentchang 22:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of China is de jure and defacto a state. How is it not dejure. It is the sole and legitimate governing authority of all of China. What happened was, the Communist uprising. Then it was forced to hold onto Fukien and Taiwan provinces, until the rest of China can be re-conquered. "Taiwan" is NOT a state. That is correct. The state is the Republic of China. Why doesn't anyone understand that? (Chiang Kai-shek 00:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

It sure looks like a state, even under Krasner's approach. You want to go there, you have to get a visa from the Taiwanese authorities, not the Chinese. You commit a crime in another country and flee to Taiwan, the first state's justice ministry extradicts your behind through a Mutual Legal Assistance "Agreement" (agreed, not called a "Treaty," but otherwise legally identical to one) signed with the Taiwanese authorities. Further, these "rights" (the power to police within the borders, the power to negotiate agreements) are recognized by other states, even if they do engage in linguistic gymnastics to avoid offending China. To argue that Krasner's sovereignty concepts exclude Taiwan is to suggest that the good professor values linguistic form over political substance. Or, put it this way: in the 1960s, before the UN accepted China on the Security Council and Taiwan left the organization, was the People's Republic of China not a state? If Taiwan is not a state today, then you would have to argue that the PRC was not a state in the 1960s. And that's plainly ridiculous. Epstein's Mother 05:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


PRC never owned Taiwan for a split second. The people who lost the war against communism in their hojme country of China decided to escape to Taiwan, where the people welcomed them after decades under Japanese rule. However, the Chinese rebels decided to make themselves powerful and control the government. They were rebels. Think about a present day situation: the Chinese at the top of the government of China today have set up a law to benefit themselves, that is, part of all the taxes or whatever of the Taiwanese people are siphoned into the Chinese people's. How unfair and unrighteous is that!!! Shuttlecockfc

People in Taiwan welcomed those who escaped from the civil war? You're kidding right? Please read "228 Incident". Hong Qi Gong 23:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
They did feverishly welcome the mainlanders in 1945 when Taiwan was restored to Chinese rule. It wasn't until later when the government seriously screwed up their chance in Taiwan through oppression. BlueShirts 23:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
It was all governor Chen Yi's fault. He masterminded the whole thing. I think it was proven that he conspirated with the Communists. However, President Chiang Kai-shek did in fact make ammends to the people of Taiwan. He had Chen paraded to the Taipei Race track, where he was killed by firing squad. But you know, we should just forget about the 228 incident. It was bad, everyone knows. The KMT as well as the ROC government has apologized a million times. Bringing up 228 just creates tension. And that is what the DPP and Chen Shui-bian have been attempting to do: divide the line between "Mainlander Chinese" and so-called "Native Taiwanese." In reality, that's the only way the DPP can get votes. In general, there isn't much resentment anymore. It has pretty much subsided. (Chiang Kai-shek 03:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC))
As I know, Mainland China tries to add Taiwan to the "homeland" but why? Yes, Taiwan lost the civil war but this doesn't mean that they don't have the right to live according to their own beliefs and world view. Also they can claim that the one and true system for all China is the one they use. Every body has different ideas and ideologies, it is normal. With respect, Deliogul 10:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Cf. the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Like the Republic of China, it has recognition from a recognised state (ROC has recognition from more than one state, though). (218.228.195.44 13:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

Split of article to avoid 72K

Clearly, this article's about twice as long as it should be, one way or another. I note that: much of the content overlaps with that of Taiwan (I express no opinion as to which said content should be in); most of the sections have an associated "main article", so could be further condensed in line with Wikipedia:summary style, as Jiang mentions; the "Politics" section is especially long, and does not seem to have a directly associated "main article" -- perhaps if it did, this section could be shortened considerably. Alai 21:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Taiwan

I think most people who use the english wikipedia would refer to the state that this article is about as 'Taiwan'. If you said 'Republic of China' to most people who would use the english wikipedia, they would think you were talking about PRC. Let's stop playing politics and rename this article.--Joe 1987 23:36, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan already has a prominent disambigulation link to Republic of China, and vice versa. Renaming is not necessary, until and unless the official name of the state changes. --Nlu (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Completely in agreement. The official name of the state is the Republic of China. By saying "let's stop playing politics," renaming the article to Taiwan would lead to people shouting that that is pro-green/DDP POV anyways. I say here, it's better to go with the official/constitutional name of the state, because politics plays a huge role in this. Taiwan in and of itself is not the Republic of China, asthere are other islands as well (but I personally think little of this argument). -- Jjjsixsix (talk|review)@ 01:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Taiwan is used to describe all territories of the ROC, not just the one island (though yes, the island is also named Taiwan). It's a straw-man argument you're trying to knock down.--DownUnder555 12:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's bunk. Look at Republic of Ireland], who's official name is Ireland, but lives at the Republic of Ireland namespace. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.70.98.28 (talk • contribs)

The official name is still Republic of China. Taiwan is the common reference for the ROC, which is mentioned. Since this article is about the state, we will use whatever the official name of the state is. -Loren 01:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
In addition, Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain, which is why Ireland in and of itself cannot be used. -- Jjjsixsix (talk|review)@ 01:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I check Republic of Ireland page. I think meaning is Ireland is official name of Republic of Ireland. It say "official description" is Republic of Ireland, name is Ireland.
Yes, I think this is a helpful counterexample for those that think you always have to go with the official name. Ireland's official name is clearly Ireland, but it lives at the Republic of Ireland page for reasons of convenience.--DownUnder555 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's bunk. Look at Republic of Ireland, who's official name is Ireland, but lives at the Republic of Ireland namespace. The purpose of names is not to be official as possible but to be clear. Is even the official name so official? You could say it's constitutional name is ROC. But the government calls itself Republic of China (Taiwan) in a lot of very official and formal situations (what's an official name if it's not even on the passport?), in others they say Republic of China on Taiwan, in organizations, sometimes it's Chinese Taipei, probably 95% of the time, people just say Taiwan, not ROC, but then just about everyone in Taiwan uses the Minguo calendar system. So what is the name again? Official means something very complicated in the case of this article, and it's not obvious why we should just say it's the official name and that's that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.70.98.28 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Naming conflict SchmuckyTheCat 01:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Schmucky, thanks for the link, it's informative:

For convenience, I've taken the most relevant section, the proper nouns section and replicated it here.

