Talk:Taiwan/Archive 5

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

Repeated phrase

In the second paragraph of political status and the last paragraph of economy, the article repeat about Tiawan being a east asian tiger

Confusing for newbies

Leaving aside the politics, the introduction is a bit confusing for anyone not versed in this issue. There's some presumed knowledge about ROC vs PROC etc., here, leading to a somewhat circular definition. Can someone please clarify in terms of ROC vs PROC, etc., in terms of "China" and what most people call "China" and what most people call the island of Taiwan. A map might help clarify too.

(section title)

Will somebody explain to me why it says the term "Taiwan" refers to a government? I agree "the government of Taiwan" is a government. But Taiwan itself is region, a geographical entity, whether it classifies as a nation or not. But when I changed it somebody rv'd it. I won't lose sleep over it, but still - 208.181.1.157 22:01, July 6, 2005 (UTC)

It was a rephrasing from an earlier version. It is true that "Taiwan" is used to refer to the ROC-administered territories. — Instantnood

i read somewhere there are 26 countries that aknowledge taiwan as an independant state, i was looking for a rundown of those countries and i couldn't find one, maybe someone could add it..instead of all this lightfooted phrasing and semantics, why not simply state that taiwan and X countries say it's independant and prc and X countries say it doesn't. and mentioning that convincing other contries of their stance is a important part of both entieties international policies.. something ike that.. but a list would be nice... - 84.195.252.25 12:57, October 4, 2005 (UTC)

You're looking for foreign relations of the Republic of China. --MarkSweep✍ 13:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's back to 25, if Vanuatu did pull the plug and go back to China. Some member states are: Costa Rica, Panama, the Vatican, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Gambia, Belize, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Dominica, Chad, Marshall Islands, Kiribati. Macedonia was when they first became a country, but broke off relations about a year after. I happened to run into the Macedonian representative in Taipei back in '99, and I personally know Armando Sequeira, the Consul General from Nicaragua. 59.117.60.21 08:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Do not imply Taiwan is independent or is part of the PRC

I changed "Taiwan has been governed independent of mainland China since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949." back to "They have been governed separately from mainland China since the Chinese Civil War in 1949."

Uhhhh, but they have been governed independent of mainland China for quite some time, what is the diff???...

The first sentence is inferior because it a) implies that Taiwan is independent and b) enforces a heirarchy in which Taiwan's "independence" is derived from mainland China. The statement that they have been governed seperately implies no such heirarchy and does not contradict the view that Taiwan has always been governed as a province, whether that of the ROC or the PRC. --Jiang 9 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)

What about changing to " They have continued to be governed by the Republic of China after the People's Republic of China was established on mainland China at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949. "? — Instantnood July 9, 2005 08:45 (UTC)
Ya I like that. I'll not start the argument again that Taiwan is GOVERNED independently even if it's not considered truly independent... But I will say I think independent has just become a buzz word for some of you people and you're going to revert it even when it makes sense to use it. I don't agree that independently implies a hierarchy more than seperately, but I see your point that it implies it was Taiwan that changed rather than the mainland. However I still assert that "governed seperately" would be a good descriptor for HK or Macau's governance but is an inadequate description of Taiwan's situation. 208.181.1.157 July 11, 2005 16:31 (UTC)
Governed by the mainland in what sense? The sense of pure fantasy? Do not delude yourself and others with this tripe. Jtrainor 11:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

(section title)

Does Taiwan use the American Style power? (120v) - 167.206.176.233 16:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is your friend: List of countries with mains power plugs, voltages and frequencies (P.S. talk pages are generally supposed to be used only for issues pertaining to the editing of the article).-Loren 22:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Political status of Taiwan and POV

To the anon user with IP in Austrailia who keeps reverting to a POV edit: We cannot take sides on the Political status of Taiwan, therefore refering to Taiwan as either an independent state (it's not, at the moment the state is the ROC), or as a province of the PRC are out of bounds and inaccurate. "Taiwan" is commonly used to refer to the ROC, and that is covered in the original edit. -Loren 17:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it's funny how in any case where the head of some command-and-control system promotes propaganda, that becomes a valid "side" which must be respected in order to maintain NPOV... regardless of its objective truth value. IMO, this is the reason why pretty much every wikipedia article relating to current dictatorships, religions, cults, etc. are completely fucked, tainted apparently irrevocably with the whatever whim the leadership cares to issue. 71.131.209.170

Inconsistent statistics

Some of the statistics on the main page (area and population, for example) are for the PRC while others (Currency and GDP, for example) are just for Taiwan. This is very confusing. I would suggest that they should all refer to the Taiwan values since this is the Taiwan page but I'm not directly editing it since there might be a good (and/or controversial) reason for the current figures. DHam 22:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Those were persistant vandalism to modify the page. — Instantnood 07:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected this page due to constant POV pushing and mass deletions (which is considered vandalism) of anon IPs. Please note that talk pages are for discussing and if this anon IP wishes to make further changes, I suggest he bring it up here first. Thanks and happy editting! =) Sasquatch′↔T↔C 00:26, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think we may have found the reason for the anon vandal: Public machines and shared IPs. The IP's used by the vandal(s) were all registered to New South Wales High Schools. -Loren 20:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
it could also be a handiwork of all the People's Republic of China spies abroad. 70.50.238.47 20:07, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, well, I'm unprotecting FOR NOW. Note that I will not hesitate to administer blocks to any user who blanks sections, violates 3 revert rule and in any other way vandalizes this page. I hate protecting pages but it occasionally has to be done. Sasquatch′↔T↔C 03:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Seems like the vandal has returned. -Loren 09:02, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposed changes

To the anon user or anyone else with suggestions on how to improve this article, or where you believe it to be inaccurate; now is the time to make suggestions. A locked article and constant revert wars benefit no one. -Loren 00:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

minor edit

I just want to dab Japanese -> Japan in the Culture section. Grika 17:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

What claims does China have on Taiwan?

I am new to this, but looking at the history of the island, I fail to see why China feels that it has a claim on the Island.

Native people, Dutch, Chinese, Manchus, Japanese have all goverened the island at one time or another.

