Jump to content

Talk:Taiwan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jiang (talk | contribs) at 09:58, 8 December 2005 (→‎Proposed intro). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Changed some incorrect statements

"Although the national boundaries have never been officially redrawn, the ROC government ended claims of sovereignty over mainland China and Mongolia in 1991..."

This is not a true statement. The ROC did not officially (ie constitutionally) renounce these claims through the national assembly.

There is no national assembly and there won't be. The sentence makes clear that the end of claims does not mean constitutional change, so there is no reason to change it. -anon
Lee Teng-hui said in 1991 "We do not dispute the fact that the Chinese Communists control mainland China." This statement does not renounce any claims. It is only an acknowledgement of the status quo. They're not disputing "the fact" but whether the Communists have a right to control mainland China is left unstated.
The task of changing the national borders now requires a constitutional amendment passed by the Legislative Yuan and ratified by an absolute majority of all eligible ROC voters.) --Jiang 04:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good, you understand that the national assembly is abolished. Why did you make the mistake of talking as if it hasn't been?
Anyways, while your interpretation is entertaining, I take that of the _US State Department_ to be authoritative: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm
"The authorities in Taipei exercise control over Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, and the Penghus (Pescadores) and several of the smaller islands. Taiwan's two major cities, Taipei and Kaohsiung, are centrally administered municipalities. At the end of 1998, the Constitution was amended to make all counties and cities directly administered by the Executive Yuan. From 1949 until 1991, the authorities on Taiwan claimed to be the sole legitimate government of all of China, including the mainland. In keeping with that claim, when the Nationalists moved to Taiwan in 1949, they re-established the full array of central political bodies, which had existed on the mainland. While much of this structure remains in place, the authorities on Taiwan in 1991 abandoned their claim of governing mainland China, stating that they do not "dispute the fact that the P.R.C. controls mainland China." " - 61.59.12.88 06:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The State Department is wrong. They are wrong on a bunch of matters. The Taiwan Provincial Government was not abolished--it was streamlined much in the way Fuchien had already been streamlined earlier. By "the authorities" they are referring to Lee Teng-hui. stating that they do not "dispute the fact that the P.R.C. controls mainland China" does not automatically imply that they "abandoned their claim". Maps continue to be published with the old ROC borders and the seal of the Marine Corps and other govt bodies include an outline of the old ROC. Can you find me a statement from the ROC government directly stating that "abandoned their claim" over mainland China? I don't think such a statement exists.
Some more mistakes from our friends at the State Department: "In 2002, Taiwan authorities announced adoption of the pinyin system also used on the Mainland to replace the Wade-Giles system but its use is not consistent throughout society..." Wrong, Tongyong Pinyin is nat also used on the mainland. "In June 2004 the National Assembly voted to dissolve itself, leaving Taiwan with a unicameral legislature." they got the date wrong. and the National Assembly never "legislated" in the first place. --Jiang 07:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Because the PRC claims sovereignty over Taiwan, the ROC's diplomatic recognition since the 1970s has suffered as a result of the One-China Policy that it itself had insisted on. As the much larger PRC has grown in economic significance, China's diplomatic maneuvers have become more effective and Taiwan's foreign relations have further suffered."

The first sentence makes it seem that it is only the ROC, not the PRC, that is insisting on the one-china policy. It also implies that the ROC still insists on the one-china policy, which is not the case. The second sentence should follow the wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese) on the terms "China" and "Taiwan". And what "diplomatic maneuvers"? the term is too vague. --Jiang 23:43, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. By the way, by "word change" you mean delete a lot of information that pertains to the modern ROC. Why hide links to democracy, state, and multiparty? Afraid of what people might find? --anon
democratic=describing a democracy and republic is a form of state. The information that was "deleted" already exists in the second sentence of the third paragraph. There is no need to be redundant. --Jiang
You have an incorrect understanding of the past perfect. "it itself had insisted on" makes perfectly clear that the ROC no longer insists on a one-China policy. Diplomatic maneuvers is not vague at all--what should replace it then? - 61.59.12.88 06:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
if "diplomatic maneuvers" is not vague, then can you clarify on what the term refers to?
and what do you have against the term "democratic republic"?

For those that are interested in this discussion please see below, "Introduction Discussion". I made several changes which make these changes outdated. I don't want to say I merely compromised on the discussion here, as there are sound reasons for the edits I made and I didn't just pick something in between these two positions. It is though, probably something in between what the back and forth edits of the above users was.--DownUnder555 09:34, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economy Subsection

Instantnood, you can't say it's from 1949-Present since Taiwan's economy begins much before that.

Introduction Discussion

This is meant as an explication of the introduction and not just a reason for the edits that I just made, as awhile back, I helped clean up a lot of structure in this article. Good writing doesn't just have the right information--it's also grammatically correct, stylistically smooth, and structurally sound.

First paragraph: This paragraph should be a broad introduction of what the ROC is today. It can be ambiguous, though we try to avoid it, but it must be short and current. History and detail should come later, and of course there will be some repetition to the broad strokes of the first paragraph as details are filled out.

"De facto" has negative connotations and prejudices the later discussion of the ROC's legitimacy. De facto implies not de jure or not legal. But that's only the PRC point of view. Both the KMT and the DPP, the two biggest points of view in Taiwan, would disagree quite strongly with de facto. The KMT may like to unify with China in the future, but they would not discount the current ROC's legitimacy over Taiwan. I considered using "currently" instead of "today" but currently feels too ephemeral, as if the PRC army is invading tomorrow, so that's no good. Today is neutral, and it's very clear that the PRC strongly disagrees with the ROC's legitimacy just a few sentences later.
Democratic republic is poor word choice as well. Click on the link and you'll see what I mean. There is no reason to link to it since the ROC is a real democracy and doesn't even contain democratic republic in its name.

Second and third paragraph separation: The ROC on mainland China and the ROC after it moved to Taiwan are very different eras. Two paragraphs help the reader realize that something big just happened--the ROC lost control of mainland China and moved to Taiwan.

Fourth paragraph: The last paragraph shows yet another significant change. The ROC began to function as a real democracy and localized, taking into account realities of Taiwan that it did not previously consider.

