![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I propose we add [[Political status of Taiwan|partially recognized]] [[state]]
instead of just [[state]]
in the lead, as the reality is that the
Republic of China is only officially recognized by 24 states (that includes the
Holy See).
nat.u
toronto
08:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked up the wikipedia entry for "partially recognized state" and found an article starting with "These lists of unrecognized or partially recognized countries give an overview..." but that gives no historical or legitimizing information about the term "partially recognized"? When I hear "partially recognized" it sounds like only part of the country is recognized, not the whole thing. Is "partially recognized" a legitimate term? If so, then I think it makes sense to add it. However, should we use [[partially recognized state|partially recognized]] [[state]]
so that people can find out what "partially recognized" means? I think we should also have a link to "Political status of Taiwan" or perhaps "Legal status of Taiwan", but I'm not sure how we can include both.
Readin (
talk)
14:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The '''Republic of China''' ([[Abbr]]: ROC; {{zh-tshtw|t={{linktext|中|華|民|國}}|s={{linktext|中|华|民|国}}|hp=Zhōnghuá Mínguó|w=Chung-hua Min-kuo|tp=Jhonghuá Mínguó}}) is a [[East Asia]]n[[state]] with [[Political status of Taiwan|limited international recognition]].
But I still like the first one better.
nat.u
toronto
18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The '''Republic of China''' ([[Abbr]]: ROC; {{zh-tshtw|t={{linktext|中|華|民|國}}|s={{linktext|中|华|民|国}}|hp=Zhōnghuá Mínguó|w=Chung-hua Min-kuo|tp=Jhonghuá Mínguó}}) is a [[state]] in [[East Asia]] with [[Political status of Taiwan|limited international recognition]].
but I could live with either of them. I did a quick google on "partially recognized" to see if maybe it is a well known diplomatic term that I just wasn't aware of, but I didn't find evidence of that. At least to my American English ears "limited international recognition" sounds more correct. The recognition is "limited" to certain countries. But those recognitions are not "partial".
Readin (
talk)
19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)I'm guessing we're seeing the problem Allentchang referred to. The opening paragraph is growing as information about the independence debate is added. Recent additions include
multi-party democratic
and
Though it still formally claims to be the government of all China, both elected presidents have held the view that it is a sovereign and independent country and there is no need for a formal declaration of independence [1].
In my view the opening paragraph should cover information that draws the reader's interest and that identifies the subject of discussion. I think the addition of "multi-party democratic" is justified on the grounds that whether a government is elected is essential to its nature. If you were to try to understand a government's behavior on any subject, the first thing you would want to know is whether the government is elected.
However, I'm less inclined to agree with the addition of the statement about claims to China. Taiwan's official claim on China has become more of a footnote than a central issue. The hostilities between Taiwan and China are certainly a big thing, but they result from China claiming Taiwan, not the other way around. I think it is important to note that both Taiwanese presidents, and the only two elected ROC presidents, do not agree with the claim, but I think it is important to note it in a detail paragraph, not in the opening paragraph where the claim to rule all of China isn't worth mentioning.
I do think we should move it.
Can we agree for the near future that significant (other than grammar or spelling) edits to opening will be discussed here first to avoid "mission creep" in the first paragraph? Readin ( talk) 13:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And within 4 minutes of my post, "multi-party democratic" became "that has evolved from a one-party authoritarian state with full global recognition into a multi-party democratic state" and the words "mostly unofficial international recognition" were added, affirming my concern about the growth of the paragraph.
To set an example I hope others will follow, I'll propose trim down a section I worked on.
Established in 1912, the Republic of China encompassed much of mainland China. The island groups of Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores were added to its authority in 1945 at the end of World War II. These island groups, together with Kinmen and Matsu became the full extent the Republic of China's authority after 1949 when the Kuomintang lost the Chinese Civil War to the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Republic of China (PRC) was founded in mainland China.
can be trimmed to
Established in 1912, the Republic of China once governed mainland China. Since the loss of mainland China to to the Chinese Communist Party in the Chinese Civil War, the ROC has ruled the island groups of Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, Kinmen and Matsu.