====Proper nouns====
The three key principles are:
1) The most common use of a name takes precedence;
2) If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name except for conflicting scientific names;
3) If neither the common name nor the official name is prevalent, use the name (or a translation thereof) that the subject uses to describe itself or themselves.
A number of objective criteria can be used to determine common or official usage:
a) Is the name in common usage in English? (check Google, other reference works, websites of media, government and international organisations)
b) Is it the official current name of the subject? (check if the name is used in a legal context, e.g. a constitution)
c) Is it the name used by the subject to describe itself or themselves? (check if it is a self-identifying term)

1) Common use by comparing hits, using google:

It's clear that the common name is Taiwan by a vast margin, even if you include People's Republic in the results (I know excluding People's Republic will mistakenly exclude pages that talk about both the ROC and the PRC).

2) This is not a scientific name, does not apply.

3) Most people in Taiwan refer to Taiwan as Taiwan and not Republic of China. You can check google results for this in Chinese if you can and so desire. How does the government describe itself? Well, since it's all over the place, I think we can safely ignore the fifteen variants of ROC, ROC on/in Taiwan, ROC Taiwan, ROC (Taiwan), Chinese Taipei, China Taipei, etc.

(nitpicking just because I'm a butt, but no government on Taiwan has called themselves "China Taipei," it's just that the PRC government calls them that or "Taipei, China." A quick Google search on "China Taipei" will yield results in which the PRC is a member of the same organization, or sites where you will not find "China Taipei" in its text.) -- Jjjsixsix (talk|review)@ 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

According to policy, this article properly belongs at the Taiwan namespace, excluding the pre-1949 history.--DownUnder555 12:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I agree that the use of "Taiwan" is more prevelant in the Western media. What I have observed from the Google results is that a search for "'Republic of China' -'People's Republic'" yields only results pertaining to the government on the island of Taiwan. A search for "Taiwan" will give you place names and companies with "Taiwan" in the name. There are few mentions of the governing body, just the island.
Now, why I don't believe this works in this situation: obviously, a company like Taiwan Semiconductor (why isn't there an article on that?) will call itself "Taiwan Semiconductor", not "Republic of China Semiconductor"... A travel agency will say "Explore Taiwan", not "Explore the Republic of China," for perhaps obvious reasons. First off, Republic of China is a pain to say, and second, it is the name of a state which (according to half the world) should not exist. This means that prettying a name will cause them to go for "Taiwan X" not "ROC X." I, personally, believe that makes Google irrelevant in this case.
That said, for tests b and c, the name of the state is "Republic of China," even though there is a political party in said Republic of China who wishes to rename the state to "Taiwan" at some point, therefore causing c to be murky. (This also means that either way, the title of the article is inherently POV, but that's another issue.) That makes the table construction 1.5-1.5.
Therefore, I conclude that I think that if we put it up on requested moves, it could a) cause a lot of controversy and b) give a better idea of what we should do. I, though, am not willing to do this for fear of all kinds of attacks on editors on both sides. I also feel that move or no move, this will be brought up once per archiving. That is all. -- Jjjsixsix (talk|review)@ 03:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
We can't list this on WP:RM because the destination article is already occupied. It will be up to discussion here.--Jiang 03:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Common usage is what most people use. You, yourself, conceeded that in the Western media, Taiwan is common usage. All your arguments concerning travel agencies and other countries' usage also indicates that common usage is Taiwan, even in the ROC/Taiwan. The Google test applies because it measures the number of pages that use the word or phrase, and apparently, most pages use Taiwan. Again, usage proven. Therefore, I believe that in accordance with WP's "common usage" policy, this page should be moved to Taiwan. Copysan 03:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Common usage of what? As discussed before, "Taiwan" can mean several things, such as a political entity (i.e. state) called the "Republic of China", the island of Taiwan, the province of Taiwan, and the territories under the Republic of China, all of which are not synonymous. If we replaced the article at Taiwan with this one, much of it would not make sense, such as the first sentence in the history section, "After over 2000 years of imperial rule, China overthrew its dynastic system in favor of a republic." (Taiwan was part of the Japanese empire in 1911...) Please discuss rearranging content, not moving and replacing entire articles. The discussion in this entire section is off the mark. --Jiang 05:42, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Common usage of the political entity Taiwan of course. Most of the Western news media refers to the government of the Republic of China as the "Taiwanese government". Although, you do have a good point. Which should take precedence when two things have common names that are the same? We could revert to the offical names, and keep it as is. Although other articles have used the XXXX (Category) format. In this case, it would probably be something like Taiwan (Island) or Taiwan (Country). Copysan 06:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
That's precisely why it shouldn't move - Taiwan (country) is not NPOV - there are many people in Taiwan and outside (the US state department, for one) who would not agree that there is such a country as Taiwan. Of course, there are many people who will say the opposite, but everyone would agree that the Republic of China is a state, which is why this article is where it is. --Sumple (Talk) 06:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that the common name for the ROC is not Taiwan and Wiki policy says that it should live at the Taiwan article. Whether or not Taiwan/ROC or whatever is a country or not can be explained in the article. Whatever it is, it exists, and most people call it Taiwan, not ROC. We can't ignore this by saying it's complicated to solve.

What we should do:

1) Taiwan article--a state formally called Republic of China. Information should be merged between the current Taiwan and ROC articles. Irrelevant information, such as Economy of China will be left out.

2) Taiwan (geography) article--I'm not sure about this because I don't think we have enough information that is relevant only to the one island and not to the Taiwan state article.

3) Republic of China should then be a disambiguation page to either Republican China or Taiwan. It should be noted the formal name of Taiwan is Republic of China. Short note could be given on various controversies.

4) Since the common name of the ROC on Taiwan is Taiwan, the history article History of the Republic of China also needs to be split and re-named:

a) Republican China--1911-1949 history of the ROC.
b) History of Taiwan--history of Taiwan, after 1949, this is also the history of the ROC.
c) History of the Republic of China should be a disambiguation page since it won't be clear whether people mean a) or b) or if they mean both.

This scheme solves both the naming problem since the common name is Taiwan, it solves the problem of the confusing "Economy of China" then suddenly "Economy of Taiwan" problem, and it solves the article length problem as well, but we'll have to work on the merging of articles for awhile. Moveapage 07:57, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned before, it is neither feasible nor appropriate to create a disambiguation page at a heavily trafficked and prominent name. A dab page would only be appropriate for two mutually exclusive and mutually prominent entities, which these are not. For those who use "Republic of China", it can either mean a or a+b, never both a or b. Differing interpretations and definitions should be explained within the confines of the same article, otherwise, we are creating POV forks. --Jiang 11:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Moveapage is operating under the misapprehension that Taiwan and the Republic of China are the same. It's not. The Republic of China controls not just Taiwan but several other islands - the territories it controls is formally divided into two "provinces". Its constitutional (claimed) borders include all of mainland China and beyond.
Compare the two sentences: "the Republic of China's constitutional borders include all of mainland China" vs "Taiwan's constitutional borders include all of mainalnd China".
Clearly, the latter doesn't make sense, right?
So unless the Republic of China changes its constitution, *and* renounces the islands along the coast of Fujian, there is no way that it is synonymous with Taiwan. --Sumple (Talk) 12:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I just remembered something I was going to add to my original post at the start of this particular discussion, and that is that I think the phrase "Made in Taiwan" says it all.--Joe 1987 19:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If only things were that simple. -Loren 19:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Let's say you want to discuss Taiwan under Japanese rule or Taiwan before Chinese immigration. Now does that article belong under Taiwan or the Republic of China? Even though Taiwan and the ROC are currently fairly synonymous, there are still some big distinctions that warrant the presence of "two" articles, one for Taiwan and one for the ROC. I mean how difficult is it to grasp this concept? BlueShirts 19:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