Old:"Although the national boundaries have never been officially redrawn, the ROC claims over mainland China and Mongolia have been largely ignored, and the tense standoff of the Cold War era has largely subsided."
New:"Although the national boundaries have never been officially redrawn, the ROC no longer pursues its claims over mainland China and Mongolia, and the tense standoff of the Cold War era has largely subsided."
The good thing about passive voice is you can avoid naming a subject. The bad thing about passive voice is that you avoid naming a subject. Who is ignoring the claims? The international community? The ROC government? The PRC? Local Taiwanese? "No longer pursues" is much better wording, as it leaves open the question of official boundaries. It can be explained in more detail later in the article why it is just "no longer pursues" but not official. Even die-hard KMT who value the ROC's past historical link with China will agree that the claims are no longer pursued.
Old:"The PRC claims sovereignty over Taiwan, thus the ROC's diplomatic recognition since the 1970s has suffered as a result of the One-China Policy and because of diplomatic maneuvers by the larger and more economically-significant PRC."
New:"Because the PRC claims sovereignty over Taiwan, the ROC's diplomatic recognition since the 1970s has suffered as a result of the One-China Policy it itself had previously insisted on and because of diplomatic maneuvers by the larger and more economically-significant PRC."
The old sentence is grammatically incorrect. "it itself had previously insisted on"--By inserting previous, it is crystal clear that the ROC no longer insists on such a policy and wants to enter the UN and other international organizations.

For future edits, make careful consideration before acting. --DownUnder555 09:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice edits on a whole, but several objections:
  1. The use of de facto in that context did not bring into question the legitimacy of the Republic of China. It is meant to imply that the current borders, a product of civil war and not any official declaration or peace treaty, are de facto. It does not call the ROC or Taiwan a "de facto state". I don't see any negative connotations in the context it was used and there are many instances of the term de facto in many other wikipedia articles: [1]. I don't think "today" does enough to emphasize the official status of these borders.
  2. I question the use of "vibrant" in the first sentence. How is this word necessary? It seems somewhat POV to call the state "vibrant" as the word brings praise to the system. You can also say black gold and legislative fistfights make the place not-vibrant.
  3. The sentence "Although originally intended as a democracy, throughout its tenure on the mainland, it was mainly a dictatorship." is an inaccurate portrayal of the KMT regime. Under Sun Yat-sen's doctrine, the liberal democracy would not come about until a period of "political tutelage" had passed. The KMT did not intend this period to end until the new constitution was promulgated in 1947. The ROC was not "originally intended as a democracy".
  4. "it itself had previously insisted on" implies that the "one-China policy" promoted by the ROC was the same that is currently promoted by the PRC. There's a huge difference: the ROC's "one-China policy" states that there is only one China and that is the Republic of China; the PRC's "one-China policy" states that there is only one China and that is the People's Republic of China. Support for the ROC's one China policy was once seen by the PRC as support for Taiwan independence (or at least touted as such).
I still think we should not be state the same thing in both the first paragraph and the first. The articles of modern democracies in wikipedia do not start out by introducing them as democracies. For example: "The French Republic or France (French: République française or France) is a country whose metropolitan territory is located in Western Europe..." "The United States of America—also referred to as 'the United States', 'the US', 'the USA', 'America' (more loosely), 'the States' (colloquially), and 'Columbia' (poetically)—is a federal republic of 50 states, located primarily in central North America." "South Korea, officially the Republic of Korea (ROK; Korean: Daehan Minguk listen? (Hangul: 대한 민국; Hanja: 大韓民國)), is a country located in East Asia, covering the southern half of the Korean Peninsula. "--Jiang 20:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First, on usage. Wikipedia's article on "de facto" could use some work, so let's not rely on that too much. On both Wikipedia and in the larger English linguistic community, "de facto" is used to differentiate from something that is "de jure" or legal. In other words, if something is "de facto" and "de jure", it's not logically incorrect to characterize it as "de facto", but it is a linguistic error--it'd be incorrect usage of "de facto".

Now, you may claim that the ROC's constitution says so and so, or that the PRC's bigwigs say so and so, but since we are talking about international borders--DownUnder555 11:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

what is "de jure" is in dispute while what is "de facto" is not. we are purposely leaving the de jure part unstated. I don't see anything inaccurate in the statement. how about using the wording "effectively consists of..."?--Jiang 00:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning that is to be conveyed is that it is not a nominal democracy and has an active civic society (which political scientists view as critical to democracy, i.e. democracy is not a bunch of votes and that's the end of it). Vibrant, of course, doesn't mean it's not over-the-top... You have a word that could more appropriately convey this?--DownUnder555 11:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the level of detail you are going into here on Taiwanese democracy really belongs in the politics of Taiwan article and not in the lead section of this article. vibrant implies the democracy is functioning very well and everyone's voice is heard. this is an inappropriate characterization. --Jiang 00:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No that's not what vibrant means. Vibrant means active, actual participation, loud, boisterous... how do you get to something so specific as everyone's voice is heard? What does that even mean?--DownUnder555 14:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"actual participation" implies that democracy is functioning very well and everyone's voice is heard because in a democracy, those participating share the power. that is how this political system is defined. Why is this even necessary? --Jiang 10:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was. Please see Sun Yat-sen (how about taking a look at the ROC section?). And you are conflating ROC and KMT. The KMT was founded after the ROC was founded for the very reason that the realities of China at the time made democracy susceptible to undue influence by military strongmen. Dr. Sun is reacting against the warlords and his inability to effect a democracy without military power--thus he allows someone like Yuan to force his way into becoming President of the ROC, but his original intentions were not to allow a "good guy" military strongman to take over the Republic. This is a big misunderstanding if you do not understand Sun's original ideas. Maybe he's naive, maybe he's idealistic--but that's how it started out and many elections took place before 1947 (later ones of course being shams).--DownUnder555 11:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Yat-sen was part of the group of thinkers (like Liang Qichao, Kang Youwei, and others before him) that believed Chinese society was not mature enough to handle a true western-style liberal democracy. He called for a period of dictatorship so that the peasants (and other low elements of mass society) could be educated on how to participate in the affairs of government. Sun envisioned three stages of national development: military unification, political tutelage, and constitutional democracy. After the Northern Expedition was completed, the KMT declared the first stage over. After the 1947 constitution was enacted, they declared the second stage over. Nowhere in these three stages of national development do "military strongmen" have a role. I am focusing solely on the KMT's period of control. Even then, they did not intend to immediately enact a democratic system. We don't even have to move back to the warlords to show that democracy was not the original intention. --Jiang 00:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
But what did they do right at the beginning?! 1947 is way too late for it to be original intentions. That makes no sense.--DownUnder555 14:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The at first had a provisional Senate appointed by various provincial governments that had declared independence and a president somehow selected by the revolutionaries. There were no elections, not until 1948. even those are suspect. --Jiang 10:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. The one-China policy here refers to the fact that both the PRC and ROC agreed that there is one China and thus you must only recognize the PRC or the ROC as the representative of all of China and you can't recognize both. They both agreed to this. The one-China policy refers to this forced choice. Check out this Slate article: http://slate.msn.com/id/1005379 . The other part you added and is not a part of the one-China policy. It would be right to say that the PRC believes in the one-China policy and that it was the real China. Not just that they have a one-China policy.--DownUnder555 11:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are both "one-China" policies but it would be wrong to suggest that they be the same. You can say both subscribed to the one-China policy, but you cannot imply they were the same thing. It took until 1992 for them to agree to disagree. Otherwise, if they both agreed, why would they be lobbing shells at each other?--Jiang 00:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They agreed that there was one China. They didn't agree on who was the one China and that is what they fight about. The first part is called the one China policy, the second part is not. Today, the ROC seeks representation in international organizations and does not seek to kick the PRC out of said organizations. In the past, it did. It is much more difficult for countries to say today okay, we are just going to recognize both, because there is the legacy of the one China policy.--DownUnder555 14:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The one-China policy can be defined to go beyond one sentence. how many policies are only one sentence long? after one sentence, there is sharp disagreement.--Jiang 10:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not saying the same thing though. To use your logic, is it wrong to mention ROC in the first paragraph and then in the second? Is it wrong to use the word "the" and then use it again in the next sentence? The first paragraph says what it is today. The fourth paragraph says that it changed from something else to what it is today; this is saying that there was this process of change. You can't isolate a noun phrase that's used twice and say that it's redundant. They are providing related, but different information.--DownUnder555 11:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how are they not providing the same information? Saying that it changed from something else to what it is today, in process, says what it is today. I dont follow your logic. --Jiang 00:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. An analogical situation. Let's say I want to characterize myself. One thing I might say is that I don't drink alcohol. Ok, interesting, maybe I'm Muslim. But then I say I used to be an alcoholic and today I am completely dry. Did I just repeat myself? No, not at all. In fact, it's pretty surprising that I'm completely dry given that I used to be an alcoholic. Same deal with the ROC description.--DownUnder555 14:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A more analogical situation: 1. I don't drink alcohol. 2. I used to be an alcoholic and today I don't drink alcohol. We could do without the first sentence and not lose any information, could we? --Jiang 10:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mate, think about how a lot of Wiki articles are written. It's written in a way that makes it so that people can take varying amounts of information depending on their interest and time. The ROC article contains several section summaries and readers who want to read more can click on the link and read a full-length article. Same situation here. The first paragraph is the like a soundbite on the evening news--really short, really broad. The introductory section as a whole is the executive summary--gives you a little more of what's important but still pretty general. The article as a whole is a 10 minute introduction to the ROC. If you have more time, you can read all the little related articles and then afterwards, you'd probably know just as much as reading some travel books about the ROC/Taiwan (actually probably more). Of course there's overlap but it's a more and more specific view.--DownUnder555 20:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POV