Why does it belong to China? - 192.35.35.34 18:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Only the communist wikipedia propaganda machine believes it belongs to China.--TerriBechtold 03:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
This being Wikipedia, we try to keep the Taiwan article itself as free of any POV pushing as possible. The answer you get really depends on who you ask and the individuals POV. Me? I tend to agree with you, being of Chinese descent does not nessecarily mean I owe any loyalty to Beijing. I think China's claims are more about China's own insecurities (once China's always China's), plus the obligatory use of Taiwan as a focal point for the CCP to drum up nationalism and divert attention from it's own failings. Of course, there are plenty of people who disagree with my point of view and I'm sure they'll be happy to point out where they do and what they think. The issue itself is highly complex. If you want some more background on the positions of both sides you might want to check out Political status of Taiwan, Taiwan independence, and Chinese reunification.(P.S. please sign your comments) -Loren 19:27, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion PRC's claim is based on the succession of states theory. It sees itself, empowered with diplomatic recognition, as the successor of the ROC, and therefore claims the territories held by the ROC, although it has not entirely superceded the presence of the ROC. — Instantnood 19:38, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Lots of nations all over the world lay claims which are just as "questionable", if not outrageously so. Ever tried asking why Hitler lays claim to all of Europe, or why the inhabitants of the 13 colonies think it their destiny to "go west" and claim the entiety of the USA for themselves? Or why should Russia refuse to give an inch back to Japan a few islands they took away in a war, even when peace has finally came upon us, despite the land area hardly making a dent on Russia's total land area? Clearly, territorial claims are frought with complexities, and sometimes makes little sense to those who are not familiar with the issues at hand, or understand the psyche of locals in the countries in question. I certainly dont think China has any reason to claim Taiwan on the basis of "insecurity". It gave the northern region of the Amus river away, and allowed Mongolia to go independent in relatively recent history for various reasons, so I would think they are certainly not claiming every inch they once held. At the rate China is developing, it has little need to answer to its people of whatever "failings" there might be.--Huaiwei 20:01, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The PRC did not "allow Mongolia to go independent" but it diplomatically recognised its independence, a fact that the ROC did not do so by then (well they actually did it, but later revoked). :-) — Instantnood 20:18, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
When I say "insecurity", I mean as a result of the PRC's continued emphasis on "liberating Taiwan" and coupling the issue with the national psyche to the point where no one in Beijing today could afford to be seen as having "lost Taiwan" (the fact that Taiwan has never been part of the PRC not withstanding). Remember that Taiwan was pretty much a nonissue for both the CCP and the KMT before World War II, with Mao even being quoted in the 30's as supporting Taiwan independence from Japan. Why Taiwan and not Mongolia? Well politics basically... the PRC's need to maintain good relations with the Soviet Union at the time and to drum up support against "western imperialism" and CKS's Taipei regime. CKS of course also recognized Mongolia in the 20's or 30's to try to woo Soviet support, but "revoked it" (ha ha) after 1949 as there was no need to try to placate the Soviets anymore. Today CKS and Mao are long gone but the shadow of their vendettas still remain. -Loren 20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

PRC is foolish in claiming ROC PRC has no standing army there Dudtz 7/30/05 6:39PM EST

What difference does that make? Iceland has no military of any kind. Does that make them foolish in claiming their national islands? The United States of America doesn't recognize Taiwan or the ROC as an independent nation, and the U.S. is one of Taiwan's top supporters. In fact, the U.S. actually officially recognizes China's claim to Taiwan. -Sperril 22:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Quick comment... the correct term for the U.S. stance on the PRC's claim is not "recognize" but "acknowledge".-Loren 00:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

To answer the question: it really depends on your perspective.

From a Western / Taiwanese perspective, the initial assumption is that Taiwan isn't a part of China, which leads to the question: Why does Taiwan belong to China? This is of course difficult to answer, considering Taiwan became part of China only in 1683, and is at present de facto independent, and has been for nearly 60 years.

But from a Chinese perspective, the assumption is quite different: that Taiwan is a part of China. The question then becomes: why shouldn't Taiwan be a part of China? Taiwan has been a part of China since 1683, about the same time Manchuria was incorporated (and henceforth thoroughly Sinicized, just like Taiwan), and 100 years before the U.S.A. was established. (We can say that it's actually the Manchu Empire, not China, which was true at the time, but the Manchus have since so completely assimilated into the Chinese civilization, and the Chinese so thoroughly identified themselves with the Manchu Empire, that I don't think it really matters in a modern context). Under Manchu rule, Taiwan became predominantly Han Chinese. It was ceded to Japan in a humiliating treaty in 1895, and then returned to China (well, the Allies) in 1945, still predominantly Han Chinese. Demographically speaking, Taiwan is very similar to Hainan, or Guizhou, or Guangxi - mostly Han Chinese, with a small aborigine population. Had the KMT chosen a different base, perhaps Hainan or Yunnan, which were seriously considered, Taiwan would have become a completely unremarkable province -- like Hainan probably, surviving on tourism. Had the KMT succeeded in containing the communists permanently within Manchuria as a Soviet puppet state, then it would probably be Manchuria rather than Taiwan that's undergoing this entire independence debate. (Manchuria can make almost the same claims: incorporated only in the 17th century; ethnic Chinese does not equal part of China; separated as Manchukuo by the Japanese, etc.) So why should the accident that Taiwan was selected as an exile KMT base make Taiwan an independent country?

In short, Chinese people feel that they've been wronged by history. First, a watery gap, patrolled by foreign (American) warboats, makes civil war battle lines permanent. Second, battle lines threaten to become international boundaries, bolstered by the foreign rhetoric of self-determination. It feels as if foreigners are once again trying to divide China within itself. And after about 100 years of precisely that, (Manchukuo, etc.), Chinese people have gotten rather sensitive to this kind of thing.

