Talk:Taiwan

Two "Republics of China"

Shouldn't this article be clearer on the difference between the "warlord" Republic of China of 1912-1928 and the "Nationalist" republic of china of 1917-present? john 08:00, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There should be and I have proposed separating the two. See Talk:Taiwan--160.39.195.88 21:20, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you proposed to separate the ROC on the mainland from the ROC on Taiwan, not the warlord ROC from the Nationalist ROC. Given that the same people who were in charge in Nanjing moved to Taipei, I don't see a good reason to separate it. --Ji ang 04:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After its replacing by People's Republic of China, "Republic of China" just has historical meaning, and Taiwan is a self-governing province of China. --User:Gulen

We seek to follow NPOV, not the Communist Party viewpoint and version of history. If this view is not sufficiently expressed in the article then make it so. Just attribute it. --Jia ng 23:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comment by Maximilius:

As mentioned above, this comment do not follow Neutral POV. Also, an additional comment. Nations may lay claim to territories, but to be effective it must be reconized by other nations. USA and other western powers have reconized CPU party as the "government of China" but did not specify whether this "China" includes Taiwan (as Taiwan was ceded to ROC by Japan, but not to PROC). Thus the status of Taiwan became a grey area, and is stuck there for the time being. However, USA does recognize Taiwan as an independent territory from Mainland China (there is a recent declaration from Whitehouse against the anti-session laws that supports this, although I cant seem to reproduce the details).

Maximilius - March 18, 2005

Republic of China does not limit to historical meaning. it's a country with Taiwan as their remaining territory.

ROC/PRC: 2 governments of china

Most people accept the notion that ROC and PRC are both states. Unfortunately this is wrong.

When the Qing imperial government was overthrown by Chinese nationalists in 1911, they established a new GOVERNMENT, not a STATE. China already existed. Its offical name during the Qing dynasty is Great Qing.

The KMT changed the offical name of China to Republic of China. Same thing happened in 1949, when Chinese communists overthrew ROC government and established the government of People's Republic of China.

China joined UN under its offical name Republic of China in 1945. There was only ONE UN member state called China since its foundation in 1945. ROC was the sole legitimate Chinese government recognized by UN before 1971.

The UN Assembly passed Resolution 2758 in 1971, recognizing PRC GOVERNMENT as the sole legitimate Chinese government and expelling ROC GOVERNMENT from UN. The ROC is the illegitimate Chinese government since 1971. It didn't have sovereignty on China, Mongolia or Taiwan, because only state can possesse sovereignty. Territory can only have territorial sovereignty.

The states that had/have diplomatic relations with ROC gave/give only GOVERNMENT RECOGNITION to ROC instead of STATE RECOGNITION, because ROC was and is a Chinese government(in rebellion since 1971).

It is simply the doctrine of succeeding governments under international law.

ROC does exert complete sovereignty over the TPKM area. You may argue that it is not a rightful state - being succeeded by PRC or something - but you cannot deny the fact that ROC exists as a Sovereign State. --203.173.175.156 10:31, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"country" vs "state"

It is improper to characterize the Republic of China as a "country" because the strict definition of the word refers to the geographical entity, which in this case is better described, for political and legal reasons, as Taiwan. We are interested in the political entity, not the lands the ROC currently governs.--Ji ang 18:00, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately "state" connotes that it is a small part of. Nation would probably be better, although I beleive "Country" would also be correct.

State does not mean that except when you're talking about US states. Jiang, interesting how you had this previous position that Taiwan means land that the ROC governs and you now want to move it to just mean the island. Very, very interesting. What was your motivation? It is not usage in English or Chinese to restrict Taiwan to mean just the island.--160.39.195.88 17:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page title

Any opinions on whether Taiwan (country) is a logical title for this article?? If not, please explain using as much detail as you can. Georgia guy 23:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Needless to say it will violate NPOV.--G.S.K.Lee 09:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also think it should be Taiwan (country) I fail to see how it would violate NPOV.

That is your own problem. The country's current name is Republic of China, which is clearly stated in its current constitution, the Constitution of Republic of China. Unless the constitution is abandoned or modified in the future and a new country name is given, it will still be Republic of China. Your suggestion do not fit in with the country's de facto status, hence a change of the title like that will violate the NPOV policy of Wikipedia and will be reversed soon. I think I have given you an explanation clear enough so that I will no longer waste any of my time with your biased request.--G.S.K.Lee 04:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The ROC constitution says that it rules mainland China. Do you accept that GSK? You are biased to not recognize that most people know Taiwan as Taiwan and not ROC. It is a de facto country although China may dispute its de jure status. Since there is no international court that will accept a case like this, I don't even know what de jure means so clearly on the international level except as a PR weapon. If you would like to understand de jure on the international level better, I suggest you do some research on international law or read some international politics textbooks. It is essentially only used to prosecute war crimes. Bottom line: You can't take the constitution as an absolute authority if you're going to pick and choose. See Mababa's comments at Talk:Republic of China for some good points--160.39.195.88 21:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Geography section missing

A geography section is missing in this article. And it remains uncertain whether Geography of Taiwan is an article about Republic of China, or about Taiwan as a geographical entity (see Talk:Geography of Taiwan). If it's the latter, then the article will not be qualified to be the main article of this missing section. — Insta ntnood 21:49 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't be characterizing the Republic of China as solely Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, and Matsu inaccurate or POV? Let's use political terms only for political topics. Taiwan is the geographical term. This article is mainly on the political entity--Ji ang 00:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not at all. No one in Taiwan thinks ROC is legitimate ruler of all of China. No one. Take your head out of the sand. You are sometimes intelligent but often misguided.--160.39.195.88 17:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I perceive is on Wikipedia the limits of the PRC and the ROC are defined by the areas they control.

"Taiwan" does not cover Quemoy and Matsu (and Wuciou, Pratas, Taiping, etc.) no matter as a geographical or political terms. And this article needs a section on geography. — Insta ntnood 08:28 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not define the PRC and ROC as the areas they control. That violates NPOV. Show me where it says this?

Does our geography section at Taiwan cover Quemoy and Matsu? Does it need to? This is a two paragraph short summary. Those small islands will be left out either way. why does this article "need" a section on geography? --Ji ang 09:09, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes Wikipedia does not define. But many references to the PRC and to the ROC are referring to the areas each of them controls, and some tell a little bit more on their claims.

