Talk:Taiwan/Archive 12

Regarding the lead

I propose we add [[Political status of Taiwan|partially recognized]] [[state]] instead of just [[state]] in the lead, as the reality is that the Republic of China is only officially recognized by 24 states (that includes the Holy See). nat.utoronto 08:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I looked up the wikipedia entry for "partially recognized state" and found an article starting with "These lists of unrecognized or partially recognized countries give an overview..." but that gives no historical or legitimizing information about the term "partially recognized"? When I hear "partially recognized" it sounds like only part of the country is recognized, not the whole thing. Is "partially recognized" a legitimate term? If so, then I think it makes sense to add it. However, should we use [[partially recognized state|partially recognized]] [[state]] so that people can find out what "partially recognized" means? I think we should also have a link to "Political status of Taiwan" or perhaps "Legal status of Taiwan", but I'm not sure how we can include both.Readin (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The 23 states that give formal recognition rather understates the situation. Many states in practice treat Taiwan as independent but do not give formal recognition because they would mainland China would break off relations. The Peoples Republic is too important for most states to not have relations with them. ROC- Taiwan has a fully functioning government that has full control of its territory (apart from a completely empty claim to the mainland). It's a state and recognition is merely the icing on the cake.Dejvid (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Or we can try: The '''Republic of China''' ([[Abbr]]: ROC; {{zh-tshtw|t={{linktext|中|華|民|國}}|s={{linktext|中|华|民|国}}|hp=Zhōnghuá Mínguó|w=Chung-hua Min-kuo|tp=Jhonghuá Mínguó}}) is a [[East Asia]]n[[state]] with [[Political status of Taiwan|limited international recognition]]. But I still like the first one better. nat.utoronto 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I like your newer proposal better, though I would prefer to keep the previous "state in East Asia" wording.The '''Republic of China''' ([[Abbr]]: ROC; {{zh-tshtw|t={{linktext|中|華|民|國}}|s={{linktext|中|华|民|国}}|hp=Zhōnghuá Mínguó|w=Chung-hua Min-kuo|tp=Jhonghuá Mínguó}}) is a [[state]] in [[East Asia]] with [[Political status of Taiwan|limited international recognition]]. but I could live with either of them. I did a quick google on "partially recognized" to see if maybe it is a well known diplomatic term that I just wasn't aware of, but I didn't find evidence of that. At least to my American English ears "limited international recognition" sounds more correct. The recognition is "limited" to certain countries. But those recognitions are not "partial".Readin (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If you check the discussion archives, it was agreed that the introductory sentence would say nothing about Taiwan's political status. User:Jiang and I agreed on this consensus. All the information about the Republic of China's political status is already overly explained in the later paragraphs. Please do not open another can of worms. Allentchang (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors change and consensus can change. Can you at least provide a link to the archive we should look at or perhaps some explanation of reasoning behind the previous consensus?Readin (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Readin. Editors change and consensus can change. As well, the introductory paragraphs are suppose to summarize the article. Clearly stating the reality within the lead sentence helps to do that. As well, there have been efforts to add in "partially recognized" in front of "state" in the lead. by adding "with limited international recognition", it is more accurate and helps to simply define and explain the reality and the facts of the region, and of the state. nat.utoronto 07:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that it is fully independent from China yet the article writes about if as having continuity with the pre war Chinese republic despite there being little territorial overlap. You can't just unpick one aspect of the consensus and leave the rest intact.Dejvid (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of China is sovereign and independent from the People's Republic of China, yet it is a continuity of the Republic of China before the Nationalists party and the Government fled to Taiwan. The Governmental system is essentially the same as the one on the mainland, it's just now that the People and the Government are allowed to push its full democratic mandate set out under the Constitution of the Republic of China; the Constitution of the Republic of China is the same as before, before the Nationalists lost the mainland; the National Anthem is still the same. and the list continues nat.utoronto 13:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"...despite there being little territorial overlap. You can't just unpick one aspect of the consensus and leave the rest intact." But you've done just that, you picked on aspect (territory) to emphasize over the rest. This article is about a government, not about any particular country. The government moved, but it remained the same government. Chiang was still the dictator. The symbols such as the constituation, anthem, and flag remained the same. The legislature stayed the same. Nothing internal to the government changed, only the people and places governed changed. Since the ROC was not a democracy, changing the people governed did not significantly affect the identity of the government, much as my identity would not change if I sold my house and moved across town to a new house. Or perhaps more appropriately, a slaveholder's identity would not change if he lost his plantation and slaves but managed to acquire a new plantation with different slaves.Readin (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"But you've done just that". Sure, that's exactly what I intend to do. If there is an intact consensus then I'll respect that. If someone choses to overturn one aspect then I'm free to overturn other aspects. As for your slave owner example that holds true only if you take the point of view of the slave owner. From the point of view of the slaves the plantations are quite different. The logic of what you are saying is that now that Taiwan is a democracy it has become a new state. That would be a valid point of view and you should hold to it, to be consistent. Dejvid (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If an aspect of a consensus is overturned, it should be overturned by consensus. Before changing the opening sentence, we discussed the change and reached a consensus. If you want to overturn something else, particularly something as large as the topics and structures of the several articles, then consensus should first be reached.

You are right that two entirely separate plantations are involved. In the analogy, the plantations are China and Taiwan. The owner, the Master ROC, first runs the plantation called China. He acquires a second plantation called Taiwan and shortly thereafter loses possession of his first plantation. We don't write two articles about Mr. ROC, one concerning his life while he ran one plantation and then another for the time spent running the second plantation. We just write one article about Mr. ROC. But we do write separate articles for the separate plantations. See China and Taiwan.