People, the state is the Republic of China. According to the national boundaries, the ROC controls Mongolia, Mainland China, Tuva, and Taiwan. There is no such thing as a Republic of Taiwan. You guys are making the ROC seem like the ROT, by saying the ROC is the same as "Taiwan." The ROC is a full state (de facto AND de jure). It just has lost some territory from a rebellion. Look at it this way: what if the South started taking over the Northern states and the last two Northern controlled states were New York/New Jersey. But then the South couldn't completely take over these states. Would that make the Union (United States of America) just the Republic of New York, New Jersey? So now the South is the new United States of America?? Think about it. (Chiang Kai-shek 01:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC))

ching ai pengyou men. No one say "Republic of Taiwan". I believe you English speakers call this the straw man argumentation. please do not stir your ideas together to try to be pro-blue. ROC on China never had full control ever and was war-state. I think you think about that.

The Republic of China did at one point have control over all of China. One way or the other, the national government at Nanking controlled the other provinces. The ROC banner flew over all of the provinces. The ROC is no doubt a STATE. A fully functional state. That is the fact. You pan-greens must understand all these facts. (Chiang Kai-shek 05:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

This discussion is going nowhere. I suggest we should pay more attention to Alai's suggestion about improving the article above. --Sumple (Talk) 05:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The labeling has got to stop. The discussion isn't getting anywhere because so much redirection is going on. I have this sinking feeling that an ideological group is purposely trying to prevent any change by deadlocking this conversation, some kind of Wikipedia type filibustering. There is a very clear group that is made up of traditional ROC loyalists (pan-Blue is extremely misleading--many Blue politicians do not hold the ideas that are being promoted here) that keeps bring up ideas irrelevant to the proposal at hand. Come on now, these traditional ROC supporters all have names like "Jiang" "Blueshirts" and "Chiang Kai-shek". There's SOMETHING up with that isn't there? I have no problem with people putting in their two cents, but we obviously have to be inclusive of all major POVs in order to be NPOV.

First, no one said anything about a "Republic of Taiwan". The basis of the argument was on the fact that the common name for the ROC is Taiwan, not the ROC, it's constitutional name.

Second, Alai's suggestion wasn't to ignore the naming problem. It was that the article has to be fixed, one way or the other.

Third, stop bring up the idea that Taiwan MUST mean Taiwan Island only. It's true, in some contexts, it is possible that Taiwan means only Taiwan (the island), but the majority use is to mean ROC. President of Taiwan, Economy of Taiwan, Politics of Taiwan, Culture of Taiwan etc. never mean JUST the island. So if something is made in Jinmen, then it's not made in Taiwan?

Fourth, there's this thread in this whole discussion and in past discussions that to say that separating the history of the ROC into two sections, ROC on China and ROC on Taiwan is to take the PRC Communist propaganda point of view that the ROC ceased to exist in 1949. That's a smear tactic. I can simultaneously believe that the ROC on Taiwan is not quite the same thing as the ROC on China and not be a CCP POV pusher. And I can even do this without supporting declaring Taiwanese independence or pan-Green politicians. If these two things were completely the same, why did the English language come up with the convention of referring to the ROC on Taiwan as Taiwan, which doesn't refer to the ROC on China? I am not saying that you have to view it as a break in history or that the ROC on Taiwan has nothing to do with the ROC on China. But from the point of view of wanting to stick with common names, present information in a clear way, have articles of appropriate sizes, the current state of the Taiwan and ROC articles (and associated history articles) is not sustainable.--DownUnder555 07:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, there is no simple solution to the problem. If you move this to Taiwan, people scream pan-green POV. If you keep it here, people scream pan-blue POV. If you split the article, people scream PRC POV. There is no way something can be done without controversy in regards to the name of this page. That said, the President of Taiwan article is located at President of the Republic of China, which dates back to 1912, as is the politics article. The political status article is located at Taiwan, presumably because it is debating the territorial debate and who owns the land of the island. The economy article also exists in the Taiwan name, partly because the economy of China article includes Republican China. The culture does the same. What tips this for me is that the history, constitution, and National Assembly articles are all located in the ROC name. Thus, I think we should keep it here unless we want a wholesale move of articles. After said wholesale move, articles would then be located in the wrong place because there is currently no country named Taiwan. Thus, keep here. That's just my NT$.64. -- Jjjsixsix (talk|review)@ 19:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What has our Wikipedia names have anything to do with the discussion? Its a personal preference. Don't try to smear us. And in particular, what is so bad about the name "Jiang?" Pan Blue politicians, such as Ma Ying-jeou, believe in One China with different interpretations according to the 1992 Consensus. The official name is the Republic of China. Although Westerners now use Taiwan the same as ROC, there is no reason why we should change it in their favor. This Republic of China article will help Westerners understand the history of China even more. They will now know why it is the way it is today. So we should definitely not change this article to Taiwan or whatever. We should keep the article as it is. In the beginning, it is already clarified. There is no need to change the ROC article to the Taiwan article. Stop playing pan green politics. You are facilitating the goal of Chen Shui-bian and his unpopular governmnet. (Chiang Kai-shek 19:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

