![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
It's quite obvious that Mainland China would exercise military force to regain Taiwan, but moreover, the official policy is to remain in the status quo with aims for eventual peaceful unification under the " One country, two systems" model. It is absolutely urgent that somewhere within the text, it should say PRC is using Hong Kong as a run up model for a Taiwan Special Administrative Region under Mainland Chinese rule. That is the official policy, and the fact that it's not even mentioned is appalling. Because in a 100 years, Taiwan (if it indeed capitulates to Mainland) will be (according to the PRC) adopted and integrated into China proper using Hong Kong style reunification. For those that are not following, the eventual aim of the PRC (official policy) is that Taiwan becomes an SAR after war is over. Phead128 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a dispute over at Talk:Government in exile over the sovereignty of the ROC, and whether or not it is a gov't in exile. There is also a request for comment for one of the editors involved. More input is needed to resolve this issue, thanks.
Request for comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mafia_godfather T-1000 ( talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)Read your own quotes: "That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible." Your contributions do not meet the text in bold. T-1000 ( talk) 21:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit by an IP as I think it's a too vague to write that Taiwan is north of the AESAN and it's also borderline innaccurate - in particular Vietnam and Burma are certainly not south of Taiwan. Instead, I think it's clearer to just mention the countries that are directly below Taiwan; i.e. the Philippines, Indonesia and Australia. Any objections? Laurent ( talk) 19:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
POV problem: Article says The current president, Ma Ying-jeou, however managed to ease tension with the PRC by maintaining the status quo.
Chen maintained more of the status quo, while Ma has actually been making changes to the status quo by making Taiwan more economically and politically dependent on China. Readin ( talk) 06:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? Laurent ( talk) 10:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)"The current president, Ma Ying-jeou, managed to ease tension with the PRC by stating that there will be no unification nor declaration of independance during his presidency."
The ROC's infobox map only shows the Free Area as colored in, whereas the PRC's map colors in the Mainland, Taiwan, and Arunachal Pradesh. If we're showing the PRC's claims and not just their de facto territory, why does the ROC's map not include the Mainland Area?
I also mentioned this on the PRC's discussion page. 174.99.48.72 ( talk) 02:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Why does the map in the PRC infobox include Taiwan and parts of India, but the ROC's infobox map only includes the Free Area? Interesting double standard. 174.99.48.72 ( talk) 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn´t we move this discussion to the ROC talk page? Uirauna ( talk) 01:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
'Free Area of the Republic of China' is not a POV term. It's the official terminology used by the government and in the Constitution as well. The are currently controlled by the ROC IS the 'free area of the Republic of China'. People uses it all the time as well. 'Ziyouqu' is used all the time and universally understood. As for the map, by no ways should it be a Geographical map. This article is about a political entity, not a geographical. Sure, it can be a political-geographical map, a map with geographical features and political boundaries, but it must by all means have boundaries and some way to make the RoC stand out from the neighbouring states. Anyways, 'Free Area of the ROC', 'Area administered by the RoC' will all work in my opinion. As for whether or not to include the mainland and all that stuff, I would recommend putting in a redirect link of some kind to the Free Area of the Republic of China article. This at least allows easy access for the reader to go into the area if they want to. If a link is provided, then the naming issue should relax a bit. Liu Tao ( talk) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am starting this discussion to avoid an edit war. The Chinese Naming conventions at [5] state that "Text should not take a position on whether they are considered separate nations.", Obviously, if PRC is a Neighboring country to ROC, then that imply that they are two separate countries, thus is in violation the Naming convention (as there is a major POV that Taiwan is part of PRC). The sentence is also useless, as the sentence before it already said Taiwan is east of the coast of Mainland China. T-1000 ( talk) 00:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I normally just make these kind of corrections myself, but this page is protected. Buchs ( talk) 00:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Corruption within the government and lack of direction also prevented any significant reform to take place
should be replaced with:
Corruption within the government and lack of direction also prevented any significant reform from taking place
Because of the Cold War, most Western nations and the United Nations regarded the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China until the 1970s and especially after the termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty; after that, most nations switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC.
should be replaced with:
Because of the Cold War, most Western nations and the United Nations regarded the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China until the 1970s. Later and especially after the termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, most nations switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC.
{{editsemiprotected}}
{{For2|the culture and geography of the territories governed by the Republic of China, most notably Taiwan|[[Taiwan]] and [[List of islands of the Republic of China]]}} should be changed to {{about||the culture and geography of the territories governed by the Republic of China, most notably Taiwan|Taiwan|and|List of islands of the Republic of China}}. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 07:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Years in the headlines should be removed because the years do not correspond to the content in the sections. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 08:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The hatnote change Not done: it would have no effect; observe:
Currently:
You propose:
And passing "and" as a parameter seems like slight template abuse.