It's a little awkward mainly because I've tried to avoid words that would suggest Taiwan was part of the rule before, or that Taiwan is not part of China. But I think the end of WWII and the founding of the PRC can be excluded as not central to ROC identity. The territories controlled are pretty significant though. Readin ( talk) 13:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
In this map, some area administered by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and claimed by the Republic of China is missing. You can compare the map http://mail.lnes.tp.edu.tw/~miriamlou/DSC04892.JPG (Map of Northeasten China, published in Taiwan) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanggang (Location Map of Ryanggang Province, DPRK) Can someone fix the map? Nabimew ( talk) 19:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Here is the status of interwikis for Taiwan and Republic of China with the esperanto language:
This should be :
Can somebody with suficient rights change it? 62.16.186.192 ( talk) 06:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Those may be the correct Esperanto translations for the concepts of "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" but unfortunately the article "Respubliko Ĉinio" doesn't exist and the article "Tajvano" describes the Republic of China, not just the island.
Ili estus la korektaj translacioj Esperantaj de la konceptoj "Republic of China" kaj "Taiwan," sed bedaŭrinde la artikolo "Respubliko Ĉinio" ne ankoraŭ ekzistas kaj la artikolo "Tajvano" priskribas la Respublikon Ĉinion, ne nur la insulon.
--- Hiyayaywhopee ( talk) 22:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm particularly interested in the process of democratization of ROC. There seems to be little/no information about this in the article, although it seems to be very important (the article states that there was a shift from authoritarian rule to pluralism, but provides NO additional information). Can someone who has info or is knowledgeable about the subject please contribute to the article? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.59.251 ( talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The Republic of China on mainland China went through periods of warlordism, Japanese invasion, civil war between the Kuomintang and the Communists, rapid economic growth and industrialization, and democratization
Yeah, eh, the last three things - "growth, industrialization and democratization" - none of those occured in the mainland for the Republic of China. Only on Taiwan. much later after 1950's, which, I assume is not mainland. Tourskin ( talk) 04:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
What are the ROC's current territorial claims? I find contradicting information at different Wikipedia pages. In particular, I find information about claims in Outer Mongolia confusing.
Yi ge Zhongguo states:
Legally speaking, the Republic of China continues to maintain its version of the "One China" principle by officially (but no longer actively) claiming sovereignty over all of its territory before 1949, including Mongolia.
History of the political divisions of China#Republic of China agrees:
Regions (地方 Dìfāng) | ||||
Outer Mongolia | 蒙古 | Měnggǔ | 蒙 měng | Kulun ( Ulaanbaatar) |
Zhonghua Minguo#Political status agrees:
Thus, the claimed area of the ROC continue to include Mainland China, several off-shore islands, Taiwan, Outer Mongolia, northern Burma, and Tuva (now Russian territory).
On the other hand, Republic of China-Mongolia relations states:
The Republic of China's Ministry of the Interior then decided to discontinue including Mongolia on its official maps of Chinese territory, and on 3 October 2002, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it would recognise Mongolia's independence.
Note that it said that it was going to recognise Mongolia's independence. This doesn't mean that it ever happened. So has it happened yet?
List of unrecognised countries: Mongolia was removed from the list of partially unrecognised countries as of [1] with the edit summary
rv - we have a source stating that the roc recognized mongolia starting in 2002
but it doesn't tell what that source would be.
Does anyone know whether ROC currently recognises Mongolia or not? ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 11:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC))
(cur) (last) 2008-04-04T04:57:11 Golbez (Talk
— contribs) (14,118 bytes) (rm mongolia - i found a source saying it has been actually recognized since 2002) (undo)
[4] But it doesn't tell what that source would be. ( Stefan2 ( talk) 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC))
The GA status of this article is under evaluation. See[ [5]]. Majoreditor ( talk) 11:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please add gd:Poblachd na Sìne to this article, Thanks -- 84.63.21.106 ( talk) 09:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have yet to come across any scholarly literature that uses this translation of wuzu gonghe; I have changed this to 'Republic of Five Races'. Cf. Harris, P., 'Chinese Nationalism: the State of the Nation', The China Journal, No. 38 (Jul., 1997), pp. 121-137; Leibold, P., 'Competing Narratives of Racial Unity in Republican China', Modern China, 2006:32. The previous translation is more appropriate to the original usage of the phrase in the 18th century than with the context of late 19th/early 20th century nationalist republicanism. Cripipper ( talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the PRC map was changed to reflect the PRC's claims, should the ROC map be changed to reflect the ROC's claim over the mainland? T-1000 ( talk) 02:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol, PRC imperialism...I hope you're not American, because if you are and you said that with a straight face.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Dracula ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In light of the recent debacle regarding pages on China, I am proposing that we split pages on Chinese topic as follows:
Proposed Name | Topics covered |
---|---|
China | Geography of China (no actual text, but links to its counterparts at the Taiwan and PRC article), the different definitions of what area constitutes "China", the constituent nations that lies within it (PRC, Taiwan), cultures and customs |
China (Historical) | History of China, including its successive dynasties, areas ruled (there are wild variations between dynasties) with a cutoff point at the end of the Qing Dynasty |
People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China as it stands today |
Republic of China (1912) | ROC as it existed before it retreated to Taiwan |
Republic of China | ROC after its retreat to Taiwan (aka: Taiwanese Government) |
The effects on this page will be as follows: any materials within the ROC page that deals with topics or issues before the ROC moved to Taiwan will be moved to Republic of China (1912), and any materials that deals with ROC as it exists today (post-retreat to Taiwan), will remain here, and this page will deal with ROC issues after its move to Taiwan.