Ugh, be careful with that. I'll tell you, I have my own political biases in this discussion, but I've put it aside and tried to reason through precedence and trying to discredit Google, and all that jazz. I think the charge of "facilitating [the DPP]" is quite too strong - there is evidence abound which supports a move of certain sections to Taiwan. While the original commentator {"stop playing politics") may be trying to use pan-green politics (I honestly doubt that, but it's a possibility) the points that User:DownUnder555 are valid, just that some of us will disagree with it, depending (gasp!) on your political alignment. There are pan-blues and pan-greens on here, and I think we can reason out which side who is on through their comments. Maybe we should go seek an opinion from someone who doesn't have such a strong an opinion on this. I think many of us discussing here are much too entrenched in our position, and see the other side as an opponent (and rightly so... I mean, you want your party to have control of the government, don't you?) - Does anyone else agree with getting a second (well, more like seventh) opinion? -- Jjjsixsix (talk|review)@ 19:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
This is such a non-issue. The state's official name is Republic of China, its history has direct lineage to the 1912 revolution in China, all government officials swear allegiance to the ROC, and that ROC oughtta be title of the article we should use if we're discussing the state, regardless of the change of national boundary fifty years ago. Use the Taiwan article if you want to discuss everything that has ever happened on the island, like aborigines, chinese immigration, Japanese rule, then return to the ROC. Use the ROC article to discuss its government and history. It has nothing to do with pan-blue or pan-green politics, just some common sense. And please, "outside" opinion is one thing we can do without. We don't need a bunch of uninformed big mouths voicing their opinions. That kind of ignorance caused the revert wars about using the "ROT" flag in Half-Life 2 articles. BlueShirts 21:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
One, I completely agree with you; two, I wish everyone else saw it that way; three, I wish it were that simple. But it's not. Ugh. -- Jjjsixsix (talk|review)@ 22:58, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with BlueShirts. He is completely correct. It is almost as simple as that. The Pan-greens are just trying to facilitate Taiwan independence by changing this article to "Taiwan." The facts are there. You pan-greens can't change them. Chen Shui-bian is the President of the Republic of China. He swears allegiance to the Constitution of the Republic of China. He is a citizen of the Republic of China. All the DPP members are citizens of the Republic of China. The country is the Republic of China. There is no independent "Taiwan." Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China. Well, the Chinese Nationalist Party is now the best party to control the ROC. The DPP has proved that it, to put it bluntly, stinks at governing even just 2 Provinces (Taiwan and Fukien) of the Republic of China. It will never be able to govern anymore, if somehow the ROC took back the other 33. It is only a matter of time before the DPP loses completely. With stock scandals, corruption, and more, I think the public has lost complete confidence in the current ROC government (with the exception of die hard pan greens who think changing the ROC to the ROT will make everything bad somehow "go away"). Even the DPP members are starting to change their stances and turn against Chen Shui-bian. But the point is, back to the facts, the name of the country is the Republic of China. (NOT Taiwan -臺灣) (Chiang Kai-shek 03:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC))
Listen to the Generalissimo (and his secret service). -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 03:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Chiang, your responses are so similar to Blueshirts that I don't think it's necessary for you to comment. Just sign next to Blueshirts and we'll know you agree also.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.70.98.28 (talk • contribs) .
Nothing wrong with agreeing with one another. That's what happens on WP:FA and other discussion pages. BlueShirts 17:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"kmt" pov

Stop treating the sentence "great economic development under the KMT despite the constant threat of war and civil unrest" as pov. The KMT was the ruling party of the time and it did everything it could to get the economy going. Explain to me in what ways is it pov? 1). Inflation: Dec. 1948 ~ May 1949: The KMT moved its gold reserves, worth around ten million US dollars, to Taiwan. Jun. 1949 the New Taiwan Dollar was issued to stop spiraling inflation. Inflation rate decreased from 10% in 1950 to 2.8% in 1960. 2). Agriculture: Jan. 1949 the 375 Rent Reduction was put into effect. Land value decreased dramatically and almost 50% of the previously landless peasants were able to buy and farm their own land. The percentage of tenant farmers decreased from 50% in 1949 to 17% in 1957. The percentage of land-owning peasants increased from 30% in 1949 to 60% in 1957. 3). Industry: 1953 4-year industrial plan transferred many state-owned factories to private hands and nearly 6000 privately-owned indusrial projects got their start as a result of this. In 1955, a law was passed to give tax-free status for the first three years of any newly-founded factories to promote more industrial growth. In 1963, for the first time industrial output surpassed that of agriculture. From 1953 to 1981, yearly growth rate averages around 8.9%, whereas in other industrial countries it's 3.9%. Seriously, explain to me how is it pov when it was KMT officials (孫運璿, 李國鼎) who led the economic miracle. BlueShirts 21:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please site an economic paper or book. Statistics you cite show no causal relationship at all.

Assets brought over are not really "economic growth" unless you can show how it contributes to GDP. What about American subsidies? That would be the same thing, but for example, Taiwan transfers lots of money to small island nations, and I'm not sure it actually contributes to the economy so much as enriches corrupt officials.

Inflation started getting out of control because of the KMT in the first place (1945).

Land reform is one thing the KMT did that was beneficial to Taiwan's economy.

I call bullshit, it's patently obvious you don't have understanding of macroeconomic principals. You can't blindly compare 8.9 to 3.9 unless you know what the starting line is at. China is growing at a torrential pace these days, and it's because they were held back for so long and are starting from such a low baseline. Doubling your salary from $1 a day to $2 is easy. Doubling your salary from $200 a day to $400 a day is hard. Make a real citation and then we'll have a real conversation about how to describe the effect of KMT rule on Taiwan's economy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.70.98.28 (talk • contribs) .

The statistics were from 中華民國史論 by 張玉法, published by the Academia Sinica. Similar citings are from 光復後的臺灣經濟發展 by 郭婉容, published in the journal Contemporary China. Inflation started going out of control in 1937 when the coastal areas of china, where the government collects its taxes, were lost to Japanese hands. Then the KMT did everything it could to stop it. You don't know shit about economics and Taiwan's growth in the 50s and 60s. Ignorant people like you at most would just spin the facts and then come up with shitty comments like "the KMT stole from the people and put it in party coffers". Look at Chen Shui-bian. Only in office for six years and his family and stuff stole at least one billion NT of assets. The DPP sure learned all the purported "bad" stuff from the KMT very quickly, eh? BlueShirts 21:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

But where's the citation that the KMT is the reason for Taiwan's economic growth? Did I challenge the numbers themselves? The whole article is going to shit because of the changes you and Chiang (same person I suspect) plus some others are pushing. I don't know if I really care that much because it's obvious how POV the article is getting, and for a normal reader, he's just going to look at it and say, what the hell is this, and then move on.

Touched a nerve did I? Haha, well, why don't you calm down and think about the substance of what I really said instead of trying to put words in my mouth. Your tactics are hilarious. I would say "the KMT stole from the people and put it in party coffers"? Whaaaat? Haha... is that relevant? Did I say that? Did I say anything close to that? What in the world?... Does corruption by today's government officials have an impact on the economy of the 1950s ... haha... okay anyways...

Corruption has a long history in Taiwan, but I don't see why that's relevant. The question is what are the causal factors for the so-called "Taiwan Miracle". Are there serious economists that attribute it to the KMT? I'm open to it if only you could cite it. But if you were familiar with the economic literature, you would know some people question whether or not it's even a miracle at all.