Your comment about the ROC changing when it became Democratic is insightful. In fact I think that marks a more significant change in Taiwan's history that it is given credit for. In a sense, that marked the first time in 100 years when Taiwanese were running Taiwan instead of the country being run by foreigners. However, this article is not about Taiwan, it is about the ROC. From the ROC's perspective it was simply an evolution, not an identity change. The name, constitution, flag, components, remained largely the same. Over time the ROC is changing. But if all changes are peaceful and slow, at what point do we say it has a new identity? Readin (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize - I expected you to be inconsistent and you're not. Further, I can see the way you have of looking at things has advantages. However it is not how county pages are normally done on Wikipedia. The pages are not simply about regimes but more about nation states. The problem of trying to treating the pre war republic as being the same as the republic that now governs Taiwan is seen when you look at the economic section - the two bits bear no relation to each other. Even the most dictatorial regime will be fundamentally change if it finds itself governing a different people - it will be faced with different problems and that will change it.Dejvid (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As well, democracy was always a part of the basic and constitutional laws of the Republic of China, the only difference between now and when the Chiangs were in power, is the 50ish year old martial law that basically suspended several "democratic" parts of the constitution , which was repealed in the late 80s, early 90s. nat.utoronto 02:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing we're seeing the problem Allentchang referred to. The opening paragraph is growing as information about the independence debate is added. Recent additions include

multi-party democratic

and

Though it still formally claims to be the government of all China, both elected presidents have held the view that it is a sovereign and independent country and there is no need for a formal declaration of independence.

In my view the opening paragraph should cover information that draws the reader's interest and that identifies the subject of discussion. I think the addition of "multi-party democratic" is justified on the grounds that whether a government is elected is essential to its nature. If you were to try to understand a government's behavior on any subject, the first thing you would want to know is whether the government is elected.

However, I'm less inclined to agree with the addition of the statement about claims to China. Taiwan's official claim on China has become more of a footnote than a central issue. The hostilities between Taiwan and China are certainly a big thing, but they result from China claiming Taiwan, not the other way around. I think it is important to note that both Taiwanese presidents, and the only two elected ROC presidents, do not agree with the claim, but I think it is important to note it in a detail paragraph, not in the opening paragraph where the claim to rule all of China isn't worth mentioning.

I do think we should move it.

Can we agree for the near future that significant (other than grammar or spelling) edits to opening will be discussed here first to avoid "mission creep" in the first paragraph?Readin (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

And within 4 minutes of my post, "multi-party democratic" became "that has evolved from a one-party authoritarian state with full global recognition into a multi-party democratic state" and the words "mostly unofficial international recognition" were added, affirming my concern about the growth of the paragraph.

To set an example I hope others will follow, I'll propose trim down a section I worked on.

Established in 1912, the Republic of China encompassed much of mainland China. The island groups of Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores were added to its authority in 1945 at the end of World War II. These island groups, together with Kinmen and Matsu became the full extent the Republic of China's authority after 1949 when the Kuomintang lost the Chinese Civil War to the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Republic of China (PRC) was founded in mainland China.

can be trimmed to

Established in 1912, the Republic of China once governed mainland China. Since the loss of mainland China to to the Chinese Communist Party in the Chinese Civil War, the ROC has ruled the island groups of Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, Kinmen and Matsu.

It's a little awkward mainly because I've tried to avoid words that would suggest Taiwan was part of the rule before, or that Taiwan is not part of China. But I think the end of WWII and the founding of the PRC can be excluded as not central to ROC identity. The territories controlled are pretty significant though.Readin (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

About the map of 'Constitutional administrative division of the Republic of China'

In this map, some area administered by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and claimed by the Republic of China is missing. You can compare the map http://mail.lnes.tp.edu.tw/~miriamlou/DSC04892.JPG (Map of Northeasten China, published in Taiwan) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanggang (Location Map of Ryanggang Province, DPRK) Can someone fix the map? Nabimew (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Esperanto

Hello,

Here is the status of interwikis for Taiwan and Republic of China with the esperanto language:

• en:Republic of China -> eo:Tajvano
• en:Taiwan -> nothing

This should be :

• en:Republic of China -> eo:Respubliko Cxinio
• en:Taiwan -> eo:Tajvano

Can somebody with suficient rights change it? 62.16.186.192 (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Those may be the correct Esperanto translations for the concepts of "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" but unfortunately the article "Respubliko Ĉinio" doesn't exist and the article "Tajvano" describes the Republic of China, not just the island.

Ili estus la korektaj translacioj Esperantaj de la konceptoj "Republic of China" kaj "Taiwan," sed bedaŭrinde la artikolo "Respubliko Ĉinio" ne ankoraŭ ekzistas kaj la artikolo "Tajvano" priskribas la Respublikon Ĉinion, ne nur la insulon.

--- Hiyayaywhopee (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Change to multi-party democracy

Hello,   I'm particularly interested in the process of democratization of ROC. There seems to be little/no information about this in the article, although it seems to be very important (the article states that there was a shift from authoritarian rule to pluralism, but provides NO additional information). Can someone who has info or is knowledgeable about the subject please contribute to the article? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.59.251 (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

This is precisely the reason that one should not include any adjectives or modifiers in the lead sentence, but certain people don't understand the consequence so we have to live with the consequence. Allentchang (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually having that information in the lead sentence is extremely important because it's not covered anywhere else in the article. If we didn't have it in the lead we wouldn't have it at all - which would be a terrible omission. The anonymous poster is right that we should have more information the topic. If said reader is still around, I suggest he look at the History of the Republic of China article for some additional details. Readin (talk) 22:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ehh hang on mix up between mainland and taiwan

The Republic of China on mainland China went through periods of warlordism, Japanese invasion, civil war between the Kuomintang and the Communists, rapid economic growth and industrialization, and democratization

Yeah, eh, the last three things - "growth, industrialization and democratization" - none of those occured in the mainland for the Republic of China. Only on Taiwan. much later after 1950's, which, I assume is not mainland. Tourskin (talk) 04:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

maybe it's because of the CIVIL WAR AND WWII HAPPENING DURING THAT TIME. Dude, don't just look at one little thing, look at the big picture. Rarukan (talk) 21:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu Tao (talk • contribs)

The text in the article has been changed. Regardless of the cause (civil war, Japanese invasion, internal divisions within government, whatever) we should be documenting what happened, not what might have happened had the situation been different.Readin (talk) 02:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

ROC's territorial claims

What are the ROC's current territorial claims? I find contradicting information at different Wikipedia pages. In particular, I find information about claims in Outer Mongolia confusing.