Quemoy and Matsu on Geography of Taiwan was recently removed, but not territorial claims. Mababa says it's an article about the geography of Taiwan, as a geographical entity. There isn't any precedant for a geographical entity to have an separate article on geography.

Most country articles have a section on geography. — Insta ntnood 13:14 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

Then we should have a Taiwan (Country) with a specific geography section instead of Taiwan as an island.

YES!!!! That is so obvious that I can't believe that is not the case now.--160.39.195.88 17:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from POV, removed from Economic section

"Although the PRC objects to having other countries maintain diplomatic or official relations with the ROC, it does not object to having the ROC maintain economic relations. Consequently,..."

I removed the above sentence as it gives priority to the PRC point of view, as if it is only by the permission of the PRC that ROC was admitted into the WTO. The real reason, if one reads about the situation, is neither China nor Taiwan were a part of the WTO so that despite China's objections, both Taiwan and China were admitted at the same time. If China wanted to be admitted, it had to admit Taiwan as well. Very misleading in the article.--160.39.195.88 17:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With much ado on the editing war, I do agree this is a POV. The sentence is strange enough to seem like PRC acts on behalf of ROC to determine ROC's foreign/economic relationships. This sentence should get fixed, IMO.Mababa 07:05, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan qualified to enter a year before the PRC, but was a forced to enter a day later. The PRC clearly had something to do with this. This is not only about the WTO or APEC, but informal relationships such as those through the American Institute in Taiwan. Yes, the PRC's opinion does matter. Whether the PRC wants to object to informal relations is another story, but the fact that it doesn't is significant. There's a reason ROC government officials, even when visiting the US, are not allowed to speak to the press.

Also, please post new comments to the bottom of the page. --Ji ang 09:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've removed "consequently" but the PRC's stance is important to note--Ji ang 01:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit. Yes, there is a causal relationship, but not a master-slave kind of relationship.Mababa 04:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also removed:

" Today, the Republic of China on Taiwan is known as Republic of China (Taiwan)."

No, it's not. It's sometimes printed as such so English readers don't get confused, but "Taiwan" is frequently ommitted. The government can't even agree on this: Premier Yu proposed "Taiwan, ROC" and VP Lu proposed "Taiwan dot ROC". Each time, these comments were met with much controversy and they had to qualify their stance saying it was their personal, and not official, opinion.

"This article discusses both the historic Republic of China that governed Mainland China as well as the current ROC that governs Taiwan."

There's no reason to summarze articles and be self-referential. It should be obvious that this article is on the Republic of China. The definition should be self-explanatory on what this article covers. --Ji ang 01:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't want people to know the difference between the two because confusion is helpful to the PRC POV. The article absolutely should introduce what it is going to cover. What are disambuguation notices for? Table of contents? Introductory text prior to table of contents? This is an especially confusing article. It is obviously about the ROC but ROC meaning on China and ROC meaning on Taiwan. One is a country of 1.3 billion people and one is a country of 23 million people. There are so many differences between the old ROC and the new one it is not even worth going through again. There are only two real paths: 1) split the article which I suggested (see Talk:Taiwan) or 2) add a lot, a lot of clarity to all the involved articles. While I'm awaiting consensus on 1), I have been trying to make small, justified, explained edits here and there for 2).

Regarding ROC (Taiwan), how about checking http://www.gio.gov.tw/ ? Look at the title of your bar (the banner is slightly confusing since it is Republic of China with Taiwan in a background font).

You are really really biased and won't admit it. What's your investment that you are so pro-PRC?--160.39.195.88 05:35, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I apologize if I interruppted the discussion. But I wonder if 160.39.195.88 can once again concisely remind me how you want to change the article Taiwan, since the consensus is still pending?Mababa 05:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Mababa, actually I did want to see if I could get your agreement for this way of organizing the Taiwan article. Basically, the Taiwan article should not be only about the island. That is a use not found in either English or Chinese. In addition to geographic information it should contain political, cultural, and historical information about Taiwan the state. With regards to the ROC, it can be seen as a regime that ruled China and a regime that ruled Taiwan. We should make note that some find the ROC illegitimate and that in any case, democratic elections, which is recognized internationally as providing legitimacy to a government, provide the leadership on Taiwan. The ROCs relationship to Taiwan in all its dimensions should be clarified.--160.39.195.88 08:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation notices are for leading people from one article space to another, mainly due to technical-phyical constraint that keep two things with the same name in one place. This article does not have a disambiguation notice.

What is article covers is already apparent in the definition given in the lead section. It is already evident that this covers both the ROC on mainland and ROC on Taiwan. Please refer to paragraph 2. I dont see any confusion here. No, there should be no split because the ROC on Taiwan is historically continuous with the government founded by Sun Yat-sen in Guangzhou in 1917, and to a much lesser degree, the government founded also by Sun in 1912. The KMT claimed legitimacy on this historical basis, as did the 100+ countries and UN recognizing the ROC on Taiwan before the 1970s. I really don't see how you can objectively split this, but I'm open to an outline.

You should see that on the Chinese version of the GIO website, "ROC (Taiwan)" is not used - it's just Republic of China and 中華民國 by itself. This is only used on certain government public publications with the stated goal to avoid confusion. It should be taken as a matter of convention and not a legal stance on the issue. This isnt even uniformly applied - visit the presidential website. It's only the english GIO website that is doing this in some places. Therefore, the statement "Today, the Republic of China on Taiwan is known as Republic of China (Taiwan)." is just false.

You make the points so easy to make. So in Chinese they don't have Taiwan in parantheses on official websites but when they are talking about the country and not the specific name of the government they always talk about Taiwan and not Zhonghuaminguo. So it leans heavily in favor of Taiwan as the name of the country anyways. But then add to that the fact that Zhonghuaminguo doesn't even mean Republic of China! It roughly means more like "people's country" or "country of the people" or a "democratic country". See for example: http://140.111.34.46/cgi-bin/dict/GetContent.cgi?Database=dict&DocNum=20808&GraphicWord=yes&QueryString=%A5%C1%B0%EA

Republic would be "gonghe" as in the Chinese name of the PRC. They just established "republic" as a convention that is close enough to the Chinese. Republic is representational, which can be a type of democracy but is not exactly. Thus you can't rely on the Chinese. English is the standard international language and more importantly, English is the language of this Wikipedia.