-- ran (talk) 00:47, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Well, one major difference is that unlike Hainan, Yunnan or Guangxi, Taiwan spent a very long period of it's history outside of the control of the imperial government: 50 years under the Japanese, and even during the majority of years between 1683 and 1895 it was considered to be "way out there" beyond imperial control. The Ching government actually worked to prevent and later restrict Han immigration well into the 19th century primarily because they feared another rebellion along the lines of Koxinga. Beijing never actually started to take an interest in Taiwan until the mid to late 19th century when they became aware that several western nations and Japan were becoming interested. Even in 1895 at the signing of the Treaty of Shimonoseki, Li Hongzhang was quoted as being surprised as to why Japan would want such a rebellious island.
My point is that the whole "Taiwan is an inseperable part of China" line is actually a relatively recent invention, first by CKS as a demand presented at Potsdam in exchange for not negotiating a seperate peace with Japan, and later by CKS and Mao for their own respective agendas. Throw in 100 years of political seperation and the frontier mentality from before that and you'll start to see why people from Taiwan have developed their own seperate identity (regardless of whether they support future unification or independence) -Loren 01:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
I can't say that Hainan or Manchuria are completely perfect analogies of Taiwan, since of course every place has its own unique history. But Manchuria is also "way out there". As late as the early 20th century, Sun Yat-sen and other revolutionaries were rallied around slogans of "evicting the Manchus", viewing Manchus as foreign conquerers. Manchuria itself was also opened to Han Chinese immigration very late, mainly because the Manchus wanted to preserve the ethnic purity of their base and homeland. (That is, until they decided that filling Manchuria with a demographic bulwark of Han Chinese was preferable to allowing it to be partitioned between Russia and Japan.) The immigrants who arrived were greeted by a barren, barbarian, and very cold land; what lay beyond the Great Wall was certainly very much "out there" as well, at least back then. Manchuria was reorganized as Chinese provinces only in 1907 (12 years after Taiwan was lost to Japan!!!), and after the revolution it first became the fiefdom of the very autonomous Chang Tso-lin, then the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo. It was reincorporated at the same time as Taiwan, in 1945.
Now, the fates of Manchuria and Taiwan are eerily similar, except for one thing: their fates in the civil war. The communists broke out of Manchuria and took over the rest of China, while the KMT retreated to Taiwan. As a result, the Manchurians today are fiercely (should I say scarily) patriotic, while Taiwanese are fiercely independent. If the communists had failed to break out of Manchuria, then the reverse would be the case. The rest of China (Taiwan included) would still be the ROC, while the People's Republic of China, a Soviet puppet based in perhaps Harbin, would be struggling to find its identity in a hostile diplomatic environment (ROC's One China Policy!) in the early 21st century. And of course, knowing the passionate Manchurians, they wouldn't hesitate in calling for independence.
This is why Chinese people feel wronged by history. A civil war turns out a certain way -- and now we lose a province because of it?! Just because that province happened to be on the wrong side when hostilities ended? No way! And that's basically what Chinese attitudes towards Taiwan are. -- ran (talk) 01:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
And that is what I am refering to in my posts on the first half of this section when I say that "China's claims are more about China's own insecurities". The reasons you give above about being wronged by history are quite true and understandable, however they're more about China then they are about Taiwan. -Loren 01:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Why would you label these "insecurities"? What's so "insecure" about Chinese claims on Taiwan? Chinese people are 100% confident in making these claims, and are 100% confident about the reasons for which these claims are made. To mainland Chinese, it is the Taiwanese who are (if anything) insecure about their own identity and therefore attempting to construct a new one where none previously existed.
The use of labels such as "insecurities" really isn't helpful if you want to understand why Chinese people claim Taiwan from a Chinese perspective. Nor is it very helpful if you want to understand the Taiwanese view from a Taiwanese perspective. -- ran (talk) 01:31, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
First, calm down. I don't mean these as insults, I'm simply giving you my "Taiwanese" POV. To address your points:
  • Why would you label these "insecurities"?
Read over your comments about China's claim. Notice that everything you mentioned has to do with "humilitation at the hands of foreign powers" and how Taiwan's seperate existance flies in the face of Chinese pride. Today China has one of the fastest growing economies in the world, is a rising power, and has a rich colorful culture and history. To claim that all this is in jeopardy because of an island less then a tenth it's size which it had controlled (loosely) some time in the past would, IMHO qualify as insecurity. Of course, YMMV.
  • it is the Taiwanese who are (if anything) insecure about their own identity and therefore attempting to construct a new one where none previously existed.
That is perhaps the most common misunderstanding of all. Identities are a natural occurance, that a group of people living in a similar enviroment should not devlop a unique indentity would be weird and unnatural. Note that in my previous comment, I did not mention anything about independence or unification, or even the relation of this Taiwanese identity to the Chinese identity. People from Taiwan are naturally going to have their own identity shaped by common history, culture, and events just as people from Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, or Briitsh colonists in North America would (and in the last case, did). I am simply stating that automatically labeling the growth of the Taiwanese identity as something only recently created by TI-ers is a mistake and demonstrates again the oversensitivity that contributes to worsening relations. -Loren 01:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Why does it matter if China is a rising power, has a rich history, etc.? Any country in the world would fume over territory lost over reasons it views to be frivolous. China is no exception, and this certainly does not qualify as an "insecurity".
As for the Taiwanese identity -- there's also a Cantonese identity, a Sichuanese identity, a Wu-Yue identity, and a very strong Manchurian identity. The difference is that the Taiwanese identity is being reconstructed so that it is outside the Chinese identity. Since Manchurians, Cantonese etc. don't seem to be doing this, mainland Chinese arrive at the conclusion that the Taiwanese are insecure about their identities in a way that Manchurians or Cantonese aren't. -- ran (talk) 01:59, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
Come on, lads. This has nothing to do with the article. Take it elsewhere if you must.;) Mark1 02:07, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Point taken. Ran, if you'd like to continue the discussion we can do it on our respective talk pages. -Loren 02:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Like what -Loren has said above, the Taiwan issue is used largely as a way of diverting the attention of the average PRC citizens away from the aggravating conflicts of the mainland Chinese society and into the non-existent issues of "nationalism", in which the Commie bandits take their last refuge. And Taiwan is used in this case for nationalism instead of Mongolian because as everybody knows the economy of Taiwan and Mongolia is that of heaven and hell, heck, most Chinese nowadays never knew that Mongolia was part of China and since Mongolia is dirt-poor, having it coming back to China (which the Mongolian parliament is debating right now -- whether to return to China) would only serve to add economic burdens to the Chinese economic infrastructure, those at the top of the power echelon of the CCP government, corrupt as they are, are not stupid and without a basic sense of economic benefits, so they have calculated that it is most advantageous to use the issue of Taiwan as a way of getting their subjects united in their hatred of anti-Nationalism on the basis of the Taiwan leaders. Only because Taiwan is much richer and having it back could potentially add a lot to the Chiense' international prestige. 70.50.238.47 20:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
In retrospect, I think the economy of Taiwan now depends on China to a large extent because of all the investments of Taiwan merchants in the Mainland. Also, as for Mongolia, I still hold the opinion that Mongolia should go back to China to make it the second largest nation in the world, and that we should recover our area to the Tang dynasty, which also included Lake Baikal in Siberia. Of course, it would be best if we can have all of Siberia and restore China to the size of the Genghis Khan empire, but that's just a pipedream. 70.50.238.47 20:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Population

In the demographics section the information on population is presented as "Taiwan's population was estimated in 2005 as being 22.9 million". Is this figure for the ROC, or specifically for Taiwan? — Instantnood 10:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • Taiwan = all of the ROC according to the Taiwan government, so all of it. There aren't enough people outside just the island to skew a vague statistic like that anyways. SchmuckyTheCat 15:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
    Well yes that's the political ideology of Chen Shui Bian, but the government does not explicitly and officially equating them in this way. The premier Frank Hsieh is still talking about "one China according to constitution" (憲法一中). According to the information on Wikipedia, there are 61,614, 8,912 and 91,840 people on Quemoy, Matsu and the Pescadores respectively, giving a total of 242,366, or more than 1% of the total population (22,894,384) under ROC administration. As the subject matter of this article is on Taiwan (or Taiwan plus the Pescadores), the figure should be 22.7 (without the Pescadores) or 22.8 million (with Pescadores), or presented by specifying 22.9 million is the ROC figure. — Instantnood 17:41, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Global role (or lack of it)

Taiwan has a vast army for its size. But it seems not to have fought at all, since abandoning Hainan Island in 1950.