The statistics aren't useful by themselves, but if you were to cite something relevant to the argument, next time please include a date and issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.70.98.28 (talk • contribs) .

I am pretty sure you are the same person on the kmt talk page who used the exact same language. The people who devised the economic measures are KMT party members, do you understand this simple point? And can you sign your name with ~~~~? BlueShirts 23:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Haha, well you shouldn't be sure because I'm not. I can't believe you took another anon's comments and simply blamed it on me. Nothing I said remotely resembles a charge about corruption, not even something close. You owe me an apology. I wouldn't use the "gov't" convention and my point is based on actual economic papers out there not on speculation about the extent of KMT corruption. I don't even think corruption does that much damage to an economy unless it's on a massive scale (see Africa). You ignored by point about high growth rates being easy for poor economies, which is the basis of my comment, and I don't know why you thought I was challenging the statistics. That's sort of like believing Taiwan's economy didn't grow, but the issue is that you're trying to say that KMT caused the miracle when I see no evidence of that. If you cite it, then we can debate it properly. 203.70.98.28

You suspect I'm the same person as Chiang Kai-shek and you "can't believe" why I blamed you for previous comments? You wrote "I'm not sure it actually contributes to the economy so much as enriches corrupt officials", and you say that's not a charge of corruption. Are you blind or what? Do you want to apologize to me instead? The citation goes from p. 526 and continues for some pages. It's a book published by the very reputable Academia Sinica, so go find it yourself. If you don't know what's Academia Sinica, it's 中央研究院. If it's not the KMT's policies that caused the economic miracle, then what is? Similarly poor countries in southeast asia got screwed over even after they became independent. The government is responsible for the economic success or failure, and it happens that the KMT was in control of government for the periods of growth. BlueShirts 00:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Fact 1: Taiwan enjoyed great economic development during that period. Fact 2: Taiwan was ruled by the KMT during that period. Sentence under dispute = Fact 1 + Fact 2 = Fact. QED.
It's totally irrelevant whether you think the economic development was due to the KMT's efforts or the magical hand-waving of the smurfs. --Sumple (Talk) 02:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It's not what I think that's relevant or not. It was the KMT's policies that allowed such economic development to happen. Confounding the issue by reducing it to some proof and a pointless analogy adds nothing to the discussion. BlueShirts 02:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Stop talking trash about others, especially if you're an anonymous user that doesn't sign your name. I am not the same person as BlueShirts just for your information. I am a different person, if you didn't understand the last sentence. There is no reason that people should try and discredit the KMT leaders for helping Taiwan. It is a proven fact that the KMT leaders aided Taiwan's economic development that led to the Taiwan miracle. President Chiang Kai-shek knew the problems plaguing his regime and he began eliminating corruption and started a highly succesful land reform project in Taiwan. Chiang Ching-kuo along with Sun Yun-suan initiated the great construction projects. Also, when the Nationalists came to Taiwan, they brought with them tons of soldiers and riches from the Mainland. Some of these soldiers took part in civilian construction projects. Even you pan-greens should recognize the fact that the KMT helped the economy. In general, the KMT is more of a pro-economic party. Compared with the DPP, the KMT did way better in managing the ROC's economy. In the 6 years under the "beloved" 阿扁, Taiwan's economy is struggling. Statistics like South Korea passing the ROC's economy is not surprising. (Chiang Kai-shek 00:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC))

I don't want to get involved in some difficult nationalist controversy. I just want to point out that this section begins "In the 1950s and 60s, the KMT implemanted (sic) various measures and..." This clause as written carries no information. Were they economic measures? Political measures? Was the KMT so busy in the 1940's fighting the Japanese and the Communists that they didn't have time to impliment any measures?

How about "In the 1950's and 1960's, the KMT took steps to reform the economy by reducing corruption and reforming land policies which coincided with a period of great economic growth"? This does not claim that the KMTs actions are responsible for the growth, but that they occured at the same time. David s graff 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Sovereignty

Rather then engage in yet another edit war can we discuss this issue first? The Sovereignty article defines sovereignty as the following:

Sovereignty is the exclusive right to exercise supreme political (e.g. legislative, judicial, and/or executive) authority over a geographic region, group of people, or oneself... In constitutional and international law, the concept of sovereignty also pertains to a government possessing full control over its own affairs within a territorial or geographical area or limit, and in certain context to various organs (such as courts of law) possessing legal jurisdiction in their own chief, rather than by mandate or under supervision. Determining whether a specific entity is sovereign is not an exact science, but often a matter of diplomatic dispute.

I believe there is no question that the ROC does currently exercise de facto "supreme political authority" and control over its own affairs over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu. The main dispute is over whether or not such authority can be extended to be de jure (formally recognized). Therefore I don't think it is POV to characterize the ROC as "exercising soverignty" as long as the fact is mentioned that its right to is disputed by some parties. -Loren 00:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it is only disputed by the Communist regime in Peking. If you're going to say that, then shouldn't the Communist Bandits in Peking have no sovereignty until the 1970s when the world finally recognized it? So at that time, the whole ROC should have sovereignty of all of China? It doesn't make sense to follow in other countrys' recognition patterns. The ROC had sovereignty over all of China, beacause it replaced the Ching Dynasty. It then lost control to most of the country to the Communist Bandits. Taiwan's sovereignty to the ROC was re-affirmed to the ROC government in the Cairo Declaration, in which President Chiang attended. It was also re-affirmed again in the Postadam Declaration. Although some may argue that Taiwan should be in U.S.'s control or whatever. And that Japan never gave a donor. It was all assumed that the recipient of Taiwan is the ROC. If the ROC really doesn't have sovereignty over Taiwan, then why doesn't anyone do anything about it? All everyone is doing is talking because the ROC really does have sovereignty over Taiwan. It is also another way for the pan-greens to declare Taiwan independence. They are conspiring with the Communist bandits. If Taiwan is really part of the U.S., then why hasn't the American government taken control of Taiwan? Look at the facts and stop siding with the Communist bandits and the Pan-green conspirators. (Chiang Kai-shek 00:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC))
Righ. Chiang Kai-shek please be aware of NPOV. The "Communist Bandits" POV as you call them is also a POV; one which is, at least formally, endorsed by most governments of the world. Now, I'm not saying that that POV is "better" than any other one, and I'm not passing judgment on whether the ROC is a sovereign state. I'm just saying that it is subject to dispute. We should proceed with care in situations like this. --Sumple (Talk) 01:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
From what I can see the issue isn't over the ROC is sovereign (it is de facto sovereign by the definition above), but whether said sovereignty is de facto or de jure. Sure, the PRC doesn't like to refer to the ROC as possesing de facto sovereignty at all, but that doesn't change the fact that it does. Half the entire debate of the last few weeks is over the fact that one side of the argument doesn't like to use words like "state" or "sovereign" to describe the ROC even though the latter fits the de facto definiton of both. NPOV entails reflecting things as they are, hence the use of this map when describing the jurisdiction of the ROC rather then something like this. Ditto for this chunk of real estate. For this particular case it is my opinion that the neutral description of the situation of the ROC today is that of a de facto state exercising de facto soveregnty over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu, whose right to do so is disputed by the PRC. -Loren 05:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm I agree with your point in principle. One (very legalistic) quibble though:
I think that sovereignty is de jure per se. That is, there cannnot be de facto sovereignty because the connotation (in the sense of attributes) of sovereignty is a right, that is, a legal power or liberty. That is, it is a question of law and not fact. De facto "sovereignty" is just control.
It's similar to the difference between possession and ownership (or property). The former is a matter of fact, the latter is a matter of law. You can't have de facto ownership because ownership by its nature is a right at law.
Thus, a lawful owner in possession of his car has both ownership and possession. A thief who in fact has control over the car has possession but not ownership. You can't say that he has "de facto" ownership because ownership is a matter of law, not a matter of fact.
Back to the present case, I think its (logically) correct to say "the ROC exercises control" or "the ROC purports to exercise sovereignty". It's also logiccaly correct, but possibly non-NPOV, to say "the ROC exercises sovereignty".
Anyway, that's what I think. But I'm not an expert in public international/constitutional law. --Sumple (Talk) 05:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an expert in this field either. I suppose it really comes down to how one defines soveregnty.. Very well then. -Loren 18:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, de jure doesn't not mean formal recognition. De jure means "as a matter of law". Its most common usage is in an American context where it was used to differentiate between segregation sanctioned by law and segregation created through social practice and other means. Blacks were supposed to have been given voting rights right after the Civil War ended in 1865 by constitutional amendment, but in reality most weren't able to vote until the 1960s and later.