What a load of POV this article has become. I don't have a stance on this issue and I simply don't care who governs Taiwan, but I would expect a bit of neutrality regarding this subject. This article, and the whole treatment given to the Taiwan/Republic of China issue throughout Wikipedia takes the shape of: "Oh, the poor people of Taiwan!"/"Bad, bad PRC!". It's laughable. I'm not even going to try to attach the POV tag to the article, as it would be removed after 1 milisecond. —Cantus…☎ 08:39, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

perhaps it would help if you were a bit more specific... --Jiang 09:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just came here from the Taiwan article and my issue is not so much with the POV, but the needless duplication of some sections:

Some differences make sense, but others are just rewritten duplications that need merging.

And here are some weasel words from the intro that look POV, or at least, unencyclopedic:

  • For some, this suggests that the ROC implicitly admits that its sovereignty is limited to the areas that it controls.

-Wikibob | Talk 22:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Constitution and sovereignty

Removed:

"Also, the now defunct National Assembly has passed constitutional amendments that give the people of Taiwan, Pescadores, Quemoy, and Matsu the sole right to exercise the sovereignty of the Republic through elections of the President and the entire Legislature as well as through elections to ratify amendments to the ROC constitution. For some, this suggests that the ROC implicitly admits that its sovereignty is limited to the areas that it controls."

This should be mentioned somewhere in the article, but I would like to resist attempts to further expand the lead section, which is already too long.

I also disagree with point being made here. The Constitution uses "free area of the Republic of China" and not "people of Taiwan, Pescadores, Quemoy, and Matsu." The terminology itself implies there must be an "unfree area" for a "free area" to exist (or for the term/qualification to be necessary in the first place). This just reinforces the notion that the Republic of China is larger than the area the government controls. --Jiang 09:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The information may need to be moved, but that's not what you did. You just deleted it. Also, if you disagree, that's fine, since it says "for some, this suggests...". That clearly means that you and other people disagree. Plus, you ignore context. Prior to the ammendment, the ROC on paper was supposedly all of mainland China, Mongolia, and Taiwan. That hasn't been a position of the ROC for some time, but before 2000, there wasn't even discussion of free area. So if you take into account context, it actually is a big move towards recognizing that the ROC is just Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen,...
  2. The historic Republic of China is important as is the history of Taiwan. The history of Taiwan's economy has nothing to do with the history of the economy of the Republic of China. It is only because the article is defined as wherever the government called Republic of China is that we include both. The other choice would be simply to delete the economy section and leave it to the China and Taiwan sections since economies never move. Also the military had two distinct phases as well. Conscripts after moving to Taiwan all of sudden were all Taiwanese. It ended actively fighting, which it was doing throughout almost its entire history on the mainland. This is a big change. Later, is the change to the current mission of defense against invasion. That makes no sense for an ROC army on the mainland.