The absence of this US ally from the Korean War, Vietnam War and now Iraq seems very odd. The South Koreans fought in Vietnam, and were hated worse than the USA. They are also there in Iraq. But Taiwan? The army eats up 25% of the budget, but what does it do?

--172.215.147.137 17:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)Gwydion M. Williams

See Military of the Republic of China, Foreign relations of the Republic of China. -Loren 18:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

You are not entirely correct on the fact that Taiwanese soldiers did not enter any global conflict. There are actually 2 companies that were deployed into Vietnam for their petite size. They were intended to be "tunnel cleaners."

However, shortly after the deployment, the war ended. So they did not play a big role in the war.

And about having the big military budget, it is a matter of national security, and the classic game theory of prisoner's dilemma. It'll be the best for both countries to have no military at all in that they don't waste money. Since nobody really trust each other, they all build as much military as possible, therefore all end up at the worse position.

And I'd believe that if today US recognizes ROC as the one Chinese government, they would have requested or allowed troops from Taiwan to be sent to Iraq.

--128.8.8.248 11:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference, Loren. It seems confirmed that the Kuomintang army has done very little except maybe deter an invasion by Beijing's forces.--GwydionM 19:47, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

While I'm no major fan of the KMT (or politicians in general for that matter), I'd have to say that I'm pretty thankful for the ROC .mil's role in deterring a PRC invasion. While it's true that the ROC's participation in direct combat operations has been very limited, a fair amount of cooperation did occur, some of the things that come to mind are:
  • During the Korean War, part of the escalation advocated by General MacArthur involved utilizing ROC forces for an attack on the PRC. IIRC, CKS was all for that idea but it was later dismissed (along with MacArthur) by President Truman. PLA troops captured by UN forces during the Korean War were given the choice of repatriation to the PRC or to the ROC. Some ROC troops were sent to Korea to serve as translators. Remnant ROC forces in Burma staged cross border raids into southwest China.
  • Throughout the Cold War, ROCAF pilots were involved in U2 recon flights over Mainland China[1]. Several ROC pilots were shot down during these missions. There was also a fair amount of intelligence sharing between the ROC NSB and the CIA as well as several SIGINT operations based in Taiwan. ROC special forces also conducted numerous raids of PRC coastal cities and outposts up through the late 1970's.
  • Not sure about Vietnam. I know that there were US troops based in Taiwan up till the mid 1970's, and that Taiwan served as a logistics base as well as a location for GI's serving in Vietnam to get some R&R. I am pretty certain though that the ROC did not participate in any direct combat. Correction, apprently some troops were sent quitely:
Washington was once again determined to manage the alliance in ways that served the overarching objective of blunting PRC intervention. This meant maintaining a sharp line of demarcation between treaty-related activities and the war in Vietnam. Actual ROC participation in the war was consequently limited to technical aid, the provision of a political warfare group, training in Taiwan, the dispatch of small numbers of combat troops disguised as locals, and assistance with transportation. On Taiwan, American units in support of the Vietnam mission were kept under U.S. command and pursued objectives related solely to that mission.[2]
  • Regarding Iraq, I know that there was some talk a year or two ago about sending ROC Marines to Iraq to support Coalition forces[3]. The Ministry of Defense seemed to be all for the idea (understandable I suppose, considering that most current ROC troops have never seen actual combat), however the whole thing caused a massive political debate in Taiwan (not to mention the usual howling from Beijing). In the end the White House and the ROC Foreign Ministry put an end to the speculation by denying that there was any plan for Taipei's participation[4][5]. A few months ago there was some talk about the U.S. buying small arms ammo from Taiwan, I have no idea if that is going ahead.
  • Good reference: The United States and the Republic of China, 1949-1978
I guess all this means that I need to update the ROC Military article ;)-Loren 00:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Island Nation

Island nation archived discussion only shows Jiang adamantly trying to assert that it is POV but no consensus that it is POV.

"They have continued to be governed by the Republic of China after the People's Republic of China was established on mainland China at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949." Edits to the first paragraph were made to condense information. Introduction must be kept to a limited length with elaboration further in the article itself. It's neither grammatically correct nor informationally accurate, as Taiwan has been ruled by the ROC since 1945, not 1949. Leave it out.

O.K. I am willing to have a discussion about island nation. This means a discussion and then a decision one way or another. Not citing something that is not consensus and just reverting back and forth. - 61.59.12.88 19:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There was already a discussion on "island nation". There is no consensus or need to insert the term. Is there anything new you would like to bring up that hasnt already been discussed?
The statement "They have continued to be governed by the Republic of China after the People's Republic of China was established on mainland China at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949." is not incorrect. It does not negate the fact that Kinmen/Matsu were part of the ROC since 1912 and Taiwan/Penghu since 1945. It is vital that we include this info as part of the introduction on the political status of taiwan. --Jiang 23:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Territorial Claims