Yi ge Zhongguo states:

Legally speaking, the Republic of China continues to maintain its version of the "One China" principle by officially (but no longer actively) claiming sovereignty over all of its territory before 1949, including Mongolia.

History of the political divisions of China#Republic of China agrees:

Regions (地方 Dìfāng)
Outer Mongolia	蒙古	Měnggǔ	蒙 měng	Kulun (Ulaanbaatar)

Zhonghua Minguo#Political status agrees:

Thus, the claimed area of the ROC continue to include Mainland China, several off-shore islands, Taiwan, Outer Mongolia, northern Burma, and Tuva (now Russian territory).

On the other hand, Republic of China-Mongolia relations states:

The Republic of China's Ministry of the Interior then decided to discontinue including Mongolia on its official maps of Chinese territory, and on 3 October 2002, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it would recognise Mongolia's independence.

Note that it said that it was going to recognise Mongolia's independence. This doesn't mean that it ever happened. So has it happened yet?

List of unrecognised countries: Mongolia was removed from the list of partially unrecognised countries as of [1] with the edit summary

rv - we have a source stating that the roc recognized mongolia starting in 2002

but it doesn't tell what that source would be.

Does anyone know whether ROC currently recognises Mongolia or not? (212.247.11.156 (talk) 11:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC))

Under constitutional law in the Republic of China, the answer is no. Unofficially, under the presidency of Chen Shui-bian they have established unofficial diplomatic relations with Mongolia. nat.utoronto 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Altering the former territorial claim is a sensitive subject as it would bring up the issue of formally renouncing the claim over the entire mainland. As a result, no formal changes have been made. As Nat has mentioned, the Chen administration has pretty much gone as far as they can go in "recognizing" Mongolia without pushing for a formal constitutional change. The attitude of the incoming Ma administration on this issue is unclear at this time. Ma is a proponent of the intentionally ambiguous "One China, Differing Interpretations" policy. The exact definition of ROC territory used by Ma is also likely to change depending upon whether he tries to appeal to the more conservative old guard in the KMT, or the younger generation in the party who tend to be more Taiwan-centric. So far, Ma has been playing a balancing role between the two factions. -Loren (talk) 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Found an article from 2002 on the subject: [2]. Support for opening the representative office in Mongolia was pretty bipartisan. -Loren (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

There isn't, and can't be, any "official" territorial denouncement. This "official" kind of thing is impossible in the RoC. The constitution can't be changed because of both internal politics (blue vs green) and external politics (changing the constitution to remove territorial claims might aggravate the PRC towards thinking it was a step towards independence, and thus provoke a war). Thus, in many, many areas the whole constitutional issue is just sort of side-stepped. Various RoC law making organs (either the executive or legislative branch have passed laws, made statements, etc) have denounced almost all territorial claims except to what they currently hold.

Since a lot of these issues have been proclaimed by the executive branch over the last eight years, it will be interesting if any of them are revisited after the next president takes office (who is from the opposite party, the party that originally made the claims). I doubt it. What's done has been done and no politicians seem eager to revisit these issues or make these land claims anymore. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Ironically, this territorial residue has been used by the DPP administration to block cross-strait trade and direct links. For example, RMB cannot be freely exchanged with NTD because it is, in legal statutes, the "currency of the Mainland Area" that cannot be exchanged in the "Taiwan Area" instead of "foreign currency" that is under no such restriction. In the same way, the law is used to regulate residency rights for mainland spouses and visits by mainland tourists (officially regulating the flow of goods and people within 2 "areas" of the Republic of China) more stringently than "foreign" spouses and tourists.[3]

A recent legislative proposal forwarded by the KMT is to have RMB simply redefined as "foreign currency".--Jiang (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The KMT willing to admit that China is foreign? That really does show the power of money over politics.Readin (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not always about the money. For example, millions of soldiers who were loyal to the KMT died or who lost their families forever, fought because most of them believed that KMT was China. Yes PRC is foreign to KMT but I wouldn't say that about China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 2008-04-04T04:57:11 Golbez (Talk

— contribs) (14,118 bytes) (rm mongolia - i found a source saying it has been actually recognized since 2002) (undo)

[4] But it doesn't tell what that source would be. (Stefan2 (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Good Article Reassessment

The GA status of this article is under evaluation. See[[5]]. Majoreditor (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

interwiki

Please add gd:Poblachd na Sìne to this article, Thanks --84.63.21.106 (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

'Five Races under One Union'

I have yet to come across any scholarly literature that uses this translation of wuzu gonghe; I have changed this to 'Republic of Five Races'. Cf. Harris, P., 'Chinese Nationalism: the State of the Nation', The China Journal, No. 38 (Jul., 1997), pp. 121-137; Leibold, P., 'Competing Narratives of Racial Unity in Republican China', Modern China, 2006:32. The previous translation is more appropriate to the original usage of the phrase in the 18th century than with the context of late 19th/early 20th century nationalist republicanism. Cripipper (talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you read Lin Yutang's early 20th century historic novel Moment in Peking, a Manchurian servant named Paofen said that they are all five races living in one union under the Republic. According to Lin Yutang, the concept of "five races under one union" also is referenced in the Dream of the Red Chamber. Strictly speaking, "gonghe" is too vague to be equated with the word "Republic" as it could mean "unity" or "togetherness." "Gongheguo" is more concrete in describing a Republic. Once I get the exact quotation from Lin Yutang's novel posted here, I will revert the reference. Allentchang (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Map