--DownUnder555 15:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1a. The problem is that the way the text is worded, we are better off starting over. First, we are to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. Second, to be NPOV, we must provide a counter-argument. The argument is unsourced, does not make logical sense, and does not have an accompanying counter argument. Since I cant find logic and reasoning in the argument and have never seen it before, I cannot source it or make a counter argument. Can you?
What are the weasel words exactly? There's nothing illogical about that statement. It's the idea of popular sovereignty--that legitimacy comes from self-determination and democracy, what everyone was supposed to get after World War II and the UN. You can't call it weasel unless you are specific and show how it's weasel. You claim it's POV, then find the opposing argument.--DownUnder555 20:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The wording "for some, this suggests..." is an example of weasel words. For whom? Who is "some"? I told you it is difficult to find a counter argument here. I can't only point out inadequacies. The statement "For some, this suggests that the ROC implicitly admits that its sovereignty is limited to the areas that it controls." is inadequate because it uses weasel words and "The Constitution uses "free area of the Republic of China" and not "people of Taiwan, Pescadores, Quemoy, and Matsu." The terminology itself implies there must be an "unfree area" for a "free area" to exist (or for the term/qualification to be necessary in the first place). This just reinforces the notion that the Republic of China is larger than the area the government controls." Here I repeat myself. Check the archives if you would like to see me repeat myself even more.--Jiang 06:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
1b. The ROC Constitution, if you read it, makes no mention of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, or Matsu. The "free area" term was used as early as the 1991 revision, which called for the Legislative Yuan to be entirely elected by citizens in the "free area". so I really don't understand your point in stating "Prior to the ammendment, the ROC on paper was supposedly all of mainland China, Mongolia, and Taiwan. That hasn't been a position of the ROC for some time, but before 2000, there wasn't even discussion of free area. So if you take into account context, it actually is a big move towards recognizing that the ROC is just Taiwan, Penghu, Jinmen,..."
There was greater recognition. The ROC still has yet to redraw official national borders. So on paper it still "claims" to be the ruler of all of China and Mongolia. Now, we compare real policy with the ROC's constitution. If there is such a big difference then, and then later we see moves in the constitution, in both 1991 and 2000 that move it towards reality, we have to say then that real policy must have shifted. It's contextual. If I always claim my business makes 50,000 a year and it usually makes 150,000, but one year I say, hmm, it's 100,000, then you'd have to think that 150,000 changed or that I don't really want people to think that it's 50,000 anymore even though I haven't really made it in line with the actual number yet.--DownUnder555 20:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Prior to the ammendment, the ROC on paper was supposedly all of mainland China, Mongolia, and Taiwan. That hasn't been a position of the ROC for some time" vs. "The ROC still has yet to redraw official national borders. So on paper it still "claims" to be the ruler of all of China and Mongolia." I don't get it. Do you?--Jiang 06:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2a. "The history of Taiwan's economy has nothing to do with the history of the economy of the Republic of China." exactly. "It is only because the article is defined as wherever the government called Republic of China is that we include both." This sentence makes absolutely no sense. please clarify. This article is on the Republic of China and the territories it governed. Anything else is not relevance. The history section shold only start where the Republic of China was established. There's a reason Taiwan is a separate article: anything relating to pre-1945 Taiwan is not relevant here. Otherwise, we should merge these two. --Jiang
I have a hard time believing you're making this argument. Show me one (yes just 1!) serious economist who references a Republic of China economy that begins in mainland China and then talks about it in Taiwan as the same thing. What do you mean exactly? There's nothing obvious about what you're saying! No one else would create a history of an economy that goes from mainland China pre-1949 to Taiwan post-1949!--DownUnder555 20:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is why there are two sub-sections in the section. We called it "economy of mainland China" and "economy of Taiwan". The section division is clear: they are not the same economy. We've clearly separated them. --Jiang 06:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2b. "Also the military had two distinct phases as well. Conscripts after moving to Taiwan all of sudden were all Taiwanese." Wrong. Many of those mainlanders who fled were soldiers, and career soldiers. Even to this day the military leadership is dominated by mainlanders. "It ended actively fighting, which it was doing throughout almost its entire history on the mainland. This is a big change." Same military. Does doesn't seem to be a reason to violate the rules set by the wikipedia:Manual of Style. one-paragraph sections should not exist. "Later, is the change to the current mission of defense against invasion. That makes no sense for an ROC army on the mainland." Again, same miliary. We didn't call it the "military of mainland China". it is still the "military of the Republic of China", which is historically continuous with the forces organized by Sun Yat-sen in 1917 to overthrow the northern warlords. historically continuous. same military. same organizational structure and institutions with badges depicting mainland China. of course militaries move with territorial changes and soldiers die off... --Jiang 10:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Badges aren't so meaningful. What about southern states with confederate flags? Do you want to resurrect the Confederacy based on signs of history that have not caught up with reality? Conscripts by the way, are never officers. Career officers, yes, today, there are still a lot of mainlander Taiwanese, like yourself. You are confusing the argument with minor signs. It is not saying it is not completely the same military nor is it saying it is exactly the same military. I don't quibble with you that the institution that was the military of mainland China moved to Taiwan and had a different existence. I think there should be separate sections so we can talk about this history more. The section right now is only one paragraph but could use expansion. It's not a style problem--it's a content problem.--DownUnder555 10:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
we could be separating it into more meaningful sections: the revolutionary armies of the alliance, the armies of the Beiyang warlords, the whampoa-trained revolutionary army, the communist guerrila forces (integrated into the army under the second united front), and finally the army on Taiwan. These would be too many! The article is long enough. The military section doesnt need much expaning and one paragraph sections just shouldnt exist. If you look at other wikiproject countries articles, you normally do not see many subsections since there are so many sections in the template. --Jiang 06:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's only a problem because you're defining it as a problem =). We could separate the military section into a zillion sections... or we could use this separation and extend the section.--DownUnder555 16:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics subsection

Erm... Why isn't there one in this article? Those things are kind of standard in the nation articles...--71.112.234.168 09:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

The Republic of China: "...is a multiparty democratic state that exercises sovereignty over the island of Taiwan and the island groups of the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu." ---> "...is, since 1949, a disputed state in East Asia that is effectively composed of the island groups of Taiwan, the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu..."

The method of governance of the state, per wikipedia convention, is not usually stated in the first sentence of the article. This can be found elsewhere in the lead. However, the status of the Republic of China is in dispute and must be presented up front. This is really important. According to the PRC, the Republic of China no longer exists. To ignore this viewpoint is to violate npov.

Taiwan is labelled an island group here to avoid having to list Green and Orchid islands. --Jiang 23:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, we are NOT ignoring the PRC's viewpoint. This viewpoint is expressed in the following two paragraphs (in your own words, this can be found elsewhere in the lead). To suggest that the ROC's status is disputed is more important than everything else about the ROC can also be considered to be a POV. Therefore to be totally fair, I suggest that we place NO ADJECTIVES in the first sentence with regards to the Republic of China being a state. We'll just simply say that the ROC is a state that exercises soverignty over certain regions. Everything about the ROC's characteristics of being a multiparty democratic state or about a disputed state can be expressed elsewhere in the lead. Allentchang 17:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to write an article about Great Britain, would I have to list every single island within the control of Great Britain in the lead section? If I were to write an article about Canada, would I have to also mention Vanouver Island in the lead section? Allentchang 17:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The status of the ROC is, for our average English reader, the most important topic in this article. Almost everytime Taiwan is mentioned by the western media, the political status of Taiwan is somehow mentioned. In Taiwan itself, the prevailing debate is over the status of the ROC, whether it legitimately exists, whether it should exist in the future, and how to evoke the ROC in relation to Taiwan. This is unlike other disputed states such as Israel where the domestic debate is not over whether the political entity should exist in the first place. The use of the term "Republic of China" (in just about every instance it is used) is itself a statement of politics, with the Chinese Communists and supporters of Taiwan independence choosing not to use the term, while blue supporters in Taiwan choosing the opposite. In international politics countries with relations with the PRC are being prevented from using it (as Colin Powell was told to stop using the term after he became SOS) while countries with relations with the ROC use it all the time. This makes our lead sentence "The Republic of China is a state" itself a political statement in favor of Pan-Blue. Encarta, on the other hand, presents an anti-blue pov: "The government that administers Taiwan calls itself the Republic of China." (the phrase "calls itself" implies something less than a statement of undisputed fact.) i think the implication needs to be presented up front: that the ROC exists but its legitimacy is widely disputed. otherwise, we come out as being the opposite of the Encarta article. I stand by my version of the lead, but I won't object to the current version unless that "multi-party democratic" modifyer comes back.--Jiang