I'll look into the year-section-title thing. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The tense "had once" seems strange here. When? More generally, the article is not terribly clear here, and in a few other places, whether the RoC originally was China, or whether there remained another entity called "China" which, during that time, just happened to be encompassed by the RoC. Do you see what I'm getting at?
The introduction to the "History" section does not make clear the drastic readjustment of the RoC's territory (from the whole of China to just Taiwan). It talks about the "The Republic of China on mainland China" and "The Republic of China on Taiwan" as if they both still exist. 86.161.41.187 ( talk) 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC).
The sentence stating that the ROC "is an island nation comprising the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and other minor islands" is redundant. The terms "island" and "nation" (not factually true, you mean state?) are already mentioned in this sentence and the sentence before it. Why apply this unnecessary, pov label? The Republic of China is the political entity, so using the word state is acceptable. Since when has anyone called the ROC an "island nation"?-- Jiang ( talk) 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This text "It is also often informally referred to as the "State of Taiwan", in particular in countries where the ROC is not officially recognized" cites sources which do not support that statement. In the French Article it shows chef de l'Etat de Taiwan (meaning Head of State of Taiwan) aka the President of the Republic of China, there is no reference to any "State of Taiwan". The other article, which is in Italian however does cite "Taipei, capital of the State of Taiwan". The other two articles did not make any reference to support that statement. Officially, countries which do not maintain diplomatic relations with the ROC use "Taiwan", or in some cases "Chinese Taipei" while most non-Chinese mass media use "Taiwan", "Taiwan's government/people/economy", "the island's government/people/economy" etc. on topics regarding the ROC or Taiwan. It is the first time I've heard "State of Taiwan" being mentioned outside "Taiwan independence" articles or topics. Anyone care to clarify or to disagree? Rtzj( talk) 18:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles in question:
http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/monde/chronologies/asie-2006.shtml
http://www.gloobal.net/iepala/gloobal/fichas/ficha.php?entidad=Textos&id=7001
http://www.paesionline.it/asia/taiwan_taipei/guida_turistica_citta_taipei.asp
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,675094,00.html
There's an User:71.68.249.98 pushing the POV that ROC/Taiwan is a country and ignore all other POV's, The discussion is here: [6]. Given that we just had a discussion on this topic, if you guys could take a look at it and give your input in would be great. Thanks. T-1000 ( talk) 06:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC
Don't listen to the incoherent rambling of T-1000 who has repeatedly pov edited in clear violation of official Wikipedia naming convention policy. Just examining his edits would be self-explanatory and conclusive that he is at fault in pov pushing as well as violating the Wikipedia naming conventions.
For anyone interested in the other issue, it was who built the IDF fighters:
Okay, so I looked up citations, and I've found this: [7]. It seems that the issue is that the IP user removed American involvement in designing these planes, as seen here: [8], but the global security websites states that:
"Taiwan produced the Ching-kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter with extensive assistance by American corporations, led by General Dynamics. The project consisted of four sub-projects. They were the Ying-yang project (in cooperation with General Dynamics Corporation) which made the air-frame; the Yun-han project (in cooperation with Hughes Corporation), which designed the engine; the Tian-lei project (in cooperation with Westinghouse Company), which took care of the avionics system; and the Tian-chien project, which developed the weapons system. "
So this is a classic case of POV pushing by the IP user to try to push a POV that the Americans were not involved. At best, the issue is disputed. T-1000 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the word "state" to "island chain", as island chain is a neutral term. How can a region be deemed a soverign state,if it is not formally recognised as one by the international community(vast majority)?lso, the fact that
I altered the intro slightly,again(as it was chcnged back to state: The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, is a largely internationally unrecognised and disputed state entity in East Asia located off the east coast of mainland China
"this is acceptable, and neutral. however, due to POV opinions,it is being edited constantly. so for for wiki neutrality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.54.72 ( talk) 23:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
very mature Laurent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.54.72 ( talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Now there is a User:MakmoudHassan trying to change every instance of "country" to "sovereign state" in order to POV push for the ROC, lol. Thoughts on this and how to deal with this user? T-1000 ( talk) 21:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala ( talk) 06:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the map of Taiwan in the "country infobox" has, as its alt mouseover text: "A map depicting a relatively small island in East Asia". Now I know that things on the Taiwan page are different from other countries' pages, due to Taiwan's contested status, but to me, it smells of vandalism (describing it in such vague, unflattering terms). I can't find what it has been, as the text seems to have been there quite a while. Normally, I change these things on the spot (if it were up to me, to make it as NPOV as possible, I'd label it "A map of Taiwan and other islands controlled by the Republic of China") but I figure with the Taiwan article being undoubtedly a hot article, and my having no prior involvement in it (in other words, despite being a longtime Wikipedian, I'd be seen as a newbie here) I'd just put it out here and see what the consensus is. -- Canuckguy ( talk) 07:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
A citation is needed for democratisation due to the contested social sciences definitions of this. Should be easy to supply from at least one analytical perspective. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Claims of inflation over time are highly dubious it needs specific inline citation, and ought to indicate the method of calculation used (GDP, CPI, etc.) and its equivalence being given in USD is high dubious as this was not the currency in use. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Citation required for "not without reason" Fifelfoo ( talk) 09:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Name historians and cite. Fifelfoo ( talk) 09:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I invite users who have any concerns regarding this issue to add their input here, under the appropriate section. -- HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 01:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
In favour of "Locator map of the ROC Taiwan.svg" (beige highlighting):
In favour of "LocationROC.png" (green highlighting):
Highlighting inconsistency with PRC Why are we shading Taiwan in the People's Republic of China article, but not the other way around? It would appear to violate neutrality to show one side's unenforceable claims, but not the other side's. Kiralexis ( talk) 22:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The treatment of Mongolia in this article is flawed on two counts. The article asserts as fact that the ROC still claims Mongolia, when in fact the ROC foreign ministry has stated the contrary: article. There seems to be an argument that this move was against the ROC constitution, however given that "An MOI official said that Mongolia had not been part of ROC territory when the constitution was ratified in 1947 and that the matter should therefore not be considered a constitutional one." [per above article] this argument seems to be just one POV among several, i.e. not a fact.