"Meanwhile, political reforms beginning in the late 1970s and continuing through the early 1990s liberalized Taiwan from an authoritarian one-party state into a localized multiparty democracy that in 1991, for all practical purposes, ended its claims over mainland China. The consolidation of multiparty democracy culminated in 2000 when the KMT's monopoly on power ended after the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party won the ROC presidency. " This information should not be deleted. This is an important shift from old policy. Chiang Kaishek seriously wanted to reinvade China. No current Taiwanese politician wants to invade China. Consolidation of democracy is an event of paramount importance in the development of a democratic state and should be noted. - 61.59.12.88 16:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood--why did you reimplement the change without providing any reason? - 61.59.12.88 19:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Is the territorial claims dropped by going through all the legislative and legal processes? If not, what we can say is that the government no longer actively asserts the claims. — Instantnood 19:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I think the disclaimer in the edit "for all practical purposes" keeps it ambiguous enough. I've restored this part of the edit. Other articles expand on this issue to greater depth. SchmuckyTheCat 20:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The problem is the emphasis on the year 1991. There is over-emphasis on Lee Teng-hui's statement made in 1991, which was not a drastic change in policy or rhetoric. The transformation was gradual. The claims have not been lifted but they are "largely ignored". --Jiang 23:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood's edit: Government of Taiwan _is_ the ROC. There is no need to say government of the ROC instead of government of Taiwan. We use ROC to refer to the government of Taiwan instead of Taiwan, but that does not exclude saying "government of Taiwan". - 61.59.12.88 16:29, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yes it is the government administering Taiwan, but it is the government of Taiwan and something else. The name of of this political entity is Republic of China. — Instantnood 17:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
What "something else" ?? SchmuckyTheCat 18:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Quemoy, Wuchiu, Matsu, Taiping, Pratas are never part of Taiwan, except when Taiwan is used in place of Republic of China. — Instantnood 19:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
But that very "Government of Taiwan" is a big proponent of using Taiwan in place of Republic of China and their usage is that Taiwan means everything they administer. The anon has a point here, but I'm not sure what it means to this edit spat. SchmuckyTheCat 19:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes and no. It's using Taiwan in place of Republic of China by its administrative power, without backing by laws, i.e. it lacks the legality. They tend not to address Quemoy and Matsu. And in fact some hardline supporters of independence do advocate giving up Quemoy and Matsu, so as to justify their claims of Taiwanese independence, that Republic of China equals Taiwan. — Instantnood 19:40, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
The government does not ever use the term "Government of Taiwan". Their preferred term is "Government of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Under Lee Teng-hui, the preferred form was "Republic of China on Taiwan". Using taiwan in place of Republic of China when the latter would be more accurate violates the naming conventions.--Jiang 23:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Lee Teng Hui used his preferred form only in speech as far as I can recall. He did not, unlike what Chen Shui Bian has done, put this form on documents. — Instantnood 08:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
Wait a minute, wait a minute. The current Wikipedia setup says that ROC is the proper name of the government. In line with that, by Taiwan, we don't mean a political entity but a location and grouping. That's what the disambiguation explains at the top. Are you against "economy of Taiwan" and "culture of Taiwan" as well? - 61.59.12.88 19:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
The islands mentioned above, for instance, are not part of the history of Taiwan. Only Taiwan together with the Pescadores were part of the kingdom of Koxinga, and later colonised by Japan. Those islands are not part of the Taiwanese culture either. (The culture of southern Fujian that Quemoy belongs is closely associated with that of Taiwan tho. Nonetheless Min Nan is not even commonly spoken on the Matsu Islands.) And yes I do oppose having the economy article titled "economy of Taiwan", for it covers Taiwan plus the other islands that are not part of Taiwan. — Instantnood 19:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

In the case of the UN bid, it is always referred to as Taiwan's bid to enter the UN. This is where Wikipedia logic fails. We really can't say that the ROC is trying to enter the UN in the sense of an ROC that claims China or is the representative of China, because it would entail obtaining its original UN security council seat then. But that is not what they try to do at all.

The burden for explaining why you want to use "administers" falls to you. I don't understand why you insist on using such strange language. Democracies don't administer their constituents. A colony could be administered. But Taiwan is not a colony of the ROC. - 61.59.12.88 16:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know its bid to join the UN is based on its existence as an independent sovereign state, and not represented. It does not, and in fact avoid to address its claim over its former territories on the Eurasian continent. More recently, not surprisingly after pro-independence-minded politicians are in power, it's even saying that it does not care under what name to take its seat. But all these are done by a government which has not changed the official name of the State from "Republic of China" to "Taiwan" or "Republic of Taiwan". If "administer" is a strange language please go and notify the academics of public administration. — Instantnood 17:05, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Based on the English ability you show here, I disagree that you properly understand the true meaning of "administer." What in the world does the article on public administration have to do with "administer"? It is the wrong term. And I don't get what that has to do with the UN issue either. Your logic (if we can call it that) is unclear. - 61.59.12.88 19:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Mind elaborate a little bit more on why you think "administer" is the wrong term and is "strange language"? — Instantnood 19:16, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
The resolutions put forth call on admitting the "Republic of China" (yes, they use the term) to represent the "23 million people of Taiwan". --Jiang 23:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Taiwan here is already an example that it is used in place of the territories currently governed by the Republic of China. :-) — Instantnood 08:11, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Political Status Section by User:Jiang

The sudden appearance of a diplomatic status section led me to question how the Taiwan article could have avoided a political status of Taiwan section for so long (since I've been around). I did some research and here's what I found.

Compare this state of the page on May 4 2005 - [6] - with the revision right after by Jiang - [7]. There is nothing in the talk page regarding a delete of this section nor does Jiang leave any note in the edit summary. In the next immediately following edit, Jiang supposedly restores a bunch of deleted material (I have not verified this edit and think that by this time, and they are probably irrelevant except that they may be further evidence of suspicious edits). In the context of such edits, I find the deletion of the political status section intentional and requiring explanation.

I will begin work to restore the section and re-summarize the current political status of Taiwan article.--DownUnder555 07:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, a little more research--looks like Jiang also deleted the Economy of Taiwan section. Complicating matters, though, is that there were a bunch vandals doing other kinds of damage meanwhile. In any case, I'd appreciate some help in getting the political status section up to par.--DownUnder555 07:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, that could have been accidental. This would be so much easier without the intermittent vandalism. --MarkSweep✍ 08:30, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
And this was on May 4 and you bring this up now? I did not "delete" the political status section. If you use the (diff) link (instead of just trying to eyeball separate versions) you will see that the content of the political status section was integrated into other sections. I don't really understand why you are choosing to bring this up only now since the article has changed dramatically over the past few months and a "Diplomatic status and identity" popped up that you had to "delete" (using your own language) to establish a "Political status of Taiwan and Identity" section. This is not to mention that the lead section has been expanded immensely to suit the purpose of clearing up the political status. Now there will be redundancy. --Jiang 09:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, I made my first edit to Wikipedia on May 20, 2005. I was a regular reader of Wikipedia prior to that date but would not have brought it up because I didn't make edits. I wonder why you are so defensive and angry if you feel those edits were proper. You didn't explain the edits at all, and they were major changes. I explained why I brought it up: There was this new diplomatic status and identity section, much of which is covered in the full length political status article. I was curious how the present article could have avoided having a summary of said section for so long. My suspicions were confirmed when I went back to old versions of the article, which previously summarized political status of Taiwan in the Taiwan article, but which I found out reading past history that you deleted.

I want to respond to your assertion that you "redistributed" the section. First of all, that section is supposed to be a summary of the full article political status of Taiwan. The paragraph or two that you inserted into the introduction and the history section are completely inadequate in terms of understanding the full length article, and the very fact that that section used to be three paragraphs and a very long section is more proof you were deleting and not just redistributing information. Your explanation does not hold up.

So, I bring this up now because the article clearly warrants a political status section, and I wondered why it did not have one. And that was not the only section that was deleted--you deleted the economy of Taiwan section. Two section deletions?