Thus, if the GIO, the primary government information website calls Taiwan "Republic of China (Taiwan)", then we should follow that or follow the wider usage of just Taiwan. They feel that it helps to keep foreigners from being confused? Well isn't clarity a goal of Wikipedia? Inconsistency is a matter of the time it takes to implement a policy; English versions of Taiwan's websites are often updated irregularly. So you know what it's inconsistent, but you also know it's the new policy if you check the news.--160.39.195.88 21:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The legislative election was won by Pan-blue with a margin of 13 seats (understated since independents like Li Ao obviously side with blue). 6% of the seats is not quite "barely".

It needs a close adjective because its close such that DPP want to form an alliance with the PFP to gain a majority, which they are still working towards. 6% sounds small to me. In any case, Taiwan districts are such that if you field too many candidates and are overly optimistic, then you can actually do worse than you would if you are more conservative--this is what many political commentators say happened with the DPP. Thus, it should be included so that people are not mislead into thinking that public is majority against DPP/DPP policies.--160.39.195.88 21:55, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A solution is to avoid adjectives that might to misinterpreted or disputed and just specify the number of seats each side won. --Ji ang 02:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More evidence on that Taiwan is the English name of Taiwan. Check out: http://www.gov.tw/ . They don't even really mention Zhonghuaminguo. There's no danger of confusion because Chinese speakers are quite familiar with the Taiwan/China ROC/PRC distinction. More importantly, the English version only shows Taiwan. Nothing about ROC at all.--160.39.195.88 22:10, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, the PRC's stance on other nations maintaining economic relations with the ROC is important. You have yet to respond on this. --Ji ang 13:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I already have. I said that it was because China could not stop Taiwan from entering those organizations being that it had to enter to that it was forced to acquiesce. So it's not important and it's misleading.--160.39.195.88 01:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not quite true. Why did the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, and Matsu have to enter the WTO a day later than the PRC even though it had qualified to enter a year before the PRC? You are also deleting important information on the existence of institutions such as the American Institute in Taiwan, which constitute diplomatic relations all but in name. Of the course the PRC had to allow this...and they did not allow other things, such as allowing Taiwanese leaders to meed US leaders. --Ji ang 01:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The sentence you had is improper as it is. Propose something here and let's see if we can find common ground. You must admit that it is abnormal to state what a specific country's stance is on a country's membership to something like that is. In any case it is completely inappropriate for an opening sentence but perhaps could be a peripheral statement.--160.39.195.88 08:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing improper in the way I see it. Please provide counter-arguments as you see fit--Ji ang 14:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that government websites are run by a DPP administration and cannot be expected to be neutral. Wikipedia not only follows convention, but NPOV. When there's a discrepancy, we heed towards the latter. The official DPP view is that Taiwan and the Republic of China are synonymous. Only the DPP holds this view. During its entire administration on Taiwan, no major KMT politician ever used "Taiwan" to mean the "Republic of China" in a political speech. Pan-blue politicians still don't do that. Just go to http://www.archive.org and take a look at government websites before 2000. It's a bad idea to base conventions on biased websites. Besides pan-blue, you have more extremist independence supporters like Lee Teng-hui and the PRC government saying the ROC is illegitimate (obviously for different reasons), so they wont equate the two either. All we can do is to say that President Chen considers them synonymous, but we cant treat it as such because a lot of people disagree. --Ji ang 02:30, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What in the world? The DPP has the presidency in Taiwan, the cabinet, and a large portion of the legislature. You can't call what they do bias. They are policy setters, not political scientists trying to figure out descriptively what is going on. What they do BECOMES fact. If the President of the United States said that troops are going to be sent to Iraq, that's not inaccurate, that's an order. I had many points so you should respond to those too, such as against your fallacious appeal to the Chinese version of the website. --160.39.195.88 08:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why do you say it's bad to rely on websites when Wikipedia is basically built on references to websites? You yourself appealed to the authority of the Chinese version of the website.--160.39.195.88 08:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The statement that the US invaded Iraq is fact. The statement that the Iraq war is just is opinion. Just because the Republican Party controls all branches of the US government does not make this opinion fact. There's no physical evidence in the case of naming conventions. NPOV states that minority opinions must be represented. --Ji ang 14:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fact? The TV is off could be a fact. If I said "buy me a soda, Jiang" would that be a fact? You need a better theory of language. That's a speech act. It becomes fact by fiat, by virtue of the order. DPP has changed Taiwan policy such that the name is Republic of China (Taiwan) in English. I saw somewhere someone posted an article with it. As the ruling party, DPP policy is law. Don't call it bias. It's not an opinion about something.--160.39.195.88 01:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Laws are made by the legislature, not the president. DPP policy is not law. It is policy, which is not the same as law. And as I've pointed out before, the DPP politicians can't really agree on an English convention to use. Even on government websites, I see Taiwan, Republic of China, and Republic of China (Taiwan) being used consistently (the first is sometimes used in place of the second or third). There are clearly many people opposed to the so-called policy. Under NPOV guidelines their viewpoints must to demonstrated. Just because the propaganda machine says something doesnt make it fact just because the government is feeding the propaganda machine, doesnt it? --Ji ang 01:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, Jiang, I strongly disagree with you on this one. I posted http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64569-2005Mar24.html on another page. It shows Republic of China (Taiwan). Anon has a point about your idea about language. If the main government websites show Republic of China (Taiwan), I would have to say that that is what they choose to be called. If the people don't like the name the government is putting out there, I suggest that they vote Chen Shuibian out of office. But for now he does what he wants. I also agree it's not a matter of POV. What they choose is what they choose, especially because we're talking about English. You did not respond to anon's comments about the Chinese translation either.--Amerinese 03:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't deny the format "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is being used, like how "Republic of China on Taiwan" was being used during the Lee Teng-hui administration. However, I have pointed out that this is not used consistently. Even if it is used consistently, there is no policy paper, not administrative decree on this. To call this their official style in English is to exaggerate. We cannot base our articles on original research. What you are doing here is visiting a bunch of government sites, seeing "Republic of China (Taiwan)", and concluding this is the official english name. You havent read anything that says this, and I dont think this claim is made anywhere on the web. I take this as original research. If there is anything "official" about this, then show me. The news article fails to show things outright. Should we also conclude that the national colors are green because websites like gov.tw are colored that way?