  • And because of this, people outside of Taiwan keep on asking us who reside in Taiwan how can we survive each second with an obsessive stalker across the Taiwan strait that cannot be stopped by a restraining order. Saying that the status of Taiwan is more important that everthing else can be dangerously misleading. I would consider the survival of the ROC's young democracy also a very important topic.
  • Another thing, while it is true that Taiwan's status is somehow mentioned in the western media, this is not always mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs. Additionally, newspaper articles and encyclopedia articles do not necessarily start their leads the same way (see comments several blocks below). Allentchang 03:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet the mainstream Pan-Greens have moderated their position in supporting the existence of the Republic of China for now so long as it means that only the people of the region of Taiwan operates its sovereignty and letting the people of Taiwan to decide what to do with it later through due process. It would seem now that the Pan Blues are willing to get rid of the Republic of China if the PRC becomes democratic enough. I would not think that by now "The Republic of China is a state" is necessarily a statement in favor of the Pan-Blues
  • According to our wikipedia article on a state, the state is a political community, not merely a government. The people of Taiwan and its allied islands are part of this community known as the Republic of China by accepting fire, police, health, etc. services from organizations that have the ROC symbol or flag, by carrying ID cards that say Republic of China, and by electing representatives for this political community.
  • The Information Please Almanac does not start it's lead by saying that the ROC is a disputed state:

[2] "The Republic of China today consists of the island of Taiwan, an island 100 mi (161 km) off the Asian mainland in the Pacific; two off-shore islands, Kinmen (Quemoy) and Matsu; and the nearby islets of the Pescadores chain."

  • The Concise Encyclopedia article [3], which apparently is part of the britannica website, starts its lead as "Island, off southeastern China, and since 1949 the principal component of the Republic of China (which also includes Matsu and Quemoy islands and the Pescadores)."
  • Perhaps we could then argue that the Encarta has a PRC agenda and that the Information Please Almanac and Britannica have a plan-blue agenda. But I don't think so. Allentchang 03:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the reason that I think the only way to keep us all happy is to remove all adjectives and modifiers in front of the word state in the lead section.Allentchang 03:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Im trying to keep everything together so it's easier to follow who said what...

  1. While the status of Taiwan may not be relevant in the first sentence of the Taiwan article, it is relevant in the first sentence of the Republic of China article. This is partly why we have two separate articles. There are separate focuses. People rarely evoke the "Republic of China" unless they are discussing politics or trying to make a political statement. When people go visit Taipei, they say they are "going to Taiwan" instead of "going to the Republic of China", or if that someone is me, then theyre "going to China..." ;)
  2. While the dispute is less than relevant as everyday politics in Taiwan itself, it is very relevant outside of Taiwan because it is the main reason why Taiwan is ever mentioned in the news. But this is not about Taiwan. This is about the Republic of China. Politics is popping out everywhere from that name. Britannica, Infoplease, and Encarta all have their articles under "Taiwan". They do not have two separate articles like we do.
  3. The "Republic of China" being a state that "exercises sovereignty only over the island groups of Taiwan, the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu" as opposed to the Republic of China being defined as Taiwan itself is pro-blue and not necessarily pro-green (which would be something like "The Republic of China is the formal name of Taiwan, an independent country in East Asia). The blues, according to the current rhetoric, come strongly in defending the existence of the Republic of China at present (basically supporting the status quo) while leaving the far off future ambiguous (as you state, possibly reuniting under a name that is not the "Republic of China").
  4. The dispute is not over whether the Republic of China exists as a sovereign state. This whole article (with sections on economy, modern day politics, Taiwanese culture, etc. as opposed to its hideous state two years ago) assumes that the ROC still exists with a functional government. The dispute is over the legitimacy of the Republic of China, a central part of when and how often the term "Republic of China" is used. I would argue that a significant portion of the population (eg the TSU) does not accept the flag (they surely wont fly it from their house) and are not protesting those ID cards because it would cause them great personal invoncenience to trash them.
  5. I'm not opposed to keeping all adjectives and modifiers out of the first sentence. --Jiang 09:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another change was of "reforms" to "constitutional reforms" in the lead. I do not think they were solely constitutional reforms. There were numerous personel changes that replaced mainlanders with native Taiwanese in the government. The Council of Grand Justices ruling that removed all the aging mainland-elected legislators and national assemblymen cannot be said to be really a "constitutional reform". Freedoms of speech and other positive human rights were already spelled out in the original constitution. They chose to simply enforce these rights differently. And legalizing political parties (or with the case of the DPP, deliberately not enforcing the law) was a change of law and administration and not of constitution.

Great Britain should not list every single island in the British isles. I was trying to pre-empt the adding of small islands into the lead section of this article.--Jiang 01:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but recall that the National Assembly passed amendments regarding the existence of a communist rebellion and that emergency powers were in place which curbtailed the rights of the citizens. Even though martial law was abolished in 1987 (and I was there to see it happen), a National Security Law replaced it and in many ways resembled martial law. All the trampling of the rights of the existing ROC citizens did not end until the National Assembly agreed with the President to end the amendments to deal with by then the so-called "communist rebellion."

Allentchang 03:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The DPP was founded in 1986, and though illegal, the government did not try to shut it down like it would 10 years beforehand. Numerous press freedoms were also gradually relaxed during the 1980s. It was not overnight, via a National Assembly vote, that people got freedoms to speak out. During this period of time the opposition was constantly testing the regime and people were still getting jailed for opposing the government, but more people walked out of jail than they walked in. Lee's accession as Chiang Ching-kuo's successor was also a significant step since Lee was 1) native Taiwanese and 2) a technocrat unconnected with the old mainlander faction connected with the military. Isnt the National Security Law still in effect? [4] [5] Theyve never been able to revive the Taiwanese Communist Party. --Jiang 09:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

splitting of "culture" section to template

I do not think we should be splitting the culture section off to a template in order to have identical content with the Taiwan article. Part of the reason Taiwan and Republic of China are separate articles, rather than the same article with one name being a redirect, is so that we can have different focuses. The "culture of Taiwan" in this article is only relevant since 1945, when Taiwan became part of the ROC, and the focus on culture here has a lot to do with the interaction between government and culture (such as by supressing local Taiwanese culture and later encouraging it). Naturally, since the culture section here must share space with discussion of 1912-1949 republican Chinese culture, it should be less detailed than the culture section in the Taiwan article, which needs to also view culture from a broader perspective with government taking a less prominent role. This article is already 39 kilobytes long. Having a whole section on "convenience store culture" (with the same with the same content being duplicated at Convenience_store#Convenience_stores_in_Taiwan, Taiwan#Convenience_store_culture, and Culture_of_Taiwan#Convenience store culture is not needed. The ubiquity of convenience stores has much to do with Taiwan, but little to do with the Republic of China. In addition, some changes to the neutrality of the wording and the accuracy of the content that I made was lost[6]. --Jiang 10:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minnan Dialect