I want to be more forward looking and productive. There is some redundancy that can be reduced, and I combined the diplomatic status and identity section with the political status section since they are the same section, but do have some differing information. It does need work, but it does not need to be deleted. More information from the full length article can be brought over and summarized. Whatever the point of view, political relations with China and the world have to be one of the single most defining problems of Taiwan--it needs its own section.--DownUnder555 13:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Why dont you provide diff links and copies of the text I "deleted"? And yes, I did discuss. Refer to the talk page archives. Here and at Talk:Republic of China. You are accusing me of stuff I did not do. If you really want to discredit, please back up your accusations with real evidence. --Jiang 19:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I see some discussion now. You should've said "see talk" or make some mention of the discussion in your edit summary. Why didn't you? Also, the original proposal was only to reduce the political status section, not to eliminate it. The discussion talks about wording and minor points on what you wrote without thinking about the structure of the article--thus there was no consensus to your proposal. Your problem from what you imply in your other discussion around that time is you incorrectly believe that Taiwan section should not contain politics. But regardless of Taiwan's status as a state, it still has politics and political features define the region, whatever "region" means.
Well, now there's clearly demand for such a section (people other than me added the diplomatic status and identity section). Is adding this section going to start a POV war? I hope not, but we can just follow this rule then: __edits must be based on the political status of Taiwan section__. Back to the original reason for shortening (not deleting) the political status section. I don't think the idea that there could be vandals or POV pushing is a good reason for eliminating information from an article. I welcome corrections that could bring it in line with the political status article, maintaining brevity, while also providing decent coverage.
The problem of synching with the full article is a big one. Shared section summaries by the Taiwan article and the ROC article (such as economy and culture) should really be kept the same, though I guess it has to just be done manually from time to time. Also, definitely they should be synced both ways with the full-length articles.--DownUnder555 09:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The Pescadores

Should the subject matter of this article on the island of Taiwan itself, or the larger area that covers the island of Taiwan, Green Island, Orchid Island, and the Pescadores? The Pescadores is basically part of Taiwan in all aspects, including history, culture, demographics, geography. It would also give readers a clearer picture that the Pescadores is part of Taiwan the area, while Quemoy and Matsu are not. — Instantnood 20:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am by now familiar with your view that Taiwan means just Taiwan without Penghu and Jinmen and Mazu. But that is already not a view shared by some articles on Wikipedia as well as sections of the article here. For example, economy of Taiwan... what does that mean? What does it mean historically? What do demographics of Taiwan mean? I for sure so somewhere that listed ROC as the government and Taiwan as the area controlled by the ROC. So where is the current definition that Taiwan does not yet include Penghu coming from? I wonder because I don't think there's a consensus. I know the intro was written that way, but that's because that was someone else's point of view (or did you write that?). Also related is the ROC question. Does ROC refer to the area that the government named ROC controls? If it does, then shouldn't most of the stuff in the Taiwan article be moved to the ROC article? But would people be happy if the Taiwan article was a much thinner skeleton of what it is right now? I don't think these questions are answered very well and they are often answered in contradictory ways on Wikipedia... --DownUnder555 09:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I did suggest to rename the titles of some of the titles to better reflect the subject matter of them: whether the entirety of the territories the ROC presently administered, or only Taiwan (and Pescadores). Some titles, say, Taiwanese cuisine, culture of Taiwan, history of Taiwan and history of the Republic of China, give readers a clear picture which place the article is about, while some others, e.g. economy of Taiwan, demographics of Taiwan, education in Taiwan, do not. As per the naming conventions Taiwan should not be used in place of Republic of China when the latter is more correct.
As for the subject matter of this article, I would like to know if it should be the narrower definition - the island itself, or the broader one - the group of islands that include the Pescadores. — Instantnood 13:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

inaccurate facts on history

Would anyone care to explain

1) why it said "After Japan's defeat at the end of World War II in 1945, the Republic of China occupied Taiwan on behalf of the Allies" 2) what is the source of that "on behalf of the Allies"? i thought it was simply reverted back to China because Shimonoseki? 3) also, i do not understand why the political status paragraph starts on 1895, not 1600. 4) "Forever Qing" literally means "forever part of the Qing empire", it seems to contradict the name "republic of taiwan". i suggest more research and source be quoted about this event.

PLEASE let history be history, and respect the fact. Whether Taiwan should be an independence country is decided by the people's will, not by editing history.

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html

cia's site said, "In 1895, military defeat forced China to cede Taiwan to Japan. Taiwan reverted to Chinese control after World War II"

under "political status" "After Japan's defeat at the end of World War II in 1945, the Republic of China occupied Taiwan on behalf of the Allies." is still in INcorrect.

but the section of the "ROC Era" is more neutral. "In the San Francisco Peace Treaty.... Japan formally renounced all right, claim and title to Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores (Peng-hu), and renounced all treaties signed with China before 1942 (i.e. 'shimonigeki', in which China ceded Taiwan to Japan)

Reverted edits (07:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

I have reverted the edits by 210.242.179.102 today because they simply blanked the article. However, I have also reverted the edits by 24.83.39.189. I'm not sure whether they were valid or not as I have little understanding of the politics of Taiwan. Could someone else more knowledgeable make a judgement on this? Thanks. --A bit iffy 07:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Who discovered Taiwan?

By which I mean, of course, "which Westerners" :) I reverted the edit by 82.70.215.246 who said "The Dutch, not Portuguese, discovered 'Formosa' in 1590". According to this, the Portuguese came across Taiwan in 1544. And anyway, "Ilha Formosa" sounds a lot more Portuguese than Dutch. So, does anybody else know for sure who's right? --A bit iffy 13:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The position of the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council on Political Status

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but to my knowledge, both the UNGA and UNSC have never officially recognized/acknowledged that Taiwan is part of China, much less that the PRC is the legitimate government Taiwan. If someone has a different viewpoint or additional knowledge in this matter please state them here. For now, I will remove the statements in question and keep them here: Under the framework of international law, the decisions of the UN General Assembly may constitute pursuasive authorities and arise to the level of customary principles of international law, while the decisions of the UN Security Council may constitute a definitive pronouncement of international law. Given this framework for international law, and the fact that most members of the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council officially recognize/acknowledge that the PRC government is the sole, legitimate government of China and Taiwan is part of China, -- Sjschen 16:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


The original sentence states that "most MEMBERS of the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council officially...". It is not a synonym of UNGA or UNSC. 143.239.93.220 17:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So most UNGA and UNSC members acknowledge that Taiwan is part of China, however, as a whole UNGA and UNSC is undecided on the issue. Yes? -- Sjschen 17:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Political status NPOV... again

I have made the following changes to the political status section to make it more neutral and to avoid overlapping with Political status of Taiwan:

  • Reverted removal of information concerning the difference between other nations acknowledging the PRC's position and recognising it. There is a big difference between the two and is important to cover as it is key to the policy of strategic ambiguity maintained by many other nations such as the US.
  • Clarified support for status quo vs. TI and reunification. Support for the status quo does not nessecearily translate to support for either extreme as implied by the previous version. The centrist portions of both the KMT and DPP support maintaining the status quo for their own reasons.
  • The TI movement cannot be classified as a whole as being "right wing". While some supporters of TI can be construed as right wing (such as the TSU), a great deal of the DPP is traditionally center left (hence the term "progressive", the anti-nuclear platform, social welfare...etc). Conversely, one cannot claim that reunification is left wing as the KMT has traditionally trended conservative and pro-business. If anything, the whole independence vs. unification dichotomy transcends the traditional left vs. right classification.
  • Military support from the US is indeed present though it may not translate to direct intervention in the event of a cross straits conflict. Military support can be in the form of arms sales, training, exchanges ... etc. All three of which do presently occur betwen the U.S. military and the ROC military.
  • Removed speculation and editorializing, as well as sections with a pro-unification or pro-TI bias. Also removed section on justifications for each political position... information belongs on Political status of Taiwan, not the main article.