Since the PRC map was changed to reflect the PRC's claims, should the ROC map be changed to reflect the ROC's claim over the mainland? T-1000 (talk) 02:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The PRC is actively pushing it's ambitions, while the ROC's claims are a relic of the past that might have been repealed absent U.S. pressure. It therefore makes more sense to draw attention to PRC's irredentist imperialism than to the ROC's lip service to history. The ficticious administrative divisions of the ROC are addressed in a map later in the article, and thereby provided a map of the claims. But showing the claims in the main map would be confusing because they are so much larger in size than the actual ROC, and new visitors might think the former ROC is the current ROC. Readin (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, PRC imperialism...I hope you're not American, because if you are and you said that with a straight face.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Dracula (talk • contribs) 08:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Splitting Proposal

In light of the recent debacle regarding pages on China, I am proposing that we split pages on Chinese topic as follows:

Proposed Name	Topics covered
China	Geography of China (no actual text, but links to its counterparts at the Taiwan and PRC article), the different definitions of what area constitutes "China", the constituent nations that lies within it (PRC, Taiwan), cultures and customs
China (Historical)	History of China, including its successive dynasties, areas ruled (there are wild variations between dynasties) with a cutoff point at the end of the Qing Dynasty
People's Republic of China	People's Republic of China as it stands today
Republic of China (1912)	ROC as it existed before it retreated to Taiwan
Republic of China	ROC after its retreat to Taiwan (aka: Taiwanese Government)

The effects on this page will be as follows: any materials within the ROC page that deals with topics or issues before the ROC moved to Taiwan will be moved to Republic of China (1912), and any materials that deals with ROC as it exists today (post-retreat to Taiwan), will remain here, and this page will deal with ROC issues after its move to Taiwan.

Please discuss the issue here. Thanks! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We won't be the first, in Spanish Wikipedia there are Republic of China and Republic of China in Taiwan and in the French one there is Republic of China and Republic of China (Taiwan), too (the French is a little confusing). Schröe! (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There is already a page entitled Taiwan after World War II which used to be called "Republic of China on Taiwan." How would that page fit into the scheme of things?Ngchen (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that the historical Republic of China should be separated out - it's too messy to try to fit both onto one page. John Smith's (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Make it Republic of China 1912-1949 or Mainland China 1912-1949 and the other Republic of China on Taiwan or Republic of China (Taiwan). I agree though, there needs to be a split 202.132.6.251 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree. Why must there be a split?! You don't see the other nations split, do you?! It's always been the Republic of China from 1911 to now. There needs not be a split. So what if currently the RoC only possess Taiwan? The US at first possessed only 13 colonies, and now it's 50 states. Why don't you split the US too? Liu Tao! (talk) 7:15, 22, May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liu Tao (talk • contribs)

I don't think there has to be a split, but the comparison to the U.S. doesn't work. The U.S. grew from the original 13 colonies to include 50 states over the course of more than 175 years, and it still includes those original thirteen colonies that make up a non-insignificant portion of the entire country.

On the other hand, the ROC went from ruling China to ruling Taiwan in only 5 years, and the territory that is common to the earlier and later rules is only some islands that are tiny even when compared to Taiwan which is Tiny when compared to China.

The country that was ruled did not remain the same, it changed suddenly between 1945 and 1949. But the government remained the same, and the article is about the government, so I think having one article works. In fact if the ROC article were to split it would make more sense to split it into it's authoritarian and democratic eras.Readin (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The republic that was founded in 1912 was meant to rule mainland China, and currently it has no intention to rule mainland China or overthrow the current government of China. The US did not see such significant change of government in its history as ROC did. --K kc chan (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see a reason for the split. The ROC has been a continuous state, with its constitution from 1948 still in power. The only thing that made a difference authoritarian/democratic difference was Chiang Kai-shek's "illegal" amendment to the constitution. Otherwise everything else has been in place since 1948. Blueshirts (talk) 06:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The better is split em: there are different flags, nations, territory, capital, recognition. Both don't have nothing to do with:

• 
  ROC - teritory
• 
  ROC (Taiwan) - teritory
• 
  ROC - flag
• 
  ROC (Taiwan) - flag
• ROC - capital
  ROC - capital
• 
  ROC (Taiwan) - capital

You don't really know anything, do you? Of those 2 flags, the 5 striped flag was changed to the "Blue sky white sun" a long long time ago before the civil war even started. Also, so what with the change of Capitals? Many nations changed their capitals over time. Look at Germany, during the Cold War, it's capital was switched repeatedly from Bonn to Berlin and from Berlin to Bonn. Also, you don't see them making two seperate pages of Germany before the resurrection and after, do you?

Also, another point, throughout the history of the UK, it's size varied vastly throughout history, when it gained and lost its overseas territory. And the US too, it itself had a civil war, they don't have seperate pages talking about the US "before civil war" and "after civil war", do you? Liu Tao 06:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

To my knowledge the only significant change that happened was that the ROC (the government) went from being the government of one country to being the government of another. Bobby Knight coached basketball for Army, Indiana, and Texas Tech, but he only has one article. He doesn't have separate article for the time he spent with each team. My feeling is that ROC should be the same. The people and country being governed may have changed, but the government remained the same.

If anyone can provide details of extensive changes to the ROC government when they became exiled in Taiwan, I'll certainly be willing to reconsider.Readin (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

RoC has always have had one government, and has always been a nation. We are not exiled to Taiwan, how can we be exiled into our own province?! We merely retreated to Taiwan, which was our only province we had left that we could hold on to. Taiwan has been a part of the RoC since 1945, and it still is now. Liu Tao 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What the ROC calls Taiwan (we call know they call it a "province") isn't the issue. Pre-1945 ROC and post-1945 ROC are almost completely different in terms of its countries, regions, possessions or whatever you want to call the people who were forced to submit. That is why we have an article about the government, because the possessions (people and places) mastered by the government changed even while the government remained the same. Readin (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the ROC has had multiple governments of different lineages. Republican era history was really messy. For example, the Yuan Shikai/Beiyang Government existed from 1912-1928. The KMT government, which was formed to challenge the Beiyang Government, has existed from 1922 to the present. Then there were Japanese puppet governments, and offshoots of the KMT government. And Communist governments.--Jiang (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The ROC is not a government in exile. It lost most of its territory after the civil war but it still governs Kinmen and Matsu since its establishment. One of the reasons why Chiang Kai-shek refused to retreat from these islands despite all the military difficulties was because he wanted to avoid the ROC being argued into becoming a government in exile.