Whether Chen Shui-bian won the election isnt really relevant here. I again cite NPOV. Majority opinions are not taken as fact. If someone wants to dispute the usage, then their view must be represented in the text. Majority rules in a democratic election, but not when presenting information on wikipedia. "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is far from being a consensus position. --Ji ang 04:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"consists of" vs. "administers"

We use "administers" instead of "consists of" because the legitimacy of the ROC is disputed. I don't find any negative connotation in the word "administers".--Ji ang 14:33, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"de facto" administers is clunky as hell. And administers also makes it sounds like the ROC is separate from the people it governs. It is democratically elected, do you say the US Government adminsters America? That is not proper usage of administers. Consists of, on the contrary, is quite neutral. The article makes it clear the ROC is disputed and does not clash with consists of.--160.39.195.88 21:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We do say the US government "administers" Guam. "Consists of" implies that the ROC is legitimate AND is limited to its current jurisdictions. The PRC and certain supporters of Taiwan independence would like to dispute this. If you want to use "consists of" when we have to qualify it as being "de facto". ("clunky as hell" doesnt seem like an argument to me) Otherwise, it's not NPOV.--Ji ang 23:42, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Consists of does not have any legitimacy implications at all. And in what way does ROC go beyond its current jurisdictions. No one on either China or Taiwan believes it goes beyond. And clunky means the style is poor. Style is obviously an important consideration.--160.39.195.88 01:03, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Saying that the ROC equals its current jurisdiction is certainly not neutral language. The ROC goes beyond its current jurisdiction in 1) being a defunct entity that ruled the mainland from 1912 to 1949 (per the PRC), 2) being an illegitimate entity that is illegally occupying Taiwan (per some independence supporters), or 3) being one of two rival entities governing China whose division is only de facto and not de jure (per some unification supporters). If you have problem with the language, then please propose something that takes all these viewpoints into account. --Ji ang 01:36, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Guam is a territory and does not participate in US national elections. If Guam were upset about that and wanted to declare independence, they probably would have pretty good grounds to. The US uses it as an important military base and that's why it would not want to give it up, despite shaky legal justification of its continued status as a territory. Taiwan Island/Penghu/etc are not territories of the ROC. The people that live there are part of the polity that is the ROC. Regarding independence supporters view that the ROC should be eliminated in favor of a Republic of Taiwan--that does not mean that today the ROC does not consist of the places that it does. Same with the PRC viewpoint. Please read the article on state to see how administers is the wrong term. Sorry kid, sometimes viewpoints are wrong.--Amerinese 02:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also I forgot to point out that "currently consists" already implies that possibly it could change. It is a fact and has nothing to do with POV. No need to take into account anything besides reality.--Amerinese 02:24, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

According to the PRC viewpoint, equating the current Taiwan Area with the ROC legitimizes the Taipei regime because it suggests the ROC continues to exist. According to the reunificationist viewpoint, equating the current Taiwan Area with the ROC delegitimizes the notion that the civil war is left unresolved because it plain contradicts the ROC's official claims to the mainland. Even though the notion of "retaking the mainland" is far-fetched, there are symbolic connotations to be taken into consideration. It is on these symbolic terms - which officially defines this conflict as an unresolved civil war - that the PRC is so opposed to Chen's new constitution. Yes, these views do go against the notion that the ROC consists of its current jurisdiction, but they do not go against the view that a polity called the ROC administers the area of its current jurisdiction. It has everything to do with POV and I haven't seen an argument put forth on how the current wording does not flat out contradict these different viewpoints. There's no point in arguing the truth. This is not the place to do it.--Ji ang 04:45, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You have an incorrect understanding of POV. First of all, there is no reason to consider the POV of those that do no think the ROC exists. In that case, why write an article at all, because anything and everything in the article that is not historical is contradictory to that POV. Second, NPOV does not mean making a sentence that everybody can agree on. What the ROC consists of today is neutral enough and factually clear enough that most people will agree that it means Taiwan Island, Pescadores, etc. NPOV means that you can explain major viewpoints (because come on now, you can't include EVERY POV) in addition to the mainstream one. The case here is that there is a single reality, but there are multiple views on what the legitimate jurisdictions should be. That subjunctive state is arguable precisely because it is subjunctive and not realis. You should propose what additional information should be taken into account and corresponding sentences and see if you can get a consensus. I really agree that administer should not be used as it is quite misleading for a democratic state.--Amerinese 07:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, the NPOV rule is not negotiable. We have to take everyone's opinion into account. If you haven't already read the entire NPOV page, and associated pages like the tutorial, then please do so. We stay NPOV by attributing opinions. With a statement like, "The PRC regards the ROC to be a defunct entity that was replaced by the PRC in 1949 and thus considers the ROC government on Taiwan as illegitimate" we have addressed the PRC viewpoint. The PRC is not blind to the fact that there exists a government on Taiwan calling itself the Republic of China. It just states that this government is not legitimate. Second, NPOV does mean making a sentence that everybody can agree on. According to Jimbo Wales on the NPOV page, "The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree." This is clearly stated and I don't see how you can violate this. Of course, I agree that we don't represent every POV, but the PRC's POV and the Pan-Blue POV are both major POVs. You cannot ignore these major POVs in favor of Chen Shui-bian's POV. As stated below, "consists of" can imply a de jure state when probably no one would agree it to be such.