Comments welcome. -Loren 20:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job. One thing that bothered me a bit (this has nothing to do with your changes), is the following sentence: "Most nations acknowledge the People's Republic of China's position that Taiwan is part of China, and therefore do not have official relations with Taiwan." What bothers me is the use of "therefore". There is no inherent connection between acknowledging the PRC's position and not having official diplomatic relations. It's only in the context of the One China policy that the conclusion follows. I can't think of an elegant way to say this without getting into a longer discussion of the political status of Taiwan, which would be out of place here. How about simply removing "therefore"? --MarkSweep✍ 20:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Yah, the sentence makes just as much sense without the therefore. SchmuckyTheCat 02:10, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
No objections here, however I'm going to let someone else do the changes lest I get accused of being biased again. -Loren 04:32, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[8] whether Taiwan should remain part of the ROC, become unified with the People's Republic of China, or become a new Republic of Taiwan

remain part of the ROC? What? Like Taiwan, the island, can be considered separate from the ROC and has self-determination to boot the ROC (to where? Itu Aba?).
become a new ROT? What? Taiwan, the island, is going to dump all the other islands when it declares independence? Are the other islands where the remaining KMT stalwarts going to retreat to in order to maintain the ROC?
This edit makes no sense. However, I'm not going to revert it because [9]. SchmuckyTheCat 14:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
First, don't think this edit is related to the mediation, or else every edit of mine that you don't agree with could be included there. Second, if you have read articles such as history of Taiwan and legal status of Taiwan, you may already know that all the challenges to ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan (and the Pescadores) do not apply to the islands which are never part of the Japanese colony. As for this article, it does not actually matter what would happened to those islands and where would the KMT stalwarts be going if Taiwan were to declare its independence as the Republic of Taiwan. What's relevant here is that the Republic of Taiwan would have no de jure right to claim and to possess those islands, if its independence were a result of ROC's sovereignty being refuted. Afterall, "Taiwan" in this article is not the entirety of the ROC-administered territories. — Instantnood 19:56, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for saying nothing which attempts to make sense of the quoted parts of that edit, nor offering any suggested improvement. SchmuckyTheCat 21:38, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, if you carry on insisting that "Taiwan" = the entire territories under ROC administration, nothing would make sense, and it can only be "improved" if you were able to change the NPOV conventions. — Instantnood 05:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, you don't understand that Taiwan can mean both things and, omg, it is not bias to acknowledge that. SchmuckyTheCat 19:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
It can mean both things, but this article is not using both meanings. — Instantnood 08:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to the original topic, the article is being continuously reverted back to the version that I believe is decidedly non-neutral. The anon doing the reverting has not responded to the points I rasied above, or why he/she considers this version superior or how to improve it. I'd rather this not turn into another revert war, however action must be taken eventually, much as it was a few months ago when we had to deal with someone trying to turn this into a country article. -Loren 05:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Political status intro paragraph, again²

The current intro paragraph of this section doesn't completely make sense. So, I took a try at coming up with wording that wouldn't be such an issue. Then I thought "why have it at all?" We link to a complete article and every point of fact or POV represented in the intro paragraph is repeated again later in the section. The section is a better read without it, starting off with history and moving on. We're better off without it. I'll remove it, and expecting disagreement, discuss. SchmuckyTheCat 19:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to removing the intro if it prevents this from turning into another content dispute, though I do think the PRC's position and the position of other countries do bear mentioning. However I'd also like to point out that whomever is replacing the section is also removing valid information (as discussed in the last section), posting incorrect information (military support and TI being right wing) and engaging in political speculation that is really better suited for the political status article. As I understand it NPOV for this article means making no stand or implications on the current or future status. The section that I was objecting to read like an argument for reunification, which again, should be on Political status of Taiwan or Chinese reunification along with other arguments for reunification or independence. -Loren 19:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Yah, I think everyone agrees with you that the returning anon's contributions aren't quite there for our POV considerations. They always come from the same IP. I know you've tried to reach out to them but maybe they haven't learned how to discuss or they have no interest.
And, the PRC's position and position of other countries is still there in the section. "the Communists established the People's Republic of China, claiming to be the successor state of both the mainland and Taiwan and portraying the ROC government on Taiwan as an illegitimate entity." and "Currently there are 26 states -- mostly small, third-world nations in Africa and South America -- that have diplomatic relations with the Republic of China, although many countries such as the United States and United Kingdom have only de-facto embassies in Taiwan" SchmuckyTheCat 19:44, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Pledge of US Military Support

The mutual defense agreement between the US and ROC was allowed to expired. The closes thing to any sort of assurance that the US might have agreed to give the ROC military assistance is through the Taiwan Relations Act, and even there it's only states the US will consider military actions against Taiwan to be of "grave concern". --BenjaminTsai 03:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I feel that your current objection is based upon a misinterpretation of "support". If you read my previous objections you will see that I clearly stated that "military support" is not "military intervation". "Military support" entails mutual exchange programs, training as well as transfers and sales of weapons, both of which do presently occur between the US and the ROC. If you feel that "support" is too strong a word, I'm willing to consider alternatives, however it must take into account the exchanges that presently occur. -Loren 03:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've clarified that section a bit, your comments would be appreceated. -Loren 03:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, yes I did misinterpret "support" to necessarily equate "direct intervention", however in the context of the paragraph it does seem natural to assume that. =P In any event, the clarified version of the paragraph is a definite improvement. However, I think the US has gone slightly further than "[stopping] short of stating whether or not it would actually intervene in the event of a cross straits conflict." The US has warned that it does not support unilateral changes to status quo by either party, and it is this policy that helps maintain the status quo across the Taiwan Strait by toning down rhetorics of extremists on both sides of the strait. --BenjaminTsai 04:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
No problem. I've rephrased it a bit further per your comments. Let me know what you think. -Loren 04:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've revised it slightly to highlight the stabilizing factor of the United States. I believe this is slightly more accurate, let me know. --BenjaminTsai 03:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it looks good, however I am slightly concerned by the last sentence. (This diplomatic and military policy of the United States helps ensure stability across the Taiwan strait region.) Personally I have no objection to the idea that the US plays a stabilizing role, goodness knows that I believe it myself; however I can think of quite a few people from various groups who might dispute that for their own reasons. As much as you and I might disagree with their assesments, I'm not sure that we should state that in the interest of neutrality. Consequently, I'd suggest removing the last sentence, and letting people decide for themselves what the end result of everyones actions and positions is. Other then that, I'm good with everything else. -Loren 03:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the allegations by 66.65.45.83

Also placed on your talk page just to make sure you read it .