Also, ROC didn't become from being the government of one country to another. Taiwan was not a country. It was a colony of Japan. The legal status of Taiwan immediately after the Japanese handover was not clear, but it was clear that Taiwan didin't become a country by virtue of that act.

I think that by spliting the article Wikipedia can be argued into taking a position that the ROC is a different government after the civil war. That is a contentious view. I don't believe the approach is consistent with the NPOV policy.--Pyl (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, the five colored flag was already abolished in 1928, twenty years before the KMT retreated to Taiwan. I see the same egregious error in the split spanish wiki article. Blueshirts (talk) 07:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, and god knows how many different flags the US had throughout it's history. Literally speaking, it's flag changed everytime a new state is added. Liu Tao 07:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no comparison between the ROC and the US. The change in territory over three years was total. The point made above that Chiang Kai-shek refused to retreat from Kinmen and Matsu for fear of being deemed a government in exile rather proves the point. If only Kinmen and Matsu saves it from being so regarded then those islands are nothing more than fig leaves hiding reality. But the most important issue is that the ROC in 1948 ruled a completely different set of people than it had before 1945. Initially an entirely alien imposition it has been shaped by the Taiwanese realities. Even before it became democratic it had to take into account of the wishes of the Taiwanese people because ultimately all governments must do so to some extent. -Dejvid 10:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

An *almost* completely different set of people. There were people living in Kinmen and Matsu before 1948. Nevertheless, I think you raised a valid point even though I am not sure if your point can eliminate all potential contention associated with a split of the article.--Pyl (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if the word "alien" is a suitable word to describe ROC's governance of Taiwan. Taiwan was part of China before the Japanese colonial rule and what Japan did in handover was to give effect of the term that Taiwan was to be handed back to China. If KMT didn't lose the civil war, I wonder if people would still use the word "alien" to describe KMT in Taiwan. Is the PRC an alien imposition on Hong Kong and Macau?--Pyl (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It most certainly is no longer alien -that was my point. Just by the fact it governed Taiwan it was changed, that is to say Taiwan changed it. Had it continued to rule mainland China the effect of a small offshore island would have been insignificant.Dejvid (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A practical point. How can you sensibly write a section on the economy of the ROC without a split?Dejvid (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no such article. I believe an article called the economy of the ROC was renamed to the economy of Taiwan. This article talks about Taiwan before and after the ROC.--Pyl (talk) 12:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is a section headed economy in this article - not a lot of continuity there.Dejvid (talk) 19:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree: I think it will be a good idea of making 2 history pages (history of ROC before 1949, history of ROC before), but since its considered the same entity the splitting is a bad idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.238.54 (talk) 15:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

¶ I am for the split and 1949 is an obvious split line. The split improves readability and avoids redundant subheading 1912~1949 or post-1949 in every heading. In an article quoted by the Chinese version of this page, Ref. 38, 李敖 said Republic of China died in 1949. A country that relives after dying deserves a second article. By Cooterhu (talk) 22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Technically not only the nation, the land and the capital changed, even the government changed. When they refuged in the island obviously the territorial administration changed, and some leaders died. Forcing both entities to fit in the same article can be considered a little tendentious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.96.61.115 (talk) 11:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You say "the government changed". How so? Most of the power was in the hands of Chiang both before and after the country switch. The National Assembly and the 5 yuan system remained. What changed? Right now I lean against splitting the article. But I might be persuaded that a split is correct if the government underwent massive change to the point where it would not be considered the same government anymore. However I've seen no reliable evidence of such change. Do you have any? Readin (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything had been drastically changed since 1949: territory, demography, economy, press, ... you name it. If there is a single government body in 1949 still there today, I'll be extremely surprised. Even the national flag is changed (see Olympics). The only thing I think the same is the flag song because people in Taiwan like the elegance of the lyric, but even that is not sticky. The changes did not happen in one day, like from one dynasty to another, but they are much more profound than a dynasty change. If dynasty change merits a separate article, so does the split. By Cooterhu (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The country governed by the ROC changed, as I've already said. But the country is not the government. This country is not about the country; this article is about the government. Demography is tied to country. Economy is tied to country. Look at the Taiwan article if you want information about those. As for government bodies that still exist, we can start with the President of the Republic of China. Then we can move on to the Control Yuan, Examination Yuan, Executive Yuan, Judicial Yuan and Legislative Yuan. The National Assembly is no longer around, but it lasted way past the 1949 change of country before being abolished in 2005. Readin (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The government is still the Government of the Republic of China. So what if the territory changed? Multiple nations have had their territory changed throughout time. The US started out as 13 colonies, now it's 50 states. Mexico was much larger then it is now. The Government is still the same government, only thing different is the abolishment of the National Congress. The other branches are still in existence. Many nations' governments went through reforms in history too. They're still the same nation. I don't see how losing 34 out of 35 provinces make a nation no longer in existence, and places another in its place, since that nation still has 1 out of the 35 provinces in their control. The capital was just moved to Taipei as a provisional capital. Many nations have had provisional capitals. When Washington was sacked by the British in 1814, Leesburg, Virginia became the provisional capital. Plus, New York and Philadelphia were once the capitals before moved to Washington. West Germany's capital too was moved constantly back and forth from Berlin to Boenn.