Due to the objections over the word "administers", I propose "de facto consists of" or "governs". Is there anything wrong with either of these? --Ji ang 17:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Republic of China (Taiwan)

"As such, to avoid confusion, the English name used by the current Chen Shui-bian administration on most government documents is Republic of China (Taiwan)"

I inserted the above sentence. This is an objective sentence that is true (http://www.gio.gov.tw/). It says nothing of the official Chinese name, which has not changed, and it says who is using it (the ruling administration). It is indisputable. Whether Chen Shui-bian's administration should do this is a question for the voters of Taiwan to decide. Raidenerv still refuses to justify his changes. For Raidenerv's pleasure and for the record, I am fervently pro-self-determination, pro-democracy, pro-human-rights. But you will see I always give a lot of reasons and participate in the discussion. Disagree with my reasoning, not my values. Well you can disagree with my values too, but I hope you don't and it doesn't justify reverting changes =).--160.39.195.88 22:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't dispute the accuracy of this now revised sentence, but I don't see it as being significant enough for mention in the lead section. This is only done for government English publications and isnt even being done consistently. Putting it in the lead section makes it seem that this is widely used and there is consensus behind this. ROC passports do not but "Taiwan" in parenthesis. --Ji ang 22:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's funny, stick ROC Passport into Google and the first hit you get back is ROC (Taiwan). If Chinese Taipei is good enough to include in the lead, so is ROC (Taiwan). Given how confusing it is the number of names used to describe the ROC (legitimately or otherwise), it is nice to clear up the major ones in the beginning. Anyways, the passport says Republic of China on the top, logo underneath that, and Taiwan under that in the same size font as ROC (http://www.national-anthems.net/passports/asia/pages/Republic-of-china-Taiwan_new.htm). So it doesn't use parentheses. You want to add that into the lead paragraph? It's so unwieldy to describe unless you just want to mention that they added Taiwan to the cover of the passport, which I think would be fine. Perhaps there should be a names section.--160.39.195.88 15:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei does not need to be in the lead. "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is used only occasionally by the government and is not a major form. They havent used this consistently: theyve renamed the "Republic of China Yearbook" to "Taiwan Yearbook", not "Republic of China (Taiwan) Yearbook". The banner at this site does not have Taiwan in parenthesis after ROC and this page uses the form "Taiwan", not "Republic of China (Taiwan)".

Yes, perhaps there should be a names section. --Ji ang 17:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Military activity in the Taiwan Strait

"The PRC government continues to assert influence over Taiwan, by such activities as shellings and military exercises in the Taiwan strait."

Regarding strait activity:

The above sentence is not true from what I can tell. In terms of demonstration of military power, this is done by Taiwan, China, and the US regularly: http://globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/2005/china-050317-rianovosti01.htm

China, however, does not hold exercises in the actual strait as that would be 1) a severe security risk that would be difficult to distinguish from an actual invasion and 2) even if safe, it would be interpreted as extremely hostile and upsetting the status quo.

The US has sent navy fleets (carrier groups) close to the strait several times as a warning against China. So if you want to claim influence, you would have to talk about US influence as well.

Regarding shelling:

This was a historical activity of shelling Quemoy and Matsu in the late 50s and 60s. I see no evidence that this occurs now.

Two topics of the article

"This article discusses the Republic of China from its beginnings as the former regime of Mainland China to its current existence on Taiwan today."

Without getting into controvery of whether there are really two ROCs (ROC that was on China and ROC on Taiwan), clearly, sometimes people will not want to know about both pieces of the history of the ROC. I believe I have worded it quite neutrally, despite my personal views that there should be two articles. In the case that we choose not to split this article, we should explain what we are covering. See above discussions.--160.39.195.88 22:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See below discussions. It is neither precedented nor necessary to have a blanket statement saying what this article will cover when it is well expected that this article will cover both the ROC on mainland and ROC on Taiwan. It is only when we dont cover both that we need to point this out, and as a disambiguation header, not in the text itself. --Ji ang 17:59, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Revert of unjustified mass changes 3/26

Raidentherv made several changes in three saves removing "unwanted content". There is nothing obviously unwanted about it and no justification is found on this page. It was followed up by grammatical edits of his work by Changlc. It is their burden to prove why it is "unwanted".--160.39.195.88 01:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My edits were as you mentioned, purely grammatical. I have no opinion one way or another regarding the changes as I haven't compared the old and new versions. --Loren 02:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To deal with Jiang's edits, I have reimplemented some of his grammatical changes, though I have left out ones that were either ungrammatical or no better than the original. Jiang, you should not couple grammar edits with content changes. You did not make it clear what you were doing either.--160.39.195.88 01:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is no rule stopping me from coupling grammar edits with content changes. It should not matter since if you want to revert me, that's your business and invonvenience, but you shouldnt be reverting me in the first place. I'll--160.39.195.88 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) recap on some of the differences here since this is turning into an edit war.--Jiang

For the purposes of transparency and so that others may verify your work. If your work is good, you shouldn't worry about whether it's easy for people to revert or difficult. Don't say "you" like you mean me. If you make it hard for people to understand your changes it's bad for everyone.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Everything can be verified via the page history. I'm not hiding anything. --Ji ang

But as you said, you make it more difficult to revert changes. It is to the benefit of everyone that you do not make your changes especially difficult to revert so that those that have consensus can easily be kept and those that don't won't be accepted.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reverting is BAD. It should be avoided as much as possible. If anyone wants to do something BAD, they need to be troubled to do it. --Ji ang

SOMEONE ELSE PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS PLEASE. I don't think Jiang gets it and it's dumb for him to think that he should make it harder for people to revert his changes than anyone elses. If it's quality work then the quality and the watchful eyes of everyone else will keep it from getting reverted. Of course reverting is bad, but you seem to do it all the time. It's necessary to counter bad work.--160.39.195.88 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan (Here you can try to vote Jiang out...)

"state that currently de facto administers the island groups" --> "state that currently consists of the island groups"

Discussed above as not npov. I propose "state that de facto consists of the island groups" ("currently" replaces with more specific term "de facto")--Jiang

I disagree. "Currently consists" has no POV implication. It is also ugly when you try to use "de facto" as an adverb. There is enough in the article that already discusses de facto / de jure claims.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

please answer above. I have already explained the POV implications. --Ji ang

Please answer why you want to use "de facto" as an adverb in a nonstandard way. Also consists of reflects the reality that today, now, in reality, that that is in fact what the ROC is the government for. I have already told you that administers makes it sound like it the ROC is a separate from what it governs when in reality, as a democratic state, it is the political community. See state.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have to qualify "consists of" with "de facto" since this is a politically sensitive topic. For reasons mentioned above, it is improper to imply that the de facto situation is the de jure situation. If you have another way of wording this without implying that the situation is in any way de jure, then I would like to hear it. "de facto consists of" is the best I can come up with now. --Ji ang