The article also says that the ROC "encompassed" Outer Mongolia from 1911 to 1949. Given that the ROC had control over Outer Mongolia for less than 18 months (late 1919-early 1921), and that the rest of the period the ROC claims over Mongolia were as theoretical as their post-1949 claims on Mainland China, I think that sentence gives a false impression. There may be some point in mentioning those territorial claims in the lede, but then as what they were - claims, not control.
Pyalh ( talk) 01:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I also added some "dubious"-tags on sentences about Mongolia being part of the ROC in 1947 or 1949. As can be read from the article, the ROC recognized Mongolia's independence in 1946. While I think I remember something about references to Mongolia in the ROC constitution, I believe these tagged statements need at least some more elaboration. Pyalh ( talk) 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I seek opinions on adding the following paragraph to this article-
The Anti-communist Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek, President of the Republic of China, believed the Americans were going to plot a coup against him along with Taiwan Independence. In 1950, Chiang Ching-kuo became director of the secret police, which he remained until 1965. Chiang also considered some people who were friends to Americans to be his enemies. An enemy of the Chiang family, Wu Kuo-chen, was kicked out of his position of governor of Taiwan by Chiang Ching-kuo and fled to America in 1953. [1] Chiang Ching-kuo, educated in the Soviet Union, initiated Soviet style military organization in the Republic of China Military, reorganizing and Sovietizing the political officer corps, surveillance, and Kuomintang party activities were propagated throughout the military. Opposed to this was Sun Li-jen, who was educated at the American Virginia Military Institute. [2] Chiang orchestrated the controversial court-martial and arrest of General Sun Li-jen in August 1955, for plotting a coup d'état with the American CIA against his father Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang. The CIA allegedly wanted to help Sun take control of Taiwan and declare its independence. [3] [4]
ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 21:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Please add an interwiki for pa:ਚੀਨ ਗਣਰਾਜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.155.97 ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 12 March 2011
I suggest shortening the intro section. There's too much history and other details that should be covered in history section or other sections. Please shorten, or I'll do it later on. -- Mistakefinder ( talk) 09:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been talked over and over, but unless there's another source other than a BBC News that would claim RoC's completely undisputed sovereignty, I'm going to reword the sentence in a way that explicitly states the on going disputes. Feel free to go to my talk page or simply reply to this heading. Thank you. Gw2005 ( talk) 02:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the gallery of pictures really needed at the bottom? The PRC article doesn't have a bunch of random pictures with no clear purpose. T-1000 ( talk) 01:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The original Chinese name of the island is Taiwan, and in the past (from the 16th century) has been called Formosa by the west. icetea8 ( talk) 10:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Why are there separate pages for Taiwan and the Republic of China? The same thing goes for China and the People's Republic of China. Ryan Vesey ( talk) 13:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Energiya, you have some explaining to do here: you cannot simply remove the whole "second-level division" section without any directly related explanation in your edit summary or discussion here. There is less controversy with the second-level divisions, which the mainland Chinese media seem to recognise as well, so you have even less of a reason to blank it. I have to return to the task of building mainland township lists assigned to me now, so... —HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The ROC government currently does not claim any political divisions to the "mainland area" (which is controlled by the PRC) since 2005. This site shows clear that the "mainland area" does not include in the territory chapter. 中華民國年鑑 九十五年版 Even the recent edition made by the Ma Ying-jeou government keeps this point [10].