Throughout Chinese history, the capitals of the dynasties have been constantly moved too. During the Han dynasty, the capital changed like 5 times. It was still known as the "Han Empire". Toward the ends of the Ming and Sung dynasties, their capitals were constantly moved too because of the invading Yuan and Qing. Japan itself capital changes too, the most known one would be when the capital was moved from Edo to Tokyo, the nation was still Japan. I can go on and on rambling about capital and territorial changes of nations whilst still being the same nation, but I think you get my point now. Liu Tao (talk) 04:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So are you agreeing with me or disagreeing?Readin (talk) 06:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with whomever is against this split. I can't back away from fighting this splitting proposal, doing so will deal a heavy blow to my dignity, and further damage the image of my nation. It also encourages the DPP party too, since they have been supporting that the RoC is no longer in existence, and it is now just Taiwan. There are already enough people in Taiwan who refuse to be known as "Chinese" but as "Taiwanese". I'm one of the only few left who are still hanging on to our mainland ancestry. This splitting proposal may not seem political, but in truth, it really is. The person who proposed this may not have intended for it to be political, but it really is. I have very little left to fight for, this is one of them, my dignity and the image of my nation. Liu Tao (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

So you want the rest of us to preserve your dignity by helping you push your point of view? Readin (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm preserving my dignity by opposing this split. Only I can preserve my dignity, no one else. I am doing this not only to preserve my dignity, but for my people and my nation. This is also due to fairness and for a constant system. I do things and organise things all on a constant system. If you ever see how I archive stuff, you'll see that it's all in one way, I never use different formats even if it is a lot shorter. Also, as I've said above, this split is political no matter how unintended it was wanted to be. Pro-KMT primarily would oppose this split, while pro-DPP would support it. Now, I'm not reasoning based on political views, I'm doing it based on a systematic view along with a sense of fairness and consistency within the articles. As I've said above, everything is done one way for me, I never archive or record things in a different format then others just because of simplicity and easiness. I sort of have this OCD problem with documents, records, etc. Liu Tao (talk) 04:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Pro-KMT primarily would oppose this split, while pro-DPP would support it. Well see you're wrong there. I'm pro-DPP and very pro-independence and I oppose the split because keeping the ROC article together helps to clarify the difference between the government and the country. The ROC is the government. Taiwan is the country. Were we to split the ROC article based on the countries governed, then people would begin to argue that ROC is the country, and that we should include non-government information in the articles because that's what other articles about countries do. Then we would confuse people into thinking that ROC is a single country and they would want to put ROC pre-1949 and ROC post-1949 back together again and treat it as a single country when it isn't. It is a single government, but two countries. The two countries already have separate articles.Readin (talk) 05:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add to what Readin just said. If you approach Wikipedia editing by viewing everything solely through an political lens as some type of ideological struggle, then you're probably missing the main point behind editing Wikipedia. The question that we should be asking is how we can maintain a Neutral Point of View (TM) in our articles. I've seen discussions like this in the past, which have generally spiraled into a mess of editors accusing each other of promoting some particular viewpoint. The questions that should be asked are whether content is consistent with the principles laid out as part of the NPOV policy (eg. Verifiable, Not given undue weight, Just the Facts... etc). -Loren (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not approaching this on a political view. I am saying that I am fighting this split because of a political view, but I am giving reasoning based on consistency and fairness among the articles. RoC has been only one nation since 1911, and it still is now. The only thing different from then and now is the territorial changes. So what if the territory changed? The US originated as 13 colonies, and it is now 50 states. The Republic of China originated as 35 provinces, now it only has 1.5 (Kinmen and Matsu are part of the Fujian Province). Now, the primary point that is being argued right now is that the RoC from 1911 and 1949 are not the same nations. This question is entirely political in itself. The KMT would of course support that the RoC has been in existence since 1911, and it still is in existence as the SAME NATION where the only difference is the change in territory. The DPP on the other hand supports that the RoC is no longer in existence since 1949, and the RoC as it is now is Taiwan. Now, if you have this split, it would be supporting the DPP's point of view, but if you don't have this split, it would go with the KMT point of view. The question in itself is a political one, whether you like it or not. Of course, you can argue about the answer to this question, whether or not if the RoC is still the RoC from 1911. The KMT and DPP has already and are still arguing about this. You can go read all about it. Liu Tao (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Points of view' are good because they help us understand each other better so long as they don't interfere with each one's neutrality. I'm not on either side of KMT or DPP, but I care for the people on both sides. The purpose of this proposal seems to find out whether splitting makes it easier to read the articles. As part of the package, the proposal also wants to empty most of the content in the China article and leave only links plus a few words. Shall we talk about it too? I say, add a few more concepts about China. For instance, Singapore is a 100% Chinese country; Tibet has a government in exile; Mongolia is inseparable from Inner Mongolia. - Cooterhu (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That goes in another article. It should either be in the Chinese people or Chinese language articles. Liu Tao (talk) 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I like to see the split. I also wholeheartedly pray for the wellbeing of the people on the island while they face daily military threat from a superpower. - Cooterhu (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Li Ao thinks both the ROC and Taiwanese Independence are myths. Blueshirts (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Li Ao behaves like a comedian and opportunist. Cooterhu (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting obvious endorses the Taiwan independence political notion and violates NPOV. Like it or not, the ROC is the same political entity before and after the war. The article describes the political entity, not the history. It would make no sense to split the U.S. article into "pre-civil war" and "post-civil war."128.12.57.91 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No need to bring the U.S. into this. The U.S. is a very different case. Readin (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

And just why is the US a different case? As far as I know, the US and the RoC are both nations. And as far as I know, nations articles are not split when they have a civil war. If you split the RoC articles into post and pre civil war, then you are saying that the RoC now is a different nation then the one from back then. Tell me, why would these "RoC's" be different nations? Or are you saying that there is only one RoC but you must separate it because of the Civil War? What makes the civil war look so special then? The US did indeed have one, but you're saying that it's a different case. How's it a different case, was it because the US won their civil war while the RoC lost but was still able to retain some of their land instead of total annialation. So basically, you're saying if a Nation has a civil war, but the central government loses but was able to keep some of their territory, that they must be split post and pre-civil war? Liu Tao (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. was obviously different because the land area and people that were controlled by the state before and after the civil war were largely the same. With the ROC they were not. There are other reasons, but that should be enough. The reason we're not splitting the article has nothing to do with whether the "nation" remained the same. We're not splitting the article because the government remained the same.Readin (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the reason the article is not to be split is because it has been the same nation, "Republic of China" from 1911 until now. You know what, I don't really care what the reason is, as long as the article is not split, I am fine. The only thing I'm differing right now is who supports this split and who does not. Those who support it I see as my opponents, those who oppose it I see as an ally, and there's no point in arguing with an ally in times like this, is there? Liu Tao (talk) 01:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is important to understand the reasoning behind the decision so that future questions can also be decided correctly. The ROC is a government. The decision not to split is based on the belief that the pre-1940 ROC government is the same government as the post-1949 ROC government. We seem to have mostly consensus on that point.