Adverb? Hello? De facto is traditionally used as an adjective. The rest of the article makes it extremely clear what all the de facto / de jure issues are.--160.39.195.88 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The adverb form is listed before the adjective in the dictionary, suggesting that it is more common. There's nothing wrong with the adverb. The rest of the article does not make it clear since youve decided to declare the claims to the mainland irrelevant. --Ji ang 18:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removal of "and set up a provisional capital in Taipei"

I don't see a reason for removing this. Given that capitals are often used to refer to nation-states, this is important.--Jiang

I already said that it is confusing when people don't know that Taipei is the capital of the ROC yet. That's why. After Taipei is introduced, then you can use it to represent the ROC state, when the context is clear.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing confusing about this statement. We've explained the context - the fled the mainland and set up a provisional capital. They called it that. There's nothing inaccurate or misleading here. Please elaborate on your point.--Ji ang

The original said that the ROC evacuated to Taipei. Well evacuated is a physical verb. 1) It sounds like every KMT monkey was in the actual city of Taipei. 2) Taipei as representative of Taiwan? They had to set up the capital, then it becomes representative of the politics of Taiwan the way the Washington section of a newspaper means national politics of the US. Don't put your cart before your horse.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The original has been changed so that's not relevant. The phrase you removed is not inaccurate. --Ji ang

Since it is changed, show me an example of what you would like to change the current to because we're talking about different things here.--160.39.195.88 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason for removing the phrase. Please discuss how the statement is inaccurate or unsuitable. --Ji ang 18:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"The ROC government no longer actively claims sovereignty over mainland China and Mongolia (although the National Assembly has never officially renounced sovereignty over these two areas), and the tense standoff of the Cold War era has largely subsided." --> "Although the ROC constitution has yet to be amended, the ROC government no longer claims sovereignty over mainland China and Mongolia and the tense standoff of the Cold War era has largely subsided."

You somehow implied that "amending" the ROC constitution is somehow expected, necessary, and inevitable. This is anti-unification POV. I also note that the ROC constitution makes no territorial claims and therefore needs no amending. There just needs to be a National Assembly resolution. Saying the ROC government doesn't claim sovereignty is also POV and a falsehood. You somehow acknowledged it by saying the constitution needs amending. And why did you remove the link to Mongolia?

Statement changed to National Assembly resolution. Why didn't you make the edit? It is "yet" because they are a democratic nation and there is no desire whatsoever among Taiwanese people to want to claim rule over all of China. It'd be so funny if they did. The only reason they don't do it is because China threatens Taiwan with war. That's why I say yet. Saying it in the opposite order ("they do not claim but they didn't change their national borders") makes it sound like they still want to take back China but are just taking a break or something. Absolutely ridiculous. And then they also say I didn't remove a link to Mongolia.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are spouting your own POV when you claim "there is no desire whatsoever among Taiwanese people to want to claim rule over all of China". Half the people probably wouldnt object to reunifying under a democratic China. There are reasons beyond war that people do not want independence. Quite a number of people feel culturally Chinese, are proud of being part of the Chinese civilization, and want to remain part of this glorious culture. I also explained here that it isnt as simple as "retaking the mainland" as you make it seem. Saying plainly that these claims are not being actively pursued makes it clear enough. You cannot say there will never be reunification under compromised terms --Ji ang 22:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Glorious culture? Please read something about Communist China and Chinese culture. Do you know Communist history? Communism was a complete rejection of ancient Chinese culture, especially of religion and Confucianism. Communes? Complete rejection of Confucian family values. Marxism? Besides that it was a Western ideology, it advocates the rejection of traditional socio-economic systems, such as feudalism. Communist China thought that rule under the emperor wasn't so great, and I'm not disagreeing, but what is this glorious Chinese culture that is being upheld by the PRC that you're talking about? In any case, glorious or not (notice I have not stated my own opinion on it but you obviously have some weird, simplistic idea of Chinese historical culture), cultural unity is not reason for political unification. I do not make any predictions that Taiwanese will never unify. But I will state as a fact there is no political will in the democratic society of Taiwan to pursue claims through the ROC that they rule China. Unification is a completely separate question. Please do not make the mistake of confusing the two.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So there are some who want to claim that the Communists, with their cultural revolution and such, have rejected and neglected Chinese culture and the Taiwanese are the true guardians of Chinese civilization.

It's not just a matter of "political will" but feasibility. They just can't feasibly "retake the mainland". If the goal is impossible to achieve they rationally stop trying to pursue it. This should not be construed as them not desiring this goal. --Ji ang

Well, at least you know you're wrong about glorious Chinese culture. It really disgusts me when I hear "5000 years of history" as a source of pride. If it was so great, what the hell happened in the 19th and 20th centuries? I think it's an amazing history, with lots of good and bad, but as a source of cultural pride and superiority? Come on now. The whole idea of revolution is that there was something seriously wrong, though obviously the communists made a lot of mistakes. Why is old necessarily good?

In terms of measuring preferences, I suggest you think a little harder on this idea of measuring preferences of extreme hypotheticals. First of all, I know you have no polls backing up what you're saying. Second, the hypothetical is ridiculous (not that I do not wish that were a choice Taiwan were presented with but so extreme as to bring into question whether people would be rational or even know how to respond to such a choice). So you are making up this ridiculous hypothetical that--what if Taiwan had the opportunity to peacefully unite with a democratic China, that I assume has also lost its nationalistic fervor--would they want to do it? Okay, well, that's a really silly question to ask, because 1) there is no evidence that China is going to be democratic anytime soon 2) PRC has never offered to unite with Taiwan and offered to become a democratic country in the meanwhile 3) the ROCs desire for the mainland was because of mainlander KMT control of the ROC.