This discussion is funny as hell. I really don't mean it condescendingly, but we're talking in contradictions here.

What is sovereignty? Loren, as you cited, sovereignty is the supreme political authority over a region. Someone tell me how could there possibly be a "de jure" authority that defines the sovereignty of a supreme political authority. By definition, the political authority wouldn't be supreme if its authority is given by someone else! The International Government of Planet Earth would be the soverign state and everyone underneath would just be its own little regional leader. Example--what did Americans do when they declared independence? Wave their hands, mumble something about universal rights, and say it comes from God and God trumps King George.

People cite many different quasi-legal ideas about what a state "legally" is supposed to be, such as the Montevideo Convention, but the fact of the matter is, you can't open about "The Book of International Law" and look up what a state is. The only real places international law has really had any consensus and application is in the prosecution of war criminals (what do you do to Nazi leaders whose actions are sanctioned by their own courts? make up a higher law) and economic disputes (i.e. fishing rights, but not even really... countries are always declaring their own version of Exclusive Economic Zones and it comes down to how big your navy is and who you're up against). But essentially outside of what people think of as gross immoralities (anything that wants to be "international law" has to be turned into a treaty and then has to be agreed to one by one by each state). So in the end, it's still each individual country that has the final say. The results of any disputes are generally determined by negotiations backed by negotiations or war, no law, no judges, involved.

I wouldn't say throw all these ideas about what a legal state is supposed to be like out the window but at the most, they can only be properly described as "principles". When you show me a court where you can sue to get your island back, then we'll start talking about "de jure", but otherwise, they're all just attempts to win the moral high ground in any dispute.

Ok, so more specifically, there's a lot of things wrong with this phraseology "exercises sovereignty over" including:

1) Taiwan is democratic. It's not a top-down relationship. The idea of sovereignty is A over B and B has no control over it.

2) Usually, you would only say something like that if you were talking about say water (States exercise sovereignty over internal waterways) or a rock (this is our rock, because we suspect there's oil near here and we want it) or territory with not quite full status (sovereignty over the Marshall Islands).

3) Thus the big implication of saying "sovereignty over" is that the ROC is bigger than Taiwan + Pescadores + Kinmen +　Matsu etc and that perhaps this is just a temporary state of affairs. But this is just one POV and shouldn't be given preferred status. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.70.98.28 (talk • contribs) .

Quote: De jure means "as a matter of law". Its most common usage is in an American context where it was used to differentiate between segregation sanctioned by law and segregation created through social practice and other means.
Anon user does not seem to understand the meaning of "law". --Sumple (Talk) 23:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Which brings us back to the original question... by what (or whose) law? International law has multiple intepretations. The ROC certainly views itself as de jure sovereign by its own laws while the PRC won't even use the latter word, even in a de facto sense. The rest of the world holds a more flexible interpretation involving word games to placate the PRC, while in practice recognising the status of the ROC as being seperate from that of the PRC (last I checked most customs agencies still honor ROC passports, for example). The key to this issue is that of surpreme political control, which the ROC does exercise over the territories it currently governs. -Loren 00:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more clear about my unclarity.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.70.98.28 (talk • contribs) .

We need not answer the question de-jure or de-facto. We do know that the ROC flag flies in Taiwan, that the ROC postage stamp is not censored when mailed to other territories, and that the ROC currency is used there. Also, de-facto can be confusing if the ROC considers itself de-jure and before 1971 was considered de-jure by most of the world. If the use of de-facto and de-jure is such a contentious, confusing issue, then avoid using the term. Allentchang 00:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I would tend to agree with this course of action. -Loren 00:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Yep that would probably be best... Also just about the previous discussion, I think sovereignty is the legal right to exercise supreme political control, not just the exercise of it? Anyway, leave it as it is. --Sumple (Talk) 03:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

this made me smile

From an old revision:

"Ximen Station , it is one of Station in the Taipei Rapid Transit System". I like the topic-prominent structure. This is mainly out of curiosity than anything else, but did some of our contributors babelfish things over? I noticed the same thing with Xinhai Revolution. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 00:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments on recent changes and the rudeness in the discussion

First, it has been mentioned that there are POV changes being made to the article. I'm going to point out that there aren't just POV changes being made, there are outright factual inaccuracies as well as many English mistakes. I don't know if it's because the editors don't have good command of English or what it is, but the tenses are getting very strange and become very misleading.


Second, argumentation in the vein of "only an idiot would..." or "look it up yourself" does not bring anyone to your side.--DownUnder555 07:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you specify the incorrect English and POV changes that were made to the article? (Chiang Kai-shek 23:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC))

Implementation of my proposal

I've decided that this conversation is getting bogged down going no where, ranging from minor points like wording of de jure and de facto to corruption in the current administration. These are not the issues I originally wanted to bring up.