There is no agreement on whether the "nation" ruled by the ROC before 1940 is the same as the "nation" ruled by the ROC after 1949. Future decisions about this article will not rest on any consensus about that because there is none. No precedent for saying the ROC has remained one nation throughout its history is being set here.

The consensus and precedent that we are relying on is that the ROC article is about the government or state, not about the country/nation/territory ruled by that government.Readin (talk) 03:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I think this discussion has been ENOUGH. To make this clear, 1) Taiwan has its own politics. 2) China has its own politics. In such case, having the name "Republic of China" does not mean it "belongs to China." Consider the case with South and North Korea. They're called the "Republic of Korea" and the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Are they the same? No. Plus, moving the article page will definitely rase concerns and complaints by Wikipedian readers, not just the editors. Prowikipedians (talk) 12:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

merge with China

China should redirect here.--4.245.72.201 (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

How political do you want to get now?...Just no. 128.12.57.91 (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Butterfly0fdoom. This page shouldn't even be redirected to China no-matter-what-so-ever. Taiwan has its own politics. China has its own politics. I strongly go against a merge. Plus, I don't get why you want it to be merged. Prowikipedians (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It is opposite to what you are thinking. "China should redirect here" actually means every search about China would be redirected to the Republic of China and this may mean an all-out war from Liberation Army aimed to wipe out the Headquarters of Wikipedia. - Cooterhu (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

lol

Someone compared the Chinese Civil War to the American Civil War, thats completely different though, in the American one, the Confederate States of America got pwnt and ceased to exist, where as in the Chinese Civil War, they signed a peace treaty once the Republic of China started to lose the war.--4.244.36.174 (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There's actually no treaty. It's a stalemate. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Aye, there never was a treaty ending the war. The war officially speaking has not yet ended and is currently in a stalemate as Butterfly has said. Besides, the point about the comparison of the Civil Wars is that both nations had a civil war and that no matter what the result was, the nations are still the same nations minus the territorial changes. If you wanted it that way though, then I'll start comparing it to the Korean Civil War instead, which is at the current time, the most similar civil war to the Chinese Civil War where both wars have not yet officially ended and is in a stalemate.

Besides, I can still compare it to the American Civil War BEFORE the war ended while the war was still in a Stalemate. The US was still known as the "United States of America" during the war, the South was known as "Confederate States of America". At that time, there were 2 United States, and the Union itself lost from 1/3 - 1/2 of its original size, but it was still the same "United States of America" as it was before it splitted, minus the territorial difference.

I've even another example too: American Revolution. Revolutions, in a sense, are considered Civil Wars. Before and after the War, Britain was known as "Kingdom of Great Britain", even though they lost 13 colonies in the New World. Liu Tao (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anything the Chinese Civil war can usefully be compared to. When in history has the losing side of a revolution been the sovereign that retreated an area that it didn't control at the beginning of the conflict? Imagine if King George not only lost the Revolution, but that the Americans took over all of the English Empire except for Australia and that King George retreated to Australia and proclaimed it to be the true British Empire. Imagine that Abe Lincoln retreated to Alaska and proclaimed it the true United States of America. Imagine that Oliver Cromwell retreated to Ireland and declared it the true England. What parallels are there? Readin (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That is true, there's really not any good comparisons to make... But the point I'm making is that no matter how much land a nation may lose in ANY civil war, the nation is still the same as it was before. And besides, those examples you gave would still make sense to me in a way. The current Republic of China is still the "Republic of China", the only thing different is the change in territory. The main problem with the Chinese civil war is that it's unique in its own way. Civil wars usually either result in entire destruction of the other, or loss of land like the American Revolution. The American Revolution is probably one of the best comparison I can make, but problem is that the Americans are no holding onto the title of "Britain", but "American", thus still having only one "United Kingdom" in existence. The Chinese Civil War officially has not ended, and BOTH sides call themselves "China", the "Republic of China", and the "People's Republic of China". Our problem here is that we cannot agree on whether or not the "Republic of China" before 1949 and the "Republic of China" at the present time are the same nations. I myself believe that they are the same nations, and what had happened is that the Central Government lost its mainland territories, and moved the Capitol to Taipei as a provisional Capital so that when, for god knows how, that Nanjing is regained, the Capital will be moved back to where it is supposed to be.

People think that once a nation loses its capitol, then the nation is officially gone. Many nations lost their capital in multiple wars and treaties, but they are still the same nation. China in this case had 4 capitals throughout the Chinese Civil War. It was originally Nanjing, then Guangzhou, then Chongqing, and last, Taipei. If you put it this way, then throughout the war, there were 4 "Republic of China"s due to the 4 different capitals throughout the war.Liu Tao (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