Please discuss the issue here. Thanks! Arbiteroftruth ( talk) 23:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There is already a page entitled Taiwan after World War II which used to be called "Republic of China on Taiwan." How would that page fit into the scheme of things? Ngchen ( talk) 12:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the historical Republic of China should be separated out - it's too messy to try to fit both onto one page. John Smith's ( talk) 22:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Make it
Republic of China 1912-1949 or
Mainland China 1912-1949 and the other
Republic of China on Taiwan or
Republic of China (Taiwan). I agree though, there needs to be a split
202.132.6.251 (
talk)
02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. Why must there be a split?! You don't see the other nations split, do you?! It's always been the Republic of China from 1911 to now. There needs not be a split. So what if currently the RoC only possess Taiwan? The US at first possessed only 13 colonies, and now it's 50 states. Why don't you split the US too?
Liu Tao! (
talk) 7:15, 22, May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Liu Tao (
talk •
contribs)
I agree. The republic that was founded in 1912 was meant to rule mainland China, and currently it has no intention to rule mainland China or overthrow the current government of China. The US did not see such significant change of government in its history as ROC did. -- K kc chan ( talk) 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
lol, the five colored flag was already abolished in 1928, twenty years before the KMT retreated to Taiwan. I see the same egregious error in the split spanish wiki article. Blueshirts ( talk) 07:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Aye, and god knows how many different flags the US had throughout it's history. Literally speaking, it's flag changed everytime a new state is added. Liu Tao 07:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
¶ I am for the split and 1949 is an obvious split line. The split improves readability and avoids redundant subheading 1912~1949 or post-1949 in every heading. In an article quoted by the Chinese version of this page, Ref. 38, 李敖 said Republic of China died in 1949. A country that relives after dying deserves a second article. By Cooterhu ( talk) 22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. I think this discussion has been ENOUGH. To make this clear, 1) Taiwan has its own politics. 2) China has its own politics. In such case, having the name "Republic of China" does not mean it "belongs to China." Consider the case with South and North Korea. They're called the "Republic of Korea" and the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Are they the same? No. Plus, moving the article page will definitely rase concerns and complaints by Wikipedian readers, not just the editors.
Prowikipedians (
talk)
12:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
China should redirect here.-- 4.245.72.201 ( talk) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone compared the Chinese Civil War to the American Civil War, thats completely different though, in the American one, the Confederate States of America got pwnt and ceased to exist, where as in the Chinese Civil War, they signed a peace treaty once the Republic of China started to lose the war.-- 4.244.36.174 ( talk) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
中華民國訓政時期約法 (Provisional Constitution for the Period of Political Tutelage of the Republic of China)
The current disambiguation says
I think we need an additional sentence that tells the reader that to get information about Taiwan that is not directly related to the governing Republic of China, they should see Taiwan. But I'm not sure how to word it. Readin ( talk) 02:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It mentions that people in the ROC want direct flights to the PRC. Hasn't that started again? The article should changed to reflect that. Speedboy Salesman ( talk) 08:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The link to Taiwan e-Government is wrong. Take off the "index.jsp" please. :-) Love, Helpbelow 9 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpbelow ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I propose we add [[Political status of Taiwan|partially recognized]] [[state]]
instead of just [[state]]
in the lead, as the reality is that the
Republic of China is only officially recognized by 24 states (that includes the
Holy See).