While the Minnan Dialect is not an official language of the Republic of China, the Republic's government has elevated Hokkien's status. On Taipei's subway and Taiwan's rail system, stops and instructions are required by law to also be announced in Minnan. In the new language competency test now required for immigrants who wish to become ROC citizens, the Minnan exam (besides Hakka) is offered as a flexible option to pass the exam. Minnan is the de facto language of the open-air marketplace in Taiwan. Finally, the reason that the government does not mandate a Minnan only cable channel (there are mandated Hakka and indigenous people channels), is because there is well enough Hokkien language programming avaliable. Given Taiwan's special relationship with the ROC, the Minnan word for the Republic of China should be presented. Allentchang 23:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. To be fair, I should point out that simplified Chinese characters have no official status in the ROC either and would also have to be removed if we went strictly with what was official. ;) -Loren 23:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no, i don't think it's very good quality at all.

"only

what the hell is up with using a weasel word like "only"? what is that supposed to mean? that it's supposed to control more? and why would we do that if we're trying to write from NPOV? please, neutral language only.

"the state"

um... someone take an english lesson. "the state that..."... do you realize what you're saying? you're implying that there are a number of possible states and that of these, it's the ROC that "exercises sovereignty" over taiwan. what the hell? why should you assume that kind of background knowledge? if you're not, you just sound retarded trying to answer some question that wasn't asked ("which was it? roc is the one").

"sovereignty over"

a long time ago, in a place far, far away... well unfortunately not that far, but to "exercise sovereignty over" is a term that should be reserved for authoritarian states or for uninhabited rocks that countries send their ships to swarm around or for colonies/territories. hello... this is a democracy we're talking about here. the state _is_ the people. the people are theoretically the sovereigns... they're the ones that vote... CSB may think he's god, but god or not, he's no king. do you get that? he doesn't "control" taiwan. he's president. he doesn't "rule". he governs. do you get this?

so-called successor state

ok, prior to my removal of the term, it was a complete misuse of the term on this page. if anyone bothered to click on the damn link or look it up some, you would see that what successor state means in other contexts (international law, history, etc) is totally different from the one implied here:

  1. what it means: well there are several defs, one of the most common ones being something like "the territory or part of a territory that was formerly controlled by x but is now controlled by y". thus BOTH taiwan and china would be successor states to the former china.
  2. "successor state" here is prc propaganda that the roc previously bought into in order to give legitimacy for itself as representative of all of china on the world stage. they mean something like, there is this one china and there can only be one big man in china, and since we kicked your butt in most of china, we are the legitimate ruler of all of china + taiwan and so you are illegitimate and you should give up. the roc/kmt previously thought that they would rise up and beat back the communists on the mainland and so they said, yes you're right, there's one china, but since you're communist bastards, we're the legitimate ones and after we finish killing taiwanese and start putting them to work, we're going to kick your butt, but till then, we're going to deal with the world and you can sit around by yourself. anyways, it's obvious that there is no real law or anything going on... each side is motivated merely to try to find some advantage/moral high ground. if you're one of those that thinks taiwan is a part of china, "china" has been split many times before throughout history and parts of modern china were never part of it before, so let's make sure we recognize that.

addendum--in sum, there is no necessity of a single successor state of china, and there is absolutely no basis in international law for this. the claim of "i'm the successor, you give up" is something like if you're playing a game if i win 80% then i win all the way. but there is no such a game and there is no rule like this!

"ruling party"

KMT was the ruling party from the beginning till probably... somewhere between 1990-2000... i mean, it's an ongoing development. they just won an election, but they don't win automatically like they used to (fake elections, vote-buying, guaranteed wins). how happy some people are about the KMT win really proves that they aren't the ruling party.

anyways, what the hell does ruling party mean anyways? it means either:

  1. whoever has the most seats in parliament (because then they also elect the prime minister from it, giving them full control of the entire government) or
  2. an authoritarian system with strong-man politics. look, the reason everyone is so confused about what this article should be about is because ROC != ROC. ROC in the period i was talking about meant something like ROC1 = ROC gov't + KMT party + ROC army + ROC controlled territory. today, ROC2 = popularly elected gov't + no single party + civ controlled army + Taiwan + people of Taiwan. thus ROC1 had a ruling party (think about a place like China and its CCP if this makes your head hurt) and could move. but ROC2 wouldn't be able to move anywhere at all.

edits to intro, etc.

Per the discussion with allentchang above, there's really no point in specifying "multi-party democratic..." in the first sentence. This is done nowhere else. If you want to use "multi-party democratic..." then I can do a WP:POINT and change it to "defunct state that the KMT regime has reestablished in Taiwan" because that's also what it is.

"From 1895 to 1945, Taiwan and the Pescadores were a colony of Japan..." is irrelevant. This is an article on the Republic of China, not Taiwan and the Pescadores. The lead section is already too long. Please don't make it longer.

In the political divisions section, putting "(Taiwan)" after the main article link is totally not necessary. It conveys no new information and clarifies nothing. That the ROC is known as Taiwan has been stated much earlier in the article. The section is not just about the ROC in Taiwan. If it is, then expand it. Furthermore, "Fuchien" is the transliteration used by the government. --Jiang 10:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

is that a threat? cause i see no problems with that. go ahead and do it.
no, but since it's about the ROC and since the ROC these days is Taiwan (say what you want, you know it's true, it's the reality), you need to say where the hell taiwan came from. that's why it's relevant. follow conventions of other articles. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs)
Republic of China and Taiwan are seperate articles. There's a reason we kept them separate. The lead section is already too long. I tried to incorporate the fact less longwindedly and more relevantly elsewhere in the lead.--Jiang 11:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Republic of China and China are separate articles too. You don't complain about that much. Stop pursuing an agenda.

Some shaky historical claims in the military section removed: "Because of the lack of national unity of the Republican Era of China, several armies are associated with this era." The "lack of national unity" is not cause for several armies. That is called warlordism, which is discussed several sentences later.