Saying they do not pursue these claims any longer says nothing about the future. Hypothetically, Taiwanese could all gain some great love for authoritarian communist rule and want to unite with China. This is seriously a logical possibility, though I judge it unlikely. You saying "no longer actively" implies that there is a good possibility they are going to pursue these goals in the future, that it is dormant. Now that it is impossible, they rationally have stopped as you said. If you want to talk about desires about impossibilities, then you are talking about a desire so weak that it does not lead to action--then what is it? It won't later on lead to a "not active now but active in the future" pursuit. Please keep better track of your reasoning, it gets pretty muddled.--160.39.195.88 02:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is an aspect of Chinese thought to be looking in the past. For all of imperial china, the goal was to emulate "the ways of antiquity", to rule over the perfect harmonious society as the great sage-rulers Huang Di, Yao, Shun, Yu, et al had done. Anything wrong with society was supposed to be a deviation of the past. In the course of Chinese histiography, the time from 1800 to the present (ie 200 years) is very very short (unlike in American histiography). Of course, the Communists were using a European ideology and were more forward looking and unlike Chinese rulers before them werent interested in emulating the mythical past. But if you look at China from the beginning of the Han dynasty until the early Qing dynasty, and compare it with Europe in terms of technological development, you will come up with a different conclusion. Despite the rise of communism (and especially because of its fall), looking into the past, being observant of heritage (geneologies showing one's descent from royalty was always the subject of much admiration) and ritual are still part of Chinese culture, so Chinese people naturally are supposed to be proud of their past.

but we digress...the issue here is whether "does not actively pursue" implies it will be pursued in the future. I still say it makes no such implication. It only states what is being done at present and it could easily change from "does not actively pursue its claims" to "have dropped its claims" as you make it seem. I agree that we should drop the hypotheticals and look at the practical aspects of this. The reason these claims still exist and are kept existing is for symbolic reasons. The PRC and unification supporters want to keep these claims in place because it makes the division de facto - the result of an unresolved civil war - rather than de jure as the result of a formal secession. If we have each side claiming the others' territory (even though one side is obviously not going to get its way), then we still have an unresolved civil war. If one of the side doesn't claim the other's territory, then we have a separation dispute, which makes the prospect of reunification slightly less legitimate due to the "self-determination" argument. Given that these claims exist and have symbolic meaning (as Chen Shui-bian has to explicitly promise not to drop them), it is inappropriate and misleading to cover them up and make it seem as if only an inevitable and simple procedural change is needed. Saying the claims have been dropped (period) is flat out wrong. This is VERY important in considering the current conflict. --Ji ang 03:07, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Today, the Republic of China on Taiwan is known as Republic of China (Taiwan)."

Wrong. Today, the Republic of China on Taiwan is most commonly known as. Who uses "Republic of China (Taiwan)" other than the government's English version of its websites (how western centric to make this blanket claim)? See discussion above.

Western centric? I know you know Chinese. Tell me how to translate Zhonghua Minguo into English. It is by CONVENTION, not meaning that it is translated as Republic of China. It's the government that defines the name of itself. Not you. No one cares what you want the name to be nor what I want the name to be. ROC government defines it. They want to be known as ROC (Taiwan) so that people aren't confused?, then I don't have a right to stop them.

For an example that blows up your accusation of being western-centric, consider that former President LTH made a speech saying that negotiations between Taiwan and PRC should be made on a state-to-state basis. That's not a translation. That's the original English because there is no way to make such fine distinctions in Chinese! English may not be the prettiest language, but it is dominant around the world, and it is very fine-grained. There are twice as many words in English as in the nearest language (French). Making alterations to the English name is a subtle change and less than changing the Chinese name, which might provoke China. Perfectably reasonable.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The ROC government calls itself Zhonghua Minguo and translates this to "Republic of China". "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is a neologism coined by whoever sets the editorial policy for government English publications. I challenge you to find me a reputable source that states the point "They want to be known as ROC (Taiwan)". Please respond here. They could have easily used zhonghua minguo (Taiwan) if they wanted to. If it cannot be verified, it cannot belong. If theyve settled on "Republic of China (Taiwan)" then explain this controversy: The vice president yesterday opposed Yu's reference to the country as "Taiwan, ROC," saying the comma separating Taiwan and ROC reduces Taiwan into a part of the Republic of China. She insisted that Taiwan is the ROC and there shouldn't be any attempts to reduce Taiwan's status. Lu said the discussion surrounding Yu's description of the country as "Taiwan, ROC" should come to an end. --Ji ang

Yes Jiang. You're right, it's a neologism. So then if they choose a new one, then the old one cannot claim that it is the true translation that was based on meaning because it itself was a convention in the first place. People may disagree with what it should be, but fact of the matter is that their President ordered it implemented and as the representative of the people, till he is voted out of office or changes his mind, it as the _GOVERNMENT INFORMATION OFFICE__ of Taiwan says (http://www.gio.gov.tw), Republic of China (Taiwan)--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure Chen Shui-bian "ordered" it. Can you quote him? I think you're assuming more significance and implying more widespread application than what actually exists--Ji ang 23:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, my fault for implying that he personally ordered it but he's responsible in that it is his administration. Chen Shui-bian administration is what's used in the article so tell me what you think is wrong with that.--160.39.195.88 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't doubt that this format exists and popped up during the current administration, but it is clearly not consistently applied, as demonstrated by the links provided in a section above and by the rift between Premier Yu and Vice President Lu over their separate proposals. The administration arguable seems to favor "Taiwan" (by itself, without "Republic of China") as demonstrated by its latest UN resolution--Ji ang 18:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

" To avoid international political controversy, sometimes Taiwan is also represented as Chinese Taipei, such as in the Olympic Games."

Wrong. It is always known as Chinese Taipei in the Olympic games. I don't think this a relevant in the lead section. Maybe it should be made more general and not just limited to the Olympics. The use of "Chinese Taipei" does not "avoid international political controversy". It is avoid international political controversy! It's to compromise with the PRC's view that 1) the Republic of China does not exist and 2) Taiwan is not independence. "Chinese Taipei" was chosen because it can imply neither and the people have Taiwan can conveniently shorten in to "Chinese".

I have no issue with you moving it to a more appropriate place. Also, what does "it is avoid international political controversy" mean? I have no idea what you're talking about.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I meant "it is an international political controversy". The use of Chinese Taipei is to appease the PRC, not to "avoid international political controversy"--Ji ang

This is now changed. But you are a fool to fight these Orwellian games. It is international because it is on the forum of multiple nations. It doesn't refer to any statement about Taiwan's status as a nation. ROC doesn't call itself Chinese Taipei when it is only China and Taiwan.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"This article discusses both the historic Republic of China that governed Mainland China as well as the current ROC that governs Taiwan."