nat.u
toronto
08:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked up the wikipedia entry for "partially recognized state" and found an article starting with "These lists of unrecognized or partially recognized countries give an overview..." but that gives no historical or legitimizing information about the term "partially recognized"? When I hear "partially recognized" it sounds like only part of the country is recognized, not the whole thing. Is "partially recognized" a legitimate term? If so, then I think it makes sense to add it. However, should we use [[partially recognized state|partially recognized]] [[state]]
so that people can find out what "partially recognized" means? I think we should also have a link to "Political status of Taiwan" or perhaps "Legal status of Taiwan", but I'm not sure how we can include both.
Readin (
talk)
14:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The '''Republic of China''' ([[Abbr]]: ROC; {{zh-tshtw|t={{linktext|中|華|民|國}}|s={{linktext|中|华|民|国}}|hp=Zhōnghuá Mínguó|w=Chung-hua Min-kuo|tp=Jhonghuá Mínguó}}) is a [[East Asia]]n[[state]] with [[Political status of Taiwan|limited international recognition]].
But I still like the first one better.
nat.u
toronto
18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The '''Republic of China''' ([[Abbr]]: ROC; {{zh-tshtw|t={{linktext|中|華|民|國}}|s={{linktext|中|华|民|国}}|hp=Zhōnghuá Mínguó|w=Chung-hua Min-kuo|tp=Jhonghuá Mínguó}}) is a [[state]] in [[East Asia]] with [[Political status of Taiwan|limited international recognition]].
but I could live with either of them. I did a quick google on "partially recognized" to see if maybe it is a well known diplomatic term that I just wasn't aware of, but I didn't find evidence of that. At least to my American English ears "limited international recognition" sounds more correct. The recognition is "limited" to certain countries. But those recognitions are not "partial".
Readin (
talk)
19:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)I'm guessing we're seeing the problem Allentchang referred to. The opening paragraph is growing as information about the independence debate is added. Recent additions include
multi-party democratic
and
Though it still formally claims to be the government of all China, both elected presidents have held the view that it is a sovereign and independent country and there is no need for a formal declaration of independence [1].
In my view the opening paragraph should cover information that draws the reader's interest and that identifies the subject of discussion. I think the addition of "multi-party democratic" is justified on the grounds that whether a government is elected is essential to its nature. If you were to try to understand a government's behavior on any subject, the first thing you would want to know is whether the government is elected.
However, I'm less inclined to agree with the addition of the statement about claims to China. Taiwan's official claim on China has become more of a footnote than a central issue. The hostilities between Taiwan and China are certainly a big thing, but they result from China claiming Taiwan, not the other way around. I think it is important to note that both Taiwanese presidents, and the only two elected ROC presidents, do not agree with the claim, but I think it is important to note it in a detail paragraph, not in the opening paragraph where the claim to rule all of China isn't worth mentioning.
I do think we should move it.
Can we agree for the near future that significant (other than grammar or spelling) edits to opening will be discussed here first to avoid "mission creep" in the first paragraph? Readin ( talk) 13:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
And within 4 minutes of my post, "multi-party democratic" became "that has evolved from a one-party authoritarian state with full global recognition into a multi-party democratic state" and the words "mostly unofficial international recognition" were added, affirming my concern about the growth of the paragraph.
To set an example I hope others will follow, I'll propose trim down a section I worked on.
Established in 1912, the Republic of China encompassed much of mainland China. The island groups of Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores were added to its authority in 1945 at the end of World War II. These island groups, together with Kinmen and Matsu became the full extent the Republic of China's authority after 1949 when the Kuomintang lost the Chinese Civil War to the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Republic of China (PRC) was founded in mainland China.
can be trimmed to
Established in 1912, the Republic of China once governed mainland China. Since the loss of mainland China to to the Chinese Communist Party in the Chinese Civil War, the ROC has ruled the island groups of Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, Kinmen and Matsu.