"The early Kuomintang had no army and was subject to the whims of warlords, especially Yuan Shikai. Having learned their lesson, with the help of the Comintern, Sun Yat-sen established the..." This is false. The New Army mutineers were sympathetic to Sun's Revolutionary Alliance, and did, along with some other mercernary/provincial volunteer forces make up a substantial military force. Of course, this force was not as strong as Yuan's Beiyang army up north. The second sentence implies that the KMT in Guangdong. had no army until the Comintern came along. It did. It just wasnt strong enough to take on all the warlords.--Jiang 10:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

huh? ccp is called warlordism? what is wrong with you? get a clue. warlordism is also a cause of a fractured nature, wouldn't you think? i don't get your logic. they're 100% compatible.
it didn't really though. that was a warlord taking Sun under his wing, not Sun and the KMT in charge of their own army to do whatever they want. so you're wrong. --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs)
The "lack of national unity" could be in politics, ideology, religion, etc. One doesn't automatically imply the other.
Sun had mercernaries and volunteers he had control over, and co-opted several warlords, some at the same time. Sun did not take orders from the warlords, but rather had them incoporated into his organization (so yes, he was technically in charge: he was president and Chen Jiongming was Governer of Guangdong province). remember that the KMT wasnt in existence from about 1913 to 1922.--Jiang 11:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
but not the KMT that put together a real army of its own and united china. you avoid the issue. "incorporated" sounds pretty weak and you know it. that's why you're saying it that way. also--not only warlords is the point. you totally missed the importance of the CCP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs)
It doesn't matter who founded the army. What matters is that Sun had troops under his command.--Jiang 11:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cite something.
Yes, the KMT army was formed by warlords. Yan Shishang, Li Tsun-jen and all those KMT generals belonged to non-Whampoa cliques. BlueShirts 03:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

holy shit, i would've never thought, explanation of why jiang keeps removing the bit about democracy

ok, according jiang

"intro is too long. this is covered elsewhere, see "...its current form as a localized, multi-party democracy where in practice only people in the island groups of Taiwan...")"

now i understand what jiang's up to here. first of all, "intro is too long" is obviously a bullshit reason, so let's put that aside and examine the second bit. "in practice only people in the island groups of Taiwan..."... wow... so jiang's claim is that the roc means something like china + taiwan and china is not democratic, so the ROC is not a democracy! holy shit! do you think you can find people in taiwan that don't think the ROC is a democracy? so what the honorable mr. jiang is really saying is that we either IGNORE what the political system of the ROC is even though we proceed to describe the government of the ROC OR we say that the ROC is a multiparty democratic state with territories currently occupied by the CCP under communist/authoritarian rule. just wow. i mean, POV if i've ever seen any. look, we devote plenty of space (in my opinion too much) to this historical controversy of who's supposed to be "legitimate" but the fact is, under NPOV, we should be talking about what the reality is. and the reality is that the ROC is a democratic state.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs)

The intro is too long. There's no need to state that the ROC is a multiparty demoracy twice.--Jiang 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be known to all non-partial observers that care about writing a good wiki article that the gentleman Mr. Jiang reverts without commenting. Now it may be claimed that he reiterated his point that the introduction is too long, but let it be noted that there are several points in the introduction that are repeated upon and expanded upon later in the article, but he so chooses and insists that this is the only part of the introduction that must go. Let it also be noted that the good sir also ignored several other points that I brought up, including that his command of political expertise is, well, to say the least, quite lacking, overeagerly mistaking "strong-man" for lowly speech, when in fact it is a specialized, refined term of, well, those who know. Additionally, and now more sadly, let us also observe his lack of commenting, other than his tired refrain that the introduction is too long, and how he had so urged me to comment and gain consensus before making improvements, yet he himself provides false, empty words to explore what I dare say is nakedly a POV agenda.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs)

I think it'd be best to mention the multiparty pan-green presidency and pan-blue legislature/local level in teh politics section. I don't think you see that kind of detail in the intro of any national profiles. BlueShirts 20:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear KMT supporter, I must inform you that actually the multiparty bit is much more relevant than the KMT ruling party bit as the former is present while the latter is historical. And while I do agree the state profiles should include some certain basics, each situation is different and requires sensitivity to the peculiarities of history and place. Had you real proof that introductions to country profiles might constrain themselves to lofty guidelines, I urge you, enlightened one, to write wikiguidlines of your own. And may "Zhong Zheng" live forever! The dream of one, united, authoritarian China lives on!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs)

take your head out of your ass and read my profile a bit more closer, please, Chen supporter. BlueShirts 21:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at what I said, you will see that I am pointing out a particular political bias in the remarks and reasoning given by Jiang (sometimes people around Wikipedia call this POV). On the other hand, I do not see a pattern of edits on my part that could be construed as me being a Chen supporter.

you completely ignored my point. There is no reason why we should state the same thing, in the same amount of detail, within the introduction itself. why call it a multiparty democracy twice when one time will get the message across? and please start an article on strong-man politics if you are so inclined.--Jiang 00:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not inclined. would you please consider doing the research and doing it yourself, as you are unfamiliar with the term?

Everyone please cool it so we can discuss this rationally. I honestly don't see what all the fuss is about as the specifics of who the ruling and opposition parties are already covered in other sections. In fact, if you compare the current intro to comparable country articles such as United States of America or Republic of Korea, the ROC intro is way too long and goes into details that should be covered in other sections. Consider for example the ROK article which makes no mention in the intro of who the ruling party currently is or its authoritarian past. This has nothing whatsoever to politics or ones stance on political status and no one is trying to hide anything. I see no point of delving into specifics in the intro. All that needs to be said there is where the ROC is, what it's jurisdiction is, it's date of founding, and the current political system, as well as a blurb or two about disputed status. Right now it looks more like an article within an article. -Loren 00:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed intro

I'd like to propose the following intro to the ROC article seeing as the current one has mushroomed into something way too long and convoluted. The removed information is already covered in other sections. For exmaples of good intros, please see United States of America and Republic of Korea. -Loren 00:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed version

The Republic of China (traditional Chinese: 中華民國; simplified Chinese: 中华民国, Wades-Giles: Chung¹-hua² Min²-kuo², Tongyong Pinyin: JhongHuá MínGuó, Hanyu Pinyin: Zhōnghuá Mínguó, Pe̍h-oē-jī: Tiong-hoâ Bîn-kok) is a state that currently exercises jurisdiction over the island groups of Taiwan, the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu. Established in 1912 by revolutionaries who participated the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty, the ROC exercised sovereignty over all of mainland China until 1949 when it was forced to evacuate to Taiwan following the fall of the mainland to the Chinese Communists who then established the People's Republic of China (PRC). The name "Taiwan" is often used synonymously with the modern Republic of China, while the term "China" usually refers to the People's Republic of China or mainland China. For much of its history the Republic of China was closely associated with the Kuomintang, a party formed by the revolutionaries that originally established the Republic and was the ruling party of the ROC for many years under martial law. However, with political liberalization beginning in the late 1980s the country has transformed into a multiparty representative democracy. Because the PRC claims sovereignty over Taiwan, the political status of the ROC is a contraversial issue, and its diplomatic recognition since the 1970s have suffered as a result of the One-China Policy and because of diplomatic maneuvers by the larger and more economically-significant PRC.