If there's anyone who agrees there is something wrong with these articles, I invite you to work with me to go through and work on an alternate version that isn't edited by those who think the articles the way they are are fine. I'm going to give a shot at implementing the proposal, with modifications from some of the constructive aspects of this discussion, in a sandbox area. After a good amount of work has been done to the articles, I want to bring it back for a vote by outsiders. Blueshirts mentions in a very rude tone not bringing in outsiders to this discussion. Well, that's exactly what we need, people without political leanings on the subject of Taiwan, that can take some time to read about the subject, and then give an unbiased judgment of what they think makes more sense about these articles.--DownUnder555 07:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Those that are interested (again, just edit the current articles if you don't agree), please take a look at my sandbox: User:DownUnder555/sandbox.

My plan is to fix the articles by using their common names and avoid the problem of using a single name to mean two different geographical areas:

  • Taiwan - User:DownUnder555/sandbox/Taiwan - This is the common name of the state Republic of China, and we'll stick with it. I do wish to include that some people feel very strongly that Taiwan is the continuation of the ROC on China however and appropriate links should be made to the new Republican China article.
  • Taiwan Island - User:DownUnder555/sandbox/Taiwan_Island - This article, unlike the current Taiwan article, will really, truly, actually, be about JUST the geographical island. Stuff that starts including things about the other islands or is about the government etc., will not be included. The focus should be on geographical info, environmental info, and migrations of different peoples. Some basic political information could be included, but not stuff that will overlap with Taiwan (state).
  • History of the Republic of China on Taiwan - User:DownUnder555/sandbox/History_of_the_Republic of China_on_Taiwan - I'm not particularly fond of this name, but it's the best I could come up with. There's a ton of information on 1949-present Taiwan so we couldn't just stuff it in into the History of Taiwan article. Plus, this way, we can be neutral about whether it is continuous with the ROC on China.
  • History of the Republic of China - Like Republic of China, this will be a disambiguation page that leads to either Republican China or History of the Republic of China on Taiwan.

--DownUnder555 09:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Err in case you didn't notice, a significant number, if not the majority, of the contributors on this talk page have opposed any move to rename the Republic of China as "Taiwan", because of the various reasons enumerated above. --Sumple (Talk) 10:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The end goal is to put up articles that I believe by virtue of their focusedness up for a vote to replace the current batch of articles. I am confident that having a focused organization will naturally lead to higher quality articles, and that if we put it up to a vote and invite Wikipedians who don't have political leanings on Taiwan to participate, there's a high chance they'll agree. Sumple, I respect that you don't agree; that's fine, but this is something I want to do to show that the articles can be a lot better than they are now.--DownUnder555 11:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. So long as it's clear that we don't make drastic changes without discussion/vote/consensus. I respect your effort in creating those trial pages.
But don't you think that equating Taiwan with ROC is siding with the POV that Taiwan is a separate country to China, given that you propose to use a country-type format for the "Taiwan" article?
I think that is a problem simply because the current Wikipedia stance seems to be that: 1. Ambiguity on the quesiton of whether Taiwan and China are one country or two countries; and 2. Recognition of two states, the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. To treat Taiwan as a separate country seems to be at odds with statement (1). --Sumple (Talk) 12:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the effort to make these trial pages and to formulate your proposal. However, I would think it would be POV to make the Taiwan article about the ROC, instead of the island. Some people may think that Taiwan is equivalent to the ROC, but that is only one POV, amongst many. I think it is best if we maintain the status quo, as it is, to a certain extent, NPOV, and acceptable to most people. JSIN 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't want to spend too much time responding to critiques right now, but you are misusing the idea of POV here. Any presentation of any information is POV. NPOV means presenting all major POVs and properly attributing them to different groups and pointing out what is the majority opinion. Now, in the case of naming conventions, wiki official policy is to choose the common name, which is Taiwan. The only case that I saw where there might be an issue would be if people in Taiwan didn't refer to their state as Taiwan, which they do, though they often use ROC in official situations. Given this naming convention, it is very do-able to write something that explains why some people do not like making the ROC equivalent to Taiwan and to point out that they are generally pro-deep-Blue supporters that see the PRC government as illegitimate. But eventually, we'll put up the different versions to a vote and we'll see what people think.--DownUnder555 16:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Can't hurt. Go for it. -Loren 16:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think you're trying to obfuscate the issue here. Supporters of the ROC geneally aren't "deep-blue" as you call it and they don't really think the PRC is illegitimate. That kind of opinion is a thing of the past, and only a minor minority in the pan-blue coalition believe things like "communists are bandits" and "retake the mainland" Referring the opposition to your proposal by describing them this way is misleading. I think the current article naming convention is fine as it is. The History of the Republic of China article should have a "see main article" divert to the History of the Republic of China on Taiwan, instead of an empty disambiguation page. And about my "rude remark" about outside opinions, I guess you didn't know what went on in the Half-Life 2 ROT flag issue. If you have a pov or informed in various levels on something, just say it. Don't pretend that you're NPOV by saying you're an outsider. That's cheap. BlueShirts 20:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
My reasons against such a split of articles has already been expressed on more than one occasion, so I don't think I need to repeat myself. Even in these proposals, there is poor use of Wikipedia:summary style, with all the articles exceeding the preferred length. Can we at least try to shorten the current articles?--Jiang 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary style isn't enough. Look at what's happened to the Taiwan article and the ROC article. Besides details about the government and pre-1949 history, there's so much overlap between the two. Why is that? Why are we writing two versions of essentially the same article? This is basically the deep-green (I don't recognize the ROC, let's pretend we get all this culture from aboriginals, Dutch, Japanese, etc) / deep-blue split (Taiwan has no history other than that of the ROC. We are Chinese and that's it. In fact, there's only the ROC, Taiwan is just an island). I want to bring these to different versions into a single article like it should've been in the first place.