Please explain exactly how my edits make it look as if there is a clear consensus for TI or are "pro-US" in nature? I never made such claims and I resent your unsubstantiated allegations. Show me where you think my edits favor TI. I made clear my objections to your edits on the talk page, pointed out my reasoning and gave you plenty of time to respond, though you choose not to. Obviously other editors with long histories here thought the same, as I was not the only person rolling back your edits. If you have concrete evidence that my edits are inaccurate or in error then, please by all means let me know and I'll be the first to change them. All you have done so far however, is fling insults and unsubstantiated accusations.

Second, explain to me how I am "abusing my admin privilege"? Despite your clearly confrontational, unilateral behavior you were never blocked nor prevented from editing. I issued a 3RR warning when you had reached 3 reversions in a 24 hour period as you may see for yourself in the article history, but did not take further action as you did not make a fourth.

Third, I have done my best to up hold what I consider to be a neutral POV when editing this article, meaning that I do not make speculations either way as to what the ultimate fate of Taiwan should be in the article. Perhaps you consider this to be TI. I know for certain that zealots on the opposite side of the issue from you have called me a commmie sympathizer and a KMT stooge for it. From my experience working with Taiwan related articles, extremists almost always consider neutrality to be diametrically opposed to their own position, reagrdless of which side they're standing on TI or reunification. So quite frankly, being bashed by you from the other side makes me think that I must be doing something right as far as remaining neutral goes. I don't claim to be 100% unbiased (no one is), but before you accuse me of trying to advance an agenda, perhaps you should take a careful look at yourself.

Finally, as it seems that you are clearly uninterested in working with other editors or discussing changes on the article talk page, this will be the last time I respond to your unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks until you do. Your are welcome to contribute to the article in a constructive manner, and to discuss objections and proposed changes with other editors, however rest assured that any inaccurate or POV information you insert will be removed by myself or other editors. -Loren 17:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Flag?

I realize Taiwan's sovereignty is disputed, but it does have a flag; there isn't one in the article. I don't know how to post pictures on articles myself, so...

All government related stuff is at Republic of China. -Loren 01:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is independent in all but name

A few facts that rather establishes Taiwan as an independent state, regardless of what our Chinese "friends" may like us to think...

1. They have their own government. 2. Their culture is significantly different from that of mainland chinese. 3. They have the military power and the allies to easily win if China tries to invade them.

Frankly, the Taiwanese people have exercised their right to self-determination, as granted them under the Declaration of Human Rights (which China itself is a signatory to), to establish themselves a separate nation. It does not matter what the mainlanders think, this is how it is.


1. Taiwan's goverment = renegade government.
2. Taiwanese have similar culture to China in general. Chinese culture itself is variant from west (Xinjiang) to east coast.
3. China has the military power to invade successfully and can win allies easily if Taiwan declares independence first.
Frankly, Taiwan is a part of China. It doesn't matter what the islanders think, this is how it is.
If you really wanted to, you could also say that mainland China is a part of Taiwan. The fact is the current situation is a result of a civil war sixty years ago that ended in the old Chinese government fleeing to the Chinese island of Taiwan. It's sort of like an East Germany/West Germany thing. But if the two sides are seperated long enough, they become permanently seperated countries. Who knows? Maybe they'll be united some day? Whether or not they should be united is a subject of debate, and the current situation is that what we in the west know as "China" and "Taiwan" behave a lot like two seperate countries, even if they'll be reunified (there's a good chance they will). I understand that this is something that is very emotional for both the mainlanders and the islanders. In my opinion, the threat of military invasion doesn't help matters. Wikipedia isn't about "official truths" by some government, it's about fact. Robotbeat 17:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
1) Reference my previous statement about the Taiwanese people's right to self-determination.
2) Irrelevant. If culture was a reason to conquer and absorb another nation, the US would long since have conquered Canada and England.
3) China does not have the military power to defeat Taiwan by itself, much less the US. I'm curious as to how you think they're able to.

I point out that despite China's large standing military, it's equipment is rather substandard by any First World country's standards, and it's unlikely they'll be able to simply swim across the strait and wade up onto the beaches.

This all assumes non-intervention by the US, of course. A single carrier battle group would suffice to squash China's entire navy.

But all this is irrelevant; China having a big military does not automatically entitle them to waltz in and take over a nation that is interested in remaining independent.

You're indeed right. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not fantasies. Jtrainor 05:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hahaha. Taiwanese calling mainland's military inferior. So it seems that it's the Taiwanese who's asking to "try" a taste of mainland military machine. Asking for it, you got it. I am curious how many Taiwanese would like to "prove" mainland's military is inferior by going to war with it. Heilme 07:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
And, I agree that Wikipedia is a place of facts and not fantasies. I believe that what Chen Suibian is pursuing right now is a fantasy. An independent Taiwan nation is a fantasy for the moment, especially if it's to be done bloodless. Heilme 07:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Taiwan has US fighter jets that have over-the-horizon engagement capabilities, whereas China does not. Taiwan also has a quite significant investment in state-of-the-art Patriot defense missile systems (and they're planning on expanding them). Obviously China has more resources to throw into its military, but that doesn't mean that China will win a battle versus Taiwan. Look at how many times much larger militaries have attacked Israel, yet Israel was able to defeat them, even though those other countries have vastly more resources from their oil reserves. I'm not saying Taiwan is like Israel, just that you can't assume that the bigger country will always win. If Taiwan can own the skies, then they have a pretty good chance against a Chinese invasion. This is how it has worked for basically any war beginning with World War 2.
Anyways, Taiwan doesn't want a war with China. And most Chinese probably don't want a war with Taiwan. Having a reasonably strong military means that Taiwan doesn't have to always bow to Chinese diplomatic pressure/threats. Taiwan's current government is descended from the old Chinese government, which was overthrown on the mainland by the current Communist Chinese government. It is very misleading to say that Taiwan's government is renegade when it was in place before the current mainland communist Chinese government. And anyways, why the heck do you think mocking someone else by laughing at them is appropriate? Try to be a little more civil, Heilme. Robotbeat 18:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)