On the other site 政府組織 also states that
, this show clearly the current political divisions only exists in "Taiwan area", and claims no divisions in "mainland area" at all. Energiya ( talk) 14:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
OK the reason to delete "second-level division" is here 政府組織 this site states that the first-level divisions should be direct-controlled municipalities, counties, and provincial cities. (直轄市及縣(市)為我國第1層級的地方自治團體。) The second-level division is township, county-controlled city (鄉(鎮、市)為我國第2層級的地方自治團體。). This is different to the pages (it also shocks me at the first look). The local divisions laws of ROC does not classify the levels of divisions. So i deleted it. Energiya ( talk) 15:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This website is the ROC Government Information Office (行政院新聞局), which is the spokesman of the ROC government. so their speaking reflects the governmental view. Taiwan Province is streamlined now, the provincial government now reforms as the branches of our Executive Yuan. The name still exist, but practically the 縣 and 市 direct controlled by the Executive Yuan now. The streamline of the provinces breaks the border of the 1 and 2nd division levels. Our law doesn't state 縣 and 市 to be the 1st or the 2nd level. So i think it's better to keep the same view as the laws.
The subcection of "claimed territories" are no longer claim by our government as a territory, and should be rewrite as the historical issue [11]. This is what i did, i only move the claimed territory to the history issue. On the other side, the formation of the administrative division is totally controlled by the ROC government. How can you "regardless of official considerations"?? Energiya ( talk) 15:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The 94th (2005) content shows
and the 95th (2006)
It's obviously the mainland china are removed in this year. Even at the time Ma Ying-jeou was in office. He did not restore that. The most recent 98th edition, this part becomes
In my opinion he want to bring some ambiguity of the sovereignty to keep the status quo. So I prefer to use "stop claiming" because the ROC never renounce those territory also. Energiya ( talk) 13:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Instead of copying large amounts of document text into the discussion, explain the rationale behind these changes yourself. I will reject your changes in whole if you continue to remove the "First-level" and "Second-level" sections entirely. It is clear from the text "目前我國有..." that the ROC still considers Taiwan and Fujian provinces on the same administrative level as the municipalities (Taipei, New Taipei, Kaohsiung, Taichung, and Tainan). Also, the wording 'stops any claim' includes 'stops any claims of sovereignty'. This is, of course, against the Constitution, and reminiscent of the Pan-Green's deluded views as well. In any case, your changes are confusing, as I doubt the ROC would have only in 2005 stopped listing Zhejiang, etc. as part of their provincial divisions. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
On the Scouts of China article, User:Kintetsubuffalo insists on putting a Tag about the article missing information about the era during Japanese rule. Yet this article is not about scouting in Taiwan, it is about a specific organization that was started by the ROC in Mainland China. Whatever the Japanese did on Taiwan before 1945 has nothing to do with this organization. Currently, the article is complete, with it's history starting in Mainland Taiwan then going to Taiwan. User:Kintetsubuffalo claims it is for background, yet Like I said, the background of this organization lies in Mainland China. There is a separate Scouting in Taiwan article, and the Japanese info should go there. T-1000 ( talk) 17:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
toThe Chinese Scout Association was reorganized in 1950 on the island of Taiwan, and resumed the membership of the International Scout Bureau as Boy Scouts of China (BSC) and later Scouts of China
The Chinese Scout Association was reorganized in 1950 on the island of Taiwan. [[Scouting in the Republic of China|Scouting on Taiwan]] had been under [[Scout Association of Japan#Early Years|Boy Scouts of Japan]] prior to World War II. The Chinese Scout Association resumed the membership of the International Scout Bureau as Boy Scouts of China (BSC) and later Scouts of China
The Chinese template at [12] does not take the POV that PRC = China, as it includes the national anthem of the ROC, yet it doesn't include the music of Taiwan, which pushes the POV that ROC is not China. I looked and found similar templates like from here: [13], this old cuisine template has a PRC and ROC section. The Chinese music template should follow the old Chinese cuisine template. T-1000 ( talk) 06:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The result from past discussions seems to be that we don't say who Taiwan belongs to in order to avoid a POV. Yet this page was calling the ROC a sovereign state, which implies that Taiwan belongs to the ROC, and is therefore POV. It also contradicts other pages. On the Government in Exile page, the ROC is listed. If we acknowledge that there is a notable POV that ROC is a GIE, then we can't call ROC a sovereign state here. T-1000 ( talk) 17:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political_NPOV we have proposed moving China to Chinese civilization and China (disambiguation) to China. See the move request at Talk:China#Requested_move if you wish to comment. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Following the discussion noted above, the move proposal discussion has begun at Talk:China#Requested_move_August_2011. Feel free to take part in the discussion. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 22:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
It's quite obvious that Mainland China would exercise military force to regain Taiwan, but moreover, the official policy is to remain in the status quo with aims for eventual peaceful unification under the " One country, two systems" model. It is absolutely urgent that somewhere within the text, it should say PRC is using Hong Kong as a run up model for a Taiwan Special Administrative Region under Mainland Chinese rule. That is the official policy, and the fact that it's not even mentioned is appalling. Because in a 100 years, Taiwan (if it indeed capitulates to Mainland) will be (according to the PRC) adopted and integrated into China proper using Hong Kong style reunification. For those that are not following, the eventual aim of the PRC (official policy) is that Taiwan becomes an SAR after war is over. Phead128 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a dispute over at Talk:Government in exile over the sovereignty of the ROC, and whether or not it is a gov't in exile. There is also a request for comment for one of the editors involved. More input is needed to resolve this issue, thanks.