As explained above, no article really states explcitly what it's going to cover unless it will unconventionally limit the scope. This statement gives the reader no additional knowledge. They can find out what this article covers by reading it. Even if they didn't, this is exactly what they expected it to cover. In addition, this implies the mainland ROC and Taiwan ROC are different entities, so that the Taiwan ROC is an illegitimate renegade entity.

As I explained above, this article is particularly confusing to a person that may just want to know about Taiwan's political history. What don't you like about a little clarity? It says nothing about ROC on Taiwan's legitimacy but it does point out that they are very different things. You can't tell me authoritarian government on China (ROC pre 1949) is anything like democratic ROC on Taiwan today. Again, nothing challenging legitimacy.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If it's confusing, the provide a not-so-confusing summary in the lead section. This doesnt do anything to clarify the situation since it suggests the ROC on mainland and ROC on Taiwan are entirely different. The use of the term "historic" suggests the polity is defunct and a new one was declared on Taiwan. This smells like the PRC's claims. When you separate the two, you suggest Taiwan seceded via the ROC, making the Taipei regime less legitimate than it already is. Otherwise, you can claim it was the communists who rebelled and that the Taipei government was the original Chinese government. In such an entity opposed to secession like China's historical continuity is very important. And yes, the "authoritarian government on China" is continous with the "democratic ROC on Taiwan today". The same legislature that met in Nanjing in 1948 met in Taipei until 1991 and the current president and first lady served with this legislature in the 1980s.--Ji ang

Haha, but the first direct democratic presidential election was held in 1992! And it is not the same legislature if you mean the same people. Again, there is some continuity but there are severe disjunctions. Give me another example of a government that goes into exile and governs a small area and then may become the long-term legitimate political entity (if a ROC (Taiwan) is not established)! See the new wording and please continue discussion above.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The first direct presidential election was in 1996. A majority of the people in the legislature before they cleaned house in 1991 were elected on the mainland, so yes, they were the same people. --Ji ang

Removal of "the 18-Province Provisional Assembly in Nanjing."

What is your reason for removing this?--Ji ang

"losing to the KMT and the pro-Unification leaning" --> "barely losing to the KMT and the pro-Unification leaning"

I propose to replace this with "thus resulting in the unification leaning Pan-Blue Coalition to keep its slim majority"--Ji ang

"the notion of "recovering the mainland" by force has been dropped" --> "notion of "recovering the mainland" by force has been completely dropped"

The word "completely" isnt really necessary to convey the point and comes off as too strong. They were still yelling these slogans at Kinmen until September 2004. Omit needless words.--Jiang

It is important to say completely to remove any doubt in the reader's mind that there's any desire to do it. Also, Kinmen is a special case, if what you say is true, but it is obviously because they are so close to China and are so vulnerable. What do you think the psychology of those people is like? And come on now, even though they said it, no one would have thought what they are saying is something serious. In a democracy, people say all sorts of things.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you look at the various military badges, you will still see an outline of China with Mongolia included. If they entirely dropped the notion, they would have changed the outline already. Whether they have a chance of succeeding is irrelevant, but whether this has been truly dropped must be more carefully examined. No sane person would think they still have a chance of "retaking the mainland", but as stated above, symbolic actions count. It seems the notion has been dropped, but it hasnt been completely dropped. --Ji ang

Again, you need to consider the political situation in Taiwan and China's reaction to it. If they do anything that implies independence, then China threatens Taiwan with war. Given that Taiwan is a democratic society, the pressure applied by China causes some voters to be against such changes. This is not to say that these voters actually believe that the ROC rules over Mongolia/China.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The bottom line is that the sentence means the same without the word "completely". There's no reason to "remove any doubt in the reader's mind that there's any desire to do it". We can't comfortably say there's no desire to do it as long as their is no chance of doing it. Perhaps half the people in Taiwan would like to see communist China gone, but communist China isnt going anywhere so they dont actively say that--Ji ang

Again, as above, your speculation on desires about hypotheticals that are currently impossible is quite silly. How do you measure that? What even slight evidence do you have that anyone in Taiwan desires to take back the mainland by force under the hypothetical that they had the power to do so (like go back 30 years in a time machine)? And what is the point of taking into account a hypothetical that is looking like it's getting more and more unlikely? China's military is only growing stronger.--160.39.195.88 02:55, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the same grounds, you can't say there's no desire to do it and as stated above, this hasnt been totally dropped on symbolic grounds. This symbolism is important here and I've already conceded in allowing you to change the wording from "all but completely dropped". It's "all but completely" since they are still officially claiming the mainland. There's no need to emphasize you point using "completely dropped"--Ji ang 18:10, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"member of governmental trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization under the name Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu" --> "The Republic of China is a member of governmental trade organizations such as the World Trade Organization and APEC under the name Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu"

Wrong. It is a member of APEC under the name "Chinese Taipei".

Removal "Although the PRC objects to having other countries maintain diplomatic or official relations with the ROC, it does not object to having the ROC maintain economic relations, though under PRC pressure, the ROC may join governmental organizations under a different name."

How are you to explain these silly monikers? The existence of Taipei Economic and Cultural Offices? These are certainly important if you need to get a visa or want your passport renewed. Please dont delete useful information.

There are silly monikers because of PRC pressure. Well it absolutely does not belong in the opening sentence. And in the economic world, the United States wields tremendous amounts of influence; without US support, Taiwan could not have gotten into the WTO.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We have to explain why there are these monikers. I rearranged it, but you still deleted it. --Ji ang

Please be reminded that I am not the one making mass changes. If you want a justification for individual edits, you need to ask for one and explain why. --Ji ang 07:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Haha, you wanted to make all these changes that are disputed and are just explaining it now. If you don't justify then I don't need to justify my reverts. Stop putting your edits on some kind of pedestal. Justify and make it clear to everyone so that people can verify your work. That's the whole idea behind this community editing business.--160.39.195.88 09:25, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's good to leave edit summaries, but by convention, we dont explain everything we do. This is convention, but it is not convention to force people to explain by reverting. Instead, you ask them--Ji ang 22:39, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure you were aware that your changes were controversial. Now that you've explained I have no quibble.--160.39.195.88 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Archive