It's a little awkward mainly because I've tried to avoid words that would suggest Taiwan was part of the rule before, or that Taiwan is not part of China. But I think the end of WWII and the founding of the PRC can be excluded as not central to ROC identity. The territories controlled are pretty significant though. Readin ( talk) 13:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
In this map, some area administered by the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and claimed by the Republic of China is missing. You can compare the map http://mail.lnes.tp.edu.tw/~miriamlou/DSC04892.JPG (Map of Northeasten China, published in Taiwan) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryanggang (Location Map of Ryanggang Province, DPRK) Can someone fix the map? Nabimew ( talk) 19:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
Here is the status of interwikis for Taiwan and Republic of China with the esperanto language:
This should be :
Can somebody with suficient rights change it? 62.16.186.192 ( talk) 06:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Those may be the correct Esperanto translations for the concepts of "Republic of China" and "Taiwan" but unfortunately the article "Respubliko Ĉinio" doesn't exist and the article "Tajvano" describes the Republic of China, not just the island.
Ili estus la korektaj translacioj Esperantaj de la konceptoj "Republic of China" kaj "Taiwan," sed bedaŭrinde la artikolo "Respubliko Ĉinio" ne ankoraŭ ekzistas kaj la artikolo "Tajvano" priskribas la Respublikon Ĉinion, ne nur la insulon.
--- Hiyayaywhopee ( talk) 22:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I'm particularly interested in the process of democratization of ROC. There seems to be little/no information about this in the article, although it seems to be very important (the article states that there was a shift from authoritarian rule to pluralism, but provides NO additional information). Can someone who has info or is knowledgeable about the subject please contribute to the article? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.17.59.251 ( talk) 00:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The Republic of China on mainland China went through periods of warlordism, Japanese invasion, civil war between the Kuomintang and the Communists, rapid economic growth and industrialization, and democratization
Yeah, eh, the last three things - "growth, industrialization and democratization" - none of those occured in the mainland for the Republic of China. Only on Taiwan. much later after 1950's, which, I assume is not mainland. Tourskin ( talk) 04:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
What are the ROC's current territorial claims? I find contradicting information at different Wikipedia pages. In particular, I find information about claims in Outer Mongolia confusing.
Yi ge Zhongguo states:
Legally speaking, the Republic of China continues to maintain its version of the "One China" principle by officially (but no longer actively) claiming sovereignty over all of its territory before 1949, including Mongolia.
History of the political divisions of China#Republic of China agrees:
Regions (地方 Dìfāng) | ||||
Outer Mongolia | 蒙古 | Měnggǔ | 蒙 měng | Kulun ( Ulaanbaatar) |
Zhonghua Minguo#Political status agrees:
Thus, the claimed area of the ROC continue to include Mainland China, several off-shore islands, Taiwan, Outer Mongolia, northern Burma, and Tuva (now Russian territory).
On the other hand, Republic of China-Mongolia relations states:
The Republic of China's Ministry of the Interior then decided to discontinue including Mongolia on its official maps of Chinese territory, and on 3 October 2002, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it would recognise Mongolia's independence.
Note that it said that it was going to recognise Mongolia's independence. This doesn't mean that it ever happened. So has it happened yet?
List of unrecognised countries: Mongolia was removed from the list of partially unrecognised countries as of [1] with the edit summary
rv - we have a source stating that the roc recognized mongolia starting in 2002
but it doesn't tell what that source would be.
Does anyone know whether ROC currently recognises Mongolia or not? ( 212.247.11.156 ( talk) 11:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC))
(cur) (last) 2008-04-04T04:57:11 Golbez (Talk
— contribs) (14,118 bytes) (rm mongolia - i found a source saying it has been actually recognized since 2002) (undo)
[4] But it doesn't tell what that source would be. ( Stefan2 ( talk) 20:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC))
The GA status of this article is under evaluation. See[ [5]]. Majoreditor ( talk) 11:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Please add gd:Poblachd na Sìne to this article, Thanks -- 84.63.21.106 ( talk) 09:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have yet to come across any scholarly literature that uses this translation of wuzu gonghe; I have changed this to 'Republic of Five Races'. Cf. Harris, P., 'Chinese Nationalism: the State of the Nation', The China Journal, No. 38 (Jul., 1997), pp. 121-137; Leibold, P., 'Competing Narratives of Racial Unity in Republican China', Modern China, 2006:32. The previous translation is more appropriate to the original usage of the phrase in the 18th century than with the context of late 19th/early 20th century nationalist republicanism. Cripipper ( talk) 17:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the PRC map was changed to reflect the PRC's claims, should the ROC map be changed to reflect the ROC's claim over the mainland? T-1000 ( talk) 02:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Lol, PRC imperialism...I hope you're not American, because if you are and you said that with a straight face.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Dracula ( talk • contribs) 08:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In light of the recent debacle regarding pages on China, I am proposing that we split pages on Chinese topic as follows:
Proposed Name | Topics covered |
---|---|
China | Geography of China (no actual text, but links to its counterparts at the Taiwan and PRC article), the different definitions of what area constitutes "China", the constituent nations that lies within it (PRC, Taiwan), cultures and customs |
China (Historical) | History of China, including its successive dynasties, areas ruled (there are wild variations between dynasties) with a cutoff point at the end of the Qing Dynasty |
People's Republic of China | People's Republic of China as it stands today |
Republic of China (1912) | ROC as it existed before it retreated to Taiwan |
Republic of China | ROC after its retreat to Taiwan (aka: Taiwanese Government) |
The effects on this page will be as follows: any materials within the ROC page that deals with topics or issues before the ROC moved to Taiwan will be moved to Republic of China (1912), and any materials that deals with ROC as it exists today (post-retreat to Taiwan), will remain here, and this page will deal with ROC issues after its move to Taiwan.