A point of disagreement is to what extent the move to Taipei was different from the previous moves. The other capitals used by the KMT were in areas that had been continually part of the Chinese Empire for a long time, some going back as far as the first emperor Qin. Taiwan, on the other hand, had been annexed by a dynasty that was considered foreign even by the Chinese at the time it happened; also a mere 5 years before the KMT took over Taiwan had been part of Japan for 50 years and had had loyalty to Japan (one reason the U.S. avoided invading Taiwan was fear that the Taiwanese population would fight for Japan). The American Revolution comparison is weak in that the U.S. was continually part of the British Empire for 150 years before the revolution. My example of Lincoln retreating to Alaska is closer to valid as Alaska was purchased during the Civil War. Some like you consider Taipei just another capital in China. Others like myself consider it an exile from China into a Chinese colony, just as if the King of England lost a revolution in 1850 and fled to HK to establish a new capital of the "true" British Empire. Readin (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan was too the same. It's been part of China since the end of the Ming dynasty in 1661, then was taken over by the Qing in 1683 and became a prefecture of the Fujian Province until 1887 when it became its own province. It remained that way until 1895 when Taiwan was surrendered to the Japanese in the Sino-Japanese War and became a Japanese Colony until 1945 when it was finally returned to China at the end of WWII. If I calculated correctly, Taiwan was in Chinese possession for a total of almost 300 years. It was a prefecture of Fujian for 200 years, and a province for a total of 71 years. You see Taiwan as a Colony, I see it as a province returned. Sure, you can see it as a Colony when it was first recently aquired, but after over 200 years of rule by the Chinese, I don't think that it qualifies as a Colony anymore. If you say 234 years is not a long time, then I'd say that the entire United States is still a Colony, since the nation itself is only 232 years old officially. If you want to make the argument that the US was in possession by the Europeans much longer then that, then fine, everything EXCLUDING the territories of the original thirteen colonies are colonies, since all of those land became part of the US at most 200 years from now, which is even shorter then the 234 years I've spoken of.

And also, we don't have colonies, we have tributaries. Taiwan was a tribute state(藩屬地) of China. You guys have different definitions of tributaries then we do, but our definition is a nation or state that pays tribute to another. Back then, all of the provinces of China had to pay a tribute to the Emperor each year, or simply put, a tax. In exchange, the provinces are given other stuff, in Taiwan's case, more Chinese stuff like technology, culture, supplies, etc. Technically speaking, every single province of China back then were tribute states. In our sense, a tribute state does not necessarily have to be a separate nation like Korea, Vietnam, Burma, etc. were. Also, another main differense between Colonies and Tributaries in our sense is that Colonies are not exactly independent prefectures or states, they don't have a governor, not represented in the Central Government, etc. like the American colonies were. Tributary states on the other hand had some sort of independence along with their own central government like governors and also representation in the National Government. Plus, if you read chinese history, you rarely find the word "colony" or "colonise" in any articles, because we never really had colonies. Once a piece of territory came under our rule, we try to settle everything down and normalise everything to the way it should be. We don't "colonise" like Japan and the Westerns do, we do things much differently then them. You tend to think of China as an empire and Imperialist, guess what, we were, but we did not do things like you guys did. Liu Tao (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for debating Taiwan's status. We've already violated that rule but we should resist the tempation to make this a long drawn out debate. I've seen the arguments you're giving before and I still see Taiwan as not having been part of China in the same way that other areas were. You even said yourself that Taiwan was a "possession" for almost 300 years. A "possession" is different from "a part of" or even "a family member". I have a lot more I would like to say in response, rebutting you argument by argument, but I must resist the temptation to do so. You would respond, then I would respond, and it might never end. This is not a forum. Readin (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Possession" in my sense means "part of". Anyways, thanks for ending this, I couldn't stop... I got a little carried away, lol.Liu Tao (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but when you mention "nation" it gives headaches...(im a polisci/history student...so as you can see ive got some pet peeves in terms of political/historical terminology) ...a nation is people of the same ethnicity...the Republic of China is essentially a state...so in conclusion...the Republic of China is a State, not a nation. nat.utoronto 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

In that usage of the word "nation", neither Taiwan nor China nor the ROC nor the PRC is a "nation" since all have multiple nations within them. Readin (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly... nat.utoronto 22:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

To bring up another example of a state that is not a nation: Canada. (although the government often uses the term nation to bring up some much needed national pride and patriotism) Canada is actually build up of different nations, such as the First Nations, the Inuit, the Metis, and the rest of the other "nations" (i.e. the Québécois). nat.utoronto 22:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you folks don't want me to use the term "nation", I'll use the term "country", would that be better?Liu Tao (talk) 03:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In that usage of the word nation - people of the same ethnicity - not only Taiwan, ROC, or PRC does not qualify as a nation, the majority of the ~300 nations in the world do not qualify. Exceptions may be Tibet and a few South Pacific island countries. The word state is not without flaw either. United States is a pleural form; how can it be a state? Maybe 'country' is the most acceptable. - Cooterhu (talk) 18:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not "spurious"

[6]

中華民國訓政時期約法 (Provisional Constitution for the Period of Political Tutelage of the Republic of China)

• 第五條 中華民國國都定於南京。 (Article Five - The capital of the Republic of China is Nanking.)

There are a lot of things in that constitution that have been abandoned but not amended since the end of the Chiang days. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That's because only the DPP and their allies wanted to reform the Constitution. The Blue-Pan never gave support, so reforms were never really made. Besides, Nanjing is the capital of the RoC. Taipei is just a Provisional Capital, and will be moved back to Nanjing when recovered. It's like the War of 1812, the US lost their capital of Washington and moved it to Leesburg, Virginia until Washington was recovered again. Liu Tao (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

disambiguation

The current disambiguation says

The "Republic of China" is commonly known as "Taiwan", or in most international organizations, as "Chinese Taipei".

I think we need an additional sentence that tells the reader that to get information about Taiwan that is not directly related to the governing Republic of China, they should see Taiwan. But I'm not sure how to word it. Readin (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is already one titled Taiwan. It talks about Taiwan as a island, cultures, ethnics, history, etc. It has almost nothing related directly to the RoC in the article. There is also another article talking about the Taiwan Province, Republic of China and Taiwan_Province,_People's_Republic_of_China. Liu Tao (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Direct flights

It mentions that people in the ROC want direct flights to the PRC. Hasn't that started again? The article should changed to reflect that. Speedboy Salesman (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

External Links

The link to Taiwan e-Government is wrong. Take off the "index.jsp" please.  :-) Love, Helpbelow 9 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpbelow (talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

But I'm lazy! :) wp:bb Utopianfiat (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)