One more thing. Blueshirts, you'll never convince anyone with that attitude. You misunderstood my comment. I said let's bring in outsiders to vote when the time comes. I didn't say anything about my own neutrality, though if I don't write something close to NPOV or isn't any better than the biased articles I see now, then people won't support it now will they? Again, anyone who agrees with me is welcome to help me out with the articles. If you don't, work on the current ones, that's fine.--DownUnder555 13:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary sections should not be more detailed than their main articles. For example, this section is too long.
In all this rearrangement, where will be the country template reside? --Jiang 21:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Bringing in outsiders won't do much. They don't understand all the facts. The China-Taiwan issue is something that is extremely complex and hard to understand. Generally, they will just say, "Oh, it's just two countries, so how about Taiwan and China articles, no ROC or PRC." We need to look at the facts from a neutral point of view. If we look at the facts, Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China. The Republic of China once controlled all of the 35 provinces of China. It lost most of them to the Communist bandits. The ROC currently controls Taiwan province and part of Fukien province. The government and name has always been the Republic of China. The people of Taiwan are citizens of the Republic of China. The flag is the flag of the Republic of China. You pan-greens or whatever people can't deny these facts. It is the Republic of China, not "Taiwan." Taiwan is used commonly to refer to the ROC, but we're trying to make a nice factual article. We're not trying to copy everyone else and use what is most known. It has to be based on facts and a neutral point of view. (Chiang Kai-shek 23:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC))
"Communist bandits" isn't exactly a neutral point of view either. In the interests of not having this whole discussion turn into a flame war, might I propose that we all refrain from using the above term as well as other inflammatory terms including but not limited to "splittist", "traitor", "imperialist"... etc. Thanks. -Loren 23:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I'd say we need to decrease the coverage of pre-1949 section of politics, economy, military, and culture. They are not very relevant to today's ROC, and I think readers would be better served if these sections were incorporated into the History of the ROC sections. BlueShirts 01:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What is SO BAD about the term, Communist Bandits. Let's take you back in the history of China...the Communist Chinese signed agreements with the government of China (Republic of China) to disarm and to stop fighting. However, these Communists never did good on their promises. They continued to fight the government. They refused to disarm. They prepared to take over China and destroy the National government. Meanwhile, President Chiang Kai-shek adhered to the agreements and he disarmed as many as 1 million or more troops. Mao Tse-tung should be ashamed of himself. He taught the Chinese people dishonesty and other evil ideas, like Communism. It is not surprising that the Mainland Chinese are so bad today. Look at all the "Hei Shing" (Black Heart) stories, with the Communist Chinese selling foods that are chemicals and dying ginseng to make it look fresh. Look at their dishonesty. A street seller sells his tofu to a fellow Chinese for $1, then an American comes along and he says $5 for the tofu. And look at the Commmunist government. It is known to abuse its people. It represses religions. The Vatican has chosen to still recognize the Republic of China on Taiwan as the sole and legitimate government of all of China. President Chen Shui-bian attended the funeral of Pope John Paul II as simply, President of China. Look at the Communists' economic tactics, "Communism with Chinese characteristics" what the hell is that. And then they purposely de-value the Yuan to harm other nations' such as the U.S.'s economy. The Communists have taught the Mainland Chinese people all the wrong things. Look at the Simplified Characters and the Cultural Revolution.
Taiwan is the real China. It is where Chinese culture has been preserved. It was these Communist bandits that hurt all of China. They tricked the peasants. They harmed the people. They divided the country. It is so sad and unfortunate. (Chiang Kai-shek 01:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
Hiya Chiang, I think you need to calm down a bit. I don't like the commies at all too, but you could act more npov to drive home the point. I agree with you that the commies screwed over China, then and now, and that Taiwan is the "real" China since we preserved the cultural treasures and the traditional Chinese script. And I believe that the Cultural Revolution pretty much destroyed the last few vestiges of civilized human decency. However, it's going to do you harm to deny the fact that the CCP has control over the Chinese mainland, and that the Nationalist Government has ceased to be the legitimate government of all of China. BlueShirts 01:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I am well aware of the history of the ROC having spent a significant chunk of my life as a kid in public schools in Taipei learning about it. And lest you question my patriotism I am due for 16 months of marching around once I'm done with school just like any kid from Taiwan because of said communists. However, this should have absolutely no bearing on my editing here. Nor should your personal point of view come into play. Yes, it's easy to lose your temper with all the heated exchanges that go on here, I've lost mine more then once. But throwing around insults like "communist bandit" (and lest you forget the other side has a similar term for the KMT: 國匪) only invites more flames and gets in the way of a productive discussion on improving this article. Therefore I request that you please hold yourself to a certain standard of civility here. If not for the sake of the article then for yourself, as people seldom take people who fling insults like that seriously. -Loren 02:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think the term, Communist bandit, is so bad. It isn't like your from Communist China. It doesn't say much. It isn't profanity. And I definitely don't see what's so bad about 國匪. 共匪 sounds way uglier and worse to me. I have maintained a pretty neutral point of view, aside from the Communist bandit part. I just look at the facts, and the facts support the Pan-blue coalition all the way. Techincally, you can't really say that the Republic of China has "Ceased to be the sole and legitimate government of all of China." If one day were both sides of the Taiwan Strait were to be re-united, the PRC would have to re-unite with the ROC. The ROC suceeded the Ching Dynasty. Therefore, it became the sole and legitimate government of all of China. A Communist rebellion broke out. They succeeded in taking the Mainland away from the Central government (ROC) and established their own separate "People's Republic." However, they never ever really defeated the Central government (ROC) in order to succeed it. Once again, if you look at the international arena, the PRC tries to deceive the international community. Today, a Hong Kong pro PRC news station said that the rescue teams that were from Taiwan, were supposedly from "China" (obviously in their opinion meaning the PRC). It is very misleading. I don't deny that the PRC exists. The UN and all other nations should really offer dual representation. Once again, North and South Korea are obviously recognized as two different countries. It is just another part of the PRC's dishonesty and deception, taught by the "great red chairman," Mao Tse-tung. (Chiang Kai-shek 04:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC))
With all due respect, even if you don't find the terms too offensive, I'm pretty sure calling someone a 共匪 (or a 國匪 for that matter) isn't exactly a term of endearment either. We're all entitled to our own political views, but the main point of talk pages like this isn't to discuss politics, but to talk about how to improve the articles here. And generally that works best when we don't use insults or derogatory names (even terms that may only qualify as "not so bad") in the discussion, especially on such an emotionally charged issue. Thanks. -Loren 05:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Errr, the PRC isn't communist. It's state capitalist. Many of the true communists died at Tiananmen Square. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 19:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Lol. "You State-capitalist bandits" just doesn't have the same ring to it. --Sumple (Talk) 00:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

To the anon operating from 167.7.39.*

Per the consensus agreed to on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), the ROC and Taiwan are not equated in Wikipedia. Some people believe the ROC is Taiwan, some people don't. As the ROC Constitution has not yet been amended formally changing the title of the state, references to the state in Wikipedia should go with the official name which is still the ROC. References to Taiwan in parentheses in some articles or lists where the name of the state is first mentioned are intended to relate to common useage of the terms interchangebly in normal speech only, and are generally only used once. As the Republic of China and China articles already explain the distinction and relation of the ROC and Taiwan in detail, including Taiwan in parentheses is unnecessary and excessively wordy. Furthermore doing so in several cases results in circular redirects to the same article. If you wish to dispute this guideline please do so on the appropriate article talk page rather then engaging in revert wars. Thank you. -Loren 23:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)