Request for comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mafia_godfather T-1000 ( talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
(outdent)Read your own quotes: "That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible." Your contributions do not meet the text in bold. T-1000 ( talk) 21:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted this edit by an IP as I think it's a too vague to write that Taiwan is north of the AESAN and it's also borderline innaccurate - in particular Vietnam and Burma are certainly not south of Taiwan. Instead, I think it's clearer to just mention the countries that are directly below Taiwan; i.e. the Philippines, Indonesia and Australia. Any objections? Laurent ( talk) 19:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
POV problem: Article says The current president, Ma Ying-jeou, however managed to ease tension with the PRC by maintaining the status quo.
Chen maintained more of the status quo, while Ma has actually been making changes to the status quo by making Taiwan more economically and politically dependent on China. Readin ( talk) 06:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
What do you think? Laurent ( talk) 10:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)"The current president, Ma Ying-jeou, managed to ease tension with the PRC by stating that there will be no unification nor declaration of independance during his presidency."
The ROC's infobox map only shows the Free Area as colored in, whereas the PRC's map colors in the Mainland, Taiwan, and Arunachal Pradesh. If we're showing the PRC's claims and not just their de facto territory, why does the ROC's map not include the Mainland Area?
I also mentioned this on the PRC's discussion page. 174.99.48.72 ( talk) 02:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Why does the map in the PRC infobox include Taiwan and parts of India, but the ROC's infobox map only includes the Free Area? Interesting double standard. 174.99.48.72 ( talk) 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn´t we move this discussion to the ROC talk page? Uirauna ( talk) 01:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
'Free Area of the Republic of China' is not a POV term. It's the official terminology used by the government and in the Constitution as well. The are currently controlled by the ROC IS the 'free area of the Republic of China'. People uses it all the time as well. 'Ziyouqu' is used all the time and universally understood. As for the map, by no ways should it be a Geographical map. This article is about a political entity, not a geographical. Sure, it can be a political-geographical map, a map with geographical features and political boundaries, but it must by all means have boundaries and some way to make the RoC stand out from the neighbouring states. Anyways, 'Free Area of the ROC', 'Area administered by the RoC' will all work in my opinion. As for whether or not to include the mainland and all that stuff, I would recommend putting in a redirect link of some kind to the Free Area of the Republic of China article. This at least allows easy access for the reader to go into the area if they want to. If a link is provided, then the naming issue should relax a bit. Liu Tao ( talk) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am starting this discussion to avoid an edit war. The Chinese Naming conventions at [5] state that "Text should not take a position on whether they are considered separate nations.", Obviously, if PRC is a Neighboring country to ROC, then that imply that they are two separate countries, thus is in violation the Naming convention (as there is a major POV that Taiwan is part of PRC). The sentence is also useless, as the sentence before it already said Taiwan is east of the coast of Mainland China. T-1000 ( talk) 00:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I normally just make these kind of corrections myself, but this page is protected. Buchs ( talk) 00:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Corruption within the government and lack of direction also prevented any significant reform to take place
should be replaced with:
Corruption within the government and lack of direction also prevented any significant reform from taking place
Because of the Cold War, most Western nations and the United Nations regarded the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China until the 1970s and especially after the termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty; after that, most nations switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC.
should be replaced with:
Because of the Cold War, most Western nations and the United Nations regarded the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China until the 1970s. Later and especially after the termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, most nations switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC.
{{editsemiprotected}}
{{For2|the culture and geography of the territories governed by the Republic of China, most notably Taiwan|[[Taiwan]] and [[List of islands of the Republic of China]]}} should be changed to {{about||the culture and geography of the territories governed by the Republic of China, most notably Taiwan|Taiwan|and|List of islands of the Republic of China}}. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 07:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Years in the headlines should be removed because the years do not correspond to the content in the sections. 174.3.98.236 ( talk) 08:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The hatnote change Not done: it would have no effect; observe:
Currently:
You propose:
And passing "and" as a parameter seems like slight template abuse.