Please discuss the issue here. Thanks! Arbiteroftruth ( talk) 23:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
There is already a page entitled Taiwan after World War II which used to be called "Republic of China on Taiwan." How would that page fit into the scheme of things? Ngchen ( talk) 12:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that the historical Republic of China should be separated out - it's too messy to try to fit both onto one page. John Smith's ( talk) 22:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Make it
Republic of China 1912-1949 or
Mainland China 1912-1949 and the other
Republic of China on Taiwan or
Republic of China (Taiwan). I agree though, there needs to be a split
202.132.6.251 (
talk)
02:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't agree. Why must there be a split?! You don't see the other nations split, do you?! It's always been the Republic of China from 1911 to now. There needs not be a split. So what if currently the RoC only possess Taiwan? The US at first possessed only 13 colonies, and now it's 50 states. Why don't you split the US too?
Liu Tao! (
talk) 7:15, 22, May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Liu Tao (
talk •
contribs)
I agree. The republic that was founded in 1912 was meant to rule mainland China, and currently it has no intention to rule mainland China or overthrow the current government of China. The US did not see such significant change of government in its history as ROC did. -- K kc chan ( talk) 22:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
lol, the five colored flag was already abolished in 1928, twenty years before the KMT retreated to Taiwan. I see the same egregious error in the split spanish wiki article. Blueshirts ( talk) 07:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Aye, and god knows how many different flags the US had throughout it's history. Literally speaking, it's flag changed everytime a new state is added. Liu Tao 07:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
¶ I am for the split and 1949 is an obvious split line. The split improves readability and avoids redundant subheading 1912~1949 or post-1949 in every heading. In an article quoted by the Chinese version of this page, Ref. 38, 李敖 said Republic of China died in 1949. A country that relives after dying deserves a second article. By Cooterhu ( talk) 22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
OK. I think this discussion has been ENOUGH. To make this clear, 1) Taiwan has its own politics. 2) China has its own politics. In such case, having the name "Republic of China" does not mean it "belongs to China." Consider the case with South and North Korea. They're called the "Republic of Korea" and the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea." Are they the same? No. Plus, moving the article page will definitely rase concerns and complaints by Wikipedian readers, not just the editors.
Prowikipedians (
talk)
12:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
China should redirect here.-- 4.245.72.201 ( talk) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone compared the Chinese Civil War to the American Civil War, thats completely different though, in the American one, the Confederate States of America got pwnt and ceased to exist, where as in the Chinese Civil War, they signed a peace treaty once the Republic of China started to lose the war.-- 4.244.36.174 ( talk) 13:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
中華民國訓政時期約法 (Provisional Constitution for the Period of Political Tutelage of the Republic of China)
The current disambiguation says
I think we need an additional sentence that tells the reader that to get information about Taiwan that is not directly related to the governing Republic of China, they should see Taiwan. But I'm not sure how to word it. Readin ( talk) 02:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It mentions that people in the ROC want direct flights to the PRC. Hasn't that started again? The article should changed to reflect that. Speedboy Salesman ( talk) 08:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The link to Taiwan e-Government is wrong. Take off the "index.jsp" please. :-) Love, Helpbelow 9 July 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpbelow ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)