Comments

Qualified support; if it were going to be cut down to size in this way, there should be "see" links to the topics being eliminated in the intro, I think. --Nlu 00:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it would be a good idea to stick See this article in the intro, however I think it may be possible to work links to those articles into the intro. -Loren 08:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I see my addition of political liberalization has gotten in so it's okay by me. BlueShirts 01:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changes I think are needed: 1) The ROC is not "composed of the island groups of Taiwan, the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu". It is "effectively composed of the island groups of Taiwan, the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu". Saying that the ROC is "composed of the island groups of Taiwan, the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu" amounts to saying "Taiwan is the Republic of China" and is a political statement. 2) the link to "China" in the second sentence is inappropriate. It should link to mainland China. 3) the fourth sentence ignores warlord China. keep in mind that from about 1913 to 1919, there was no such thing as the Kuomintang in China, and from 1912 to 1926, the Kuomintang (in all its incarnations) was not a dominant political (or military) force.--Jiang 01:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the first two points, but I would think that's a bit confusing for anyone who's not familiar with the situation. For the third point, I think we can say that the KMT was fundamental in building a modern unified ROC or something like that, but again that's going to too much details. BlueShirts 02:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If it's confusing, then we need to clarify it. Wiping the losers out of history in favor of the victors is systemic POV and needs to be countered. The proposed text implies that the KMT has existed ever since the ROC's founding and has since been the ROC's dominant political force. This is false and gives the wrong impression. After the Second Revolution and before Comintern showed up, Sun Yat-sen was reduced to dividing his time being a warlord in Guangzhou and being an agitator in exile in Japan or the foreign concession in Shanghai.--Jiang 02:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Jiang, your thoughts regarding "wiping the losers out of history" seem interesting. What specifically do you argue is being done to minimize "the losers"? Who are the losers you are talking about?
The warlords lost to the KMT and did not live to write any modern day history books. --Jiang 09:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it's got anything to do with POV. How about just say the KMT has been a unifying force in establishing the ROC as we know today, or anything similar in that line. BlueShirts 02:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The first 16 years of the Republic, especially if you take the viewpoint of the PRC and consider the polity to have ended in 1949, is too long a period to simply ignore for being insignificant. I think it was significant. The warlords government was the internationally recognized government at this time and warlordism had quite an impact on the politics of the era (not to mention the May Fourth Movement, which was instigated by protests against the Beijing govt).--Jiang 03:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blueshirts, they were at the beginning, but later it is better to characterize them as the party apparatus of an authoritarian Leninist-style one party state, where lines between party and state are heavily blurred (ironically the same structure is found in the CCP of the PRC). So please be careful of the tense of what your saying.

Also, the ROC replaced the Qing Dynasty sounds a little odd. How about just say it overthrew the dynasty. I notice that some past reverts were about replacement or successor state, so maybe overthrow would be a more neutral word. BlueShirts 02:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the succession of states theory is disputed here.--Jiang 03:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize Jiang, but though I am what many consider to be quite versed in comparative and international politics, I don't understand what you mean by "succession of states theory". Other than the "one China" idea that the PRC/ROC dreamed up (well, it was driven by 1 UN seat, but still... let's be real here). Burden of proof is on you.

I don't think the lead needs to be cut this drastically. I think it should be cut it down to two paragraphs (given the large size of the paragraphs, since according to wikipedia:lead section, we're allowed more than that). The article body needs some major pruning, esp the politics section. Details need to be moved into the daughter articles according to wikipedia:summary style.--Jiang 02:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think Loren has shown us a good example in proposing a real constructive solution rather than simply reverting. Jiang, how about thinking your thoughts through to be consistent and detailed and taking Loren as a model? Would you show us your proposed moves to daughter articles?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs)

I made some revisions addressing some of the concerns mentioned above:

  • ROC currently exercises jurisdiction over...
  • KMT was the ruling party for many years.
  • ROC overthrew the Ching Dyansty.

I'm not sure how we could work links to relevant subsections into the intro, but would appreceate suggestions. Comments? (P.S. to the anon: Please stop sniping at other people, and a quick reminder that I don't like being patronized.) - Loren 03:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining objections: 1) No 2 (see previous comment) 2) My comment above was also in reference to the sentence "From its early days to its move to Taiwan to the early 1990s, the Republic of China was closely associated with the KMT". "early days" implies the beginning. the beginning, 1912-1928, was not "closely associated with the KMT". We may not be able to avoid a complete rundown of history like how it is already done. 3) the ROC did not overthrow the Qing dynasty. the Revolutionaries did. then they (the revolutionaries) established the ROC (a polity, not a group or person). I think this part was fine before it was changed. --Jiang 03:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, changed the part on the revolutionaries and modified the part on the KMT some more. -Loren 03:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this is too drastic a cut in content. Take the perspective of a average dumb American [or insert any non-ehtnic Chinese nationality here] stumbling on this article the first time and unable to differentiate between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China. They read the first sentence and think "what the fking hell, i thought Taiwan wasn't really part of China." They read the second sentence and think "since when has China been a refugee and forced itself to evacuate to Taiwan? i didn't know countries could run away like that". And they fall into a deeper and deeper hole of confusion...
The current version says that the KMT evacutated to Taiwan. That is much more accurate and neutral. We can also say the ROC government evacuated to Taiwan. The ROC, the state, cannot have evacuated to Taiwan unless we support Chenism and adhere to the Four-stage Theory of the Republic of China. ROC=mainland China+Taiwan+outer Mongolia+Tuva. It either went defunct (according to CCP) or still exists (according to KMT), minus the Chenism. For the story to make sense, we need to state that the KMT fled to Taiwan and brought their government with them, the Communists proclaimed a new state (on the mainland of course, since this is not clearly implied in the proposal) that claimed to be the successor state of the ROC, and that the KMT clung onto the notion that they controlled the Chinese government (this is the very reason we have a Republic of China controlling only some islands instead of a province of the PRC or a Republic of Taiwan). Furthermore, the political status of the ROC is not a "controversial issue" (I would prefer the term "disputed") because the "PRC claims sovereignty over Taiwan", but because we have an incomplete succession of states and a whole debate on legitimacy from the Cold War era that hasnt resolved itself in the present day.
The ROC, due to its political status, is a special case and I think we're better off just trying to chip away at the existing intro. Stuff like Taiwan having been acquired from Japan in 1945 (this is not an article on Taiwan) can go, but I'll be reverted by some dirty mouthed anon if I try to remove it.--Jiang 09:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan&oldid=30577553"