I'll look into the year-section-title thing. -- Cybercobra (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The tense "had once" seems strange here. When? More generally, the article is not terribly clear here, and in a few other places, whether the RoC originally was China, or whether there remained another entity called "China" which, during that time, just happened to be encompassed by the RoC. Do you see what I'm getting at?
The introduction to the "History" section does not make clear the drastic readjustment of the RoC's territory (from the whole of China to just Taiwan). It talks about the "The Republic of China on mainland China" and "The Republic of China on Taiwan" as if they both still exist. 86.161.41.187 ( talk) 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC).
The sentence stating that the ROC "is an island nation comprising the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and other minor islands" is redundant. The terms "island" and "nation" (not factually true, you mean state?) are already mentioned in this sentence and the sentence before it. Why apply this unnecessary, pov label? The Republic of China is the political entity, so using the word state is acceptable. Since when has anyone called the ROC an "island nation"?-- Jiang ( talk) 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
This text "It is also often informally referred to as the "State of Taiwan", in particular in countries where the ROC is not officially recognized" cites sources which do not support that statement. In the French Article it shows chef de l'Etat de Taiwan (meaning Head of State of Taiwan) aka the President of the Republic of China, there is no reference to any "State of Taiwan". The other article, which is in Italian however does cite "Taipei, capital of the State of Taiwan". The other two articles did not make any reference to support that statement. Officially, countries which do not maintain diplomatic relations with the ROC use "Taiwan", or in some cases "Chinese Taipei" while most non-Chinese mass media use "Taiwan", "Taiwan's government/people/economy", "the island's government/people/economy" etc. on topics regarding the ROC or Taiwan. It is the first time I've heard "State of Taiwan" being mentioned outside "Taiwan independence" articles or topics. Anyone care to clarify or to disagree? Rtzj( talk) 18:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Articles in question:
http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/monde/chronologies/asie-2006.shtml
http://www.gloobal.net/iepala/gloobal/fichas/ficha.php?entidad=Textos&id=7001
http://www.paesionline.it/asia/taiwan_taipei/guida_turistica_citta_taipei.asp
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,675094,00.html
There's an User:71.68.249.98 pushing the POV that ROC/Taiwan is a country and ignore all other POV's, The discussion is here: [6]. Given that we just had a discussion on this topic, if you guys could take a look at it and give your input in would be great. Thanks. T-1000 ( talk) 06:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC
Don't listen to the incoherent rambling of T-1000 who has repeatedly pov edited in clear violation of official Wikipedia naming convention policy. Just examining his edits would be self-explanatory and conclusive that he is at fault in pov pushing as well as violating the Wikipedia naming conventions.
For anyone interested in the other issue, it was who built the IDF fighters:
Okay, so I looked up citations, and I've found this: [7]. It seems that the issue is that the IP user removed American involvement in designing these planes, as seen here: [8], but the global security websites states that:
"Taiwan produced the Ching-kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter with extensive assistance by American corporations, led by General Dynamics. The project consisted of four sub-projects. They were the Ying-yang project (in cooperation with General Dynamics Corporation) which made the air-frame; the Yun-han project (in cooperation with Hughes Corporation), which designed the engine; the Tian-lei project (in cooperation with Westinghouse Company), which took care of the avionics system; and the Tian-chien project, which developed the weapons system. "
So this is a classic case of POV pushing by the IP user to try to push a POV that the Americans were not involved. At best, the issue is disputed. T-1000 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I have changed the word "state" to "island chain", as island chain is a neutral term. How can a region be deemed a soverign state,if it is not formally recognised as one by the international community(vast majority)?lso, the fact that
I altered the intro slightly,again(as it was chcnged back to state: The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, is a largely internationally unrecognised and disputed state entity in East Asia located off the east coast of mainland China
"this is acceptable, and neutral. however, due to POV opinions,it is being edited constantly. so for for wiki neutrality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.54.72 ( talk) 23:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
very mature Laurent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.54.72 ( talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Now there is a User:MakmoudHassan trying to change every instance of "country" to "sovereign state" in order to POV push for the ROC, lol. Thoughts on this and how to deal with this user? T-1000 ( talk) 21:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala ( talk) 06:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I noticed the map of Taiwan in the "country infobox" has, as its alt mouseover text: "A map depicting a relatively small island in East Asia". Now I know that things on the Taiwan page are different from other countries' pages, due to Taiwan's contested status, but to me, it smells of vandalism (describing it in such vague, unflattering terms). I can't find what it has been, as the text seems to have been there quite a while. Normally, I change these things on the spot (if it were up to me, to make it as NPOV as possible, I'd label it "A map of Taiwan and other islands controlled by the Republic of China") but I figure with the Taiwan article being undoubtedly a hot article, and my having no prior involvement in it (in other words, despite being a longtime Wikipedian, I'd be seen as a newbie here) I'd just put it out here and see what the consensus is. -- Canuckguy ( talk) 07:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
A citation is needed for democratisation due to the contested social sciences definitions of this. Should be easy to supply from at least one analytical perspective. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Claims of inflation over time are highly dubious it needs specific inline citation, and ought to indicate the method of calculation used (GDP, CPI, etc.) and its equivalence being given in USD is high dubious as this was not the currency in use. Fifelfoo ( talk) 08:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Citation required for "not without reason" Fifelfoo ( talk) 09:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Name historians and cite. Fifelfoo ( talk) 09:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
I invite users who have any concerns regarding this issue to add their input here, under the appropriate section. -- HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 01:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
In favour of "Locator map of the ROC Taiwan.svg" (beige highlighting):
In favour of "LocationROC.png" (green highlighting):
Highlighting inconsistency with PRC Why are we shading Taiwan in the People's Republic of China article, but not the other way around? It would appear to violate neutrality to show one side's unenforceable claims, but not the other side's. Kiralexis ( talk) 22:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The treatment of Mongolia in this article is flawed on two counts. The article asserts as fact that the ROC still claims Mongolia, when in fact the ROC foreign ministry has stated the contrary: article. There seems to be an argument that this move was against the ROC constitution, however given that "An MOI official said that Mongolia had not been part of ROC territory when the constitution was ratified in 1947 and that the matter should therefore not be considered a constitutional one." [per above article] this argument seems to be just one POV among several, i.e. not a fact.
The article also says that the ROC "encompassed" Outer Mongolia from 1911 to 1949. Given that the ROC had control over Outer Mongolia for less than 18 months (late 1919-early 1921), and that the rest of the period the ROC claims over Mongolia were as theoretical as their post-1949 claims on Mainland China, I think that sentence gives a false impression. There may be some point in mentioning those territorial claims in the lede, but then as what they were - claims, not control.
Pyalh ( talk) 01:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I also added some "dubious"-tags on sentences about Mongolia being part of the ROC in 1947 or 1949. As can be read from the article, the ROC recognized Mongolia's independence in 1946. While I think I remember something about references to Mongolia in the ROC constitution, I believe these tagged statements need at least some more elaboration. Pyalh ( talk) 01:59, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I seek opinions on adding the following paragraph to this article-
The Anti-communist Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek, President of the Republic of China, believed the Americans were going to plot a coup against him along with Taiwan Independence. In 1950, Chiang Ching-kuo became director of the secret police, which he remained until 1965. Chiang also considered some people who were friends to Americans to be his enemies. An enemy of the Chiang family, Wu Kuo-chen, was kicked out of his position of governor of Taiwan by Chiang Ching-kuo and fled to America in 1953. [1] Chiang Ching-kuo, educated in the Soviet Union, initiated Soviet style military organization in the Republic of China Military, reorganizing and Sovietizing the political officer corps, surveillance, and Kuomintang party activities were propagated throughout the military. Opposed to this was Sun Li-jen, who was educated at the American Virginia Military Institute. [2] Chiang orchestrated the controversial court-martial and arrest of General Sun Li-jen in August 1955, for plotting a coup d'état with the American CIA against his father Chiang Kai-shek and the Kuomintang. The CIA allegedly wanted to help Sun take control of Taiwan and declare its independence. [3] [4]
ΔΥΝΓΑΝΕ ( talk) 21:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Please add an interwiki for pa:ਚੀਨ ਗਣਰਾਜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.155.97 ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 12 March 2011
I suggest shortening the intro section. There's too much history and other details that should be covered in history section or other sections. Please shorten, or I'll do it later on. -- Mistakefinder ( talk) 09:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been talked over and over, but unless there's another source other than a BBC News that would claim RoC's completely undisputed sovereignty, I'm going to reword the sentence in a way that explicitly states the on going disputes. Feel free to go to my talk page or simply reply to this heading. Thank you. Gw2005 ( talk) 02:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Is the gallery of pictures really needed at the bottom? The PRC article doesn't have a bunch of random pictures with no clear purpose. T-1000 ( talk) 01:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
The original Chinese name of the island is Taiwan, and in the past (from the 16th century) has been called Formosa by the west. icetea8 ( talk) 10:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Why are there separate pages for Taiwan and the Republic of China? The same thing goes for China and the People's Republic of China. Ryan Vesey ( talk) 13:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Energiya, you have some explaining to do here: you cannot simply remove the whole "second-level division" section without any directly related explanation in your edit summary or discussion here. There is less controversy with the second-level divisions, which the mainland Chinese media seem to recognise as well, so you have even less of a reason to blank it. I have to return to the task of building mainland township lists assigned to me now, so... —HXL's Roundtable and Record 14:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The ROC government currently does not claim any political divisions to the "mainland area" (which is controlled by the PRC) since 2005. This site shows clear that the "mainland area" does not include in the territory chapter. 中華民國年鑑 九十五年版 Even the recent edition made by the Ma Ying-jeou government keeps this point [10].
On the other site 政府組織 also states that
, this show clearly the current political divisions only exists in "Taiwan area", and claims no divisions in "mainland area" at all. Energiya ( talk) 14:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
OK the reason to delete "second-level division" is here 政府組織 this site states that the first-level divisions should be direct-controlled municipalities, counties, and provincial cities. (直轄市及縣(市)為我國第1層級的地方自治團體。) The second-level division is township, county-controlled city (鄉(鎮、市)為我國第2層級的地方自治團體。). This is different to the pages (it also shocks me at the first look). The local divisions laws of ROC does not classify the levels of divisions. So i deleted it. Energiya ( talk) 15:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This website is the ROC Government Information Office (行政院新聞局), which is the spokesman of the ROC government. so their speaking reflects the governmental view. Taiwan Province is streamlined now, the provincial government now reforms as the branches of our Executive Yuan. The name still exist, but practically the 縣 and 市 direct controlled by the Executive Yuan now. The streamline of the provinces breaks the border of the 1 and 2nd division levels. Our law doesn't state 縣 and 市 to be the 1st or the 2nd level. So i think it's better to keep the same view as the laws.
The subcection of "claimed territories" are no longer claim by our government as a territory, and should be rewrite as the historical issue [11]. This is what i did, i only move the claimed territory to the history issue. On the other side, the formation of the administrative division is totally controlled by the ROC government. How can you "regardless of official considerations"?? Energiya ( talk) 15:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
The 94th (2005) content shows
and the 95th (2006)
It's obviously the mainland china are removed in this year. Even at the time Ma Ying-jeou was in office. He did not restore that. The most recent 98th edition, this part becomes
In my opinion he want to bring some ambiguity of the sovereignty to keep the status quo. So I prefer to use "stop claiming" because the ROC never renounce those territory also. Energiya ( talk) 13:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Instead of copying large amounts of document text into the discussion, explain the rationale behind these changes yourself. I will reject your changes in whole if you continue to remove the "First-level" and "Second-level" sections entirely. It is clear from the text "目前我國有..." that the ROC still considers Taiwan and Fujian provinces on the same administrative level as the municipalities (Taipei, New Taipei, Kaohsiung, Taichung, and Tainan). Also, the wording 'stops any claim' includes 'stops any claims of sovereignty'. This is, of course, against the Constitution, and reminiscent of the Pan-Green's deluded views as well. In any case, your changes are confusing, as I doubt the ROC would have only in 2005 stopped listing Zhejiang, etc. as part of their provincial divisions. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
On the Scouts of China article, User:Kintetsubuffalo insists on putting a Tag about the article missing information about the era during Japanese rule. Yet this article is not about scouting in Taiwan, it is about a specific organization that was started by the ROC in Mainland China. Whatever the Japanese did on Taiwan before 1945 has nothing to do with this organization. Currently, the article is complete, with it's history starting in Mainland Taiwan then going to Taiwan. User:Kintetsubuffalo claims it is for background, yet Like I said, the background of this organization lies in Mainland China. There is a separate Scouting in Taiwan article, and the Japanese info should go there. T-1000 ( talk) 17:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
toThe Chinese Scout Association was reorganized in 1950 on the island of Taiwan, and resumed the membership of the International Scout Bureau as Boy Scouts of China (BSC) and later Scouts of China
The Chinese Scout Association was reorganized in 1950 on the island of Taiwan. [[Scouting in the Republic of China|Scouting on Taiwan]] had been under [[Scout Association of Japan#Early Years|Boy Scouts of Japan]] prior to World War II. The Chinese Scout Association resumed the membership of the International Scout Bureau as Boy Scouts of China (BSC) and later Scouts of China
The Chinese template at [12] does not take the POV that PRC = China, as it includes the national anthem of the ROC, yet it doesn't include the music of Taiwan, which pushes the POV that ROC is not China. I looked and found similar templates like from here: [13], this old cuisine template has a PRC and ROC section. The Chinese music template should follow the old Chinese cuisine template. T-1000 ( talk) 06:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The result from past discussions seems to be that we don't say who Taiwan belongs to in order to avoid a POV. Yet this page was calling the ROC a sovereign state, which implies that Taiwan belongs to the ROC, and is therefore POV. It also contradicts other pages. On the Government in Exile page, the ROC is listed. If we acknowledge that there is a notable POV that ROC is a GIE, then we can't call ROC a sovereign state here. T-1000 ( talk) 17:00, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
As discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political_NPOV we have proposed moving China to Chinese civilization and China (disambiguation) to China. See the move request at Talk:China#Requested_move if you wish to comment. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Following the discussion noted above, the move proposal discussion has begun at Talk:China#Requested_move_August_2011. Feel free to take part in the discussion. -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 22:44, 31 August 2011 (UTC)