This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Two Chinas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is written poorly: "...and the Kuomintang remain control of Taiwan." It probably should be, "...and the Kuomintang remained in control of Taiwan." Just a thought. In fact there are many more similar errors in this release. I would gladly edit it without adding or subtracting any information if you would let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NedWinter ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the phrase "de facto" from the statement that their are "Two Chinas" on a "de facto" basis. Many would claim that "in fact", Taiwan is not a "China", because the name "China" should not in fact be used for Taiwan, so Taiwan is only "China" no a "de jure" basis. Readin 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I undid the edit that created this line: " People's Republic of China (PRC) - established in 1949, currently controlling mainland China. Hong Kong and Macau also nominally belong to PRC but entitled to high degree of [[Autonomous entity|antonomy]" (emphasic added). I thought I should explain why. The word "nominally" seems to push a POV. It seems pretty obvious that HK and Macau are firmly under Beijing's control, despite them having greater autonomy than other parts of China. The word "entitled" also seems out of place, perhaps only because I've seen "granted" or "given" more commonly used. Perhaps "entitled" is a better word. The biggest reason though, is that the sentence about HK and Macau having a higher degree of autonomy compared to the rest of China, is that it doesn't do anything to explain the meaning of "Two Chinas", which is the topic of the article. Readin ( talk) 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Current article says Republic of China (ROC) - established in 1912, currently controlling Taiwan Province and part of Fujian Province. Previously, it was changed to Republic of China (ROC) - established in 1912, currently controlling Taiwan and several small islands and island groups. But then it was changed back. The current wording is controversial, incomplete, and misleading. First, it is controversial because the term "Taiwan Province" is offensive to many people who consider Taiwan not a province, but a nation. "Taiwan Province" is often used by people to assert their claim that Taiwan is part of China. The wording is incomplete, because ROC actually controls more than just "Taiwan Province" and part of "Fujian Province". For example, Taipei is not considered part of "Taiwan Province" by the ROC. Finally, it is misleading because the amount of "Fujian Province" controlled by the ROC is very tiny. I believe the other wording is better because it uses common terms for the areas controlled by the ROC, just as common terms are used by for the areas controlled by the PRC. The areas controlled by the PRC are described as "currently controlling mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau." Each province is not listed individually, and administrative division names are not used for non-provincial areas controlled by the PRC (for example, it says "Hong Kong", not "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region"). The previous wording listing Taiwan and other islands simply describes the territories without making judgments or granting legitimacy to any particular POV. For these reasons I will restore the previous wording. Readin ( talk) 23:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've had it up to *here* with idiots who want poorly written drivel instead of researched, nuanced, and grammatically correct material. If you want crap, go right ahead and eat it. Yes, I'm talking about you, User:Da Vynci.
If you seriously think, for even a second, that the current version is better than the one you've reverted away ( diff), then there is absolutely no point for me to put in any effort here at all. Wikipedia is probably the only encyclopaedia on earth that (1) doesn't know how to spell encyclopaedia and (2) lets idiots rule the earth. Goodbye. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 07:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
We've been having an edit war recently with a large background section being added and removed. The new background section clearly has information that doesn't need to be here. For example " Yuan Shikai and the Beiyang clique, using their influences with the former imperial court and armed forces, controlled the new government in Beijing. Disillusioned followers of Sun Yat-sen formed a separate government in Guangzhou in 1917. Other autonomous enclaves included Chang Tso-lin's Manchuria ( Fengtian clique) and the Ma clique of the Northwest." makes for difficult, off-putting, reading without adding significantly to the understanding of "Two Chinas". This information clearly belongs in an article more dedicated to either the history of China or the history of the Chinese Civil War. It doesn't belong in this article.
The new additions, if they are to be kept, need to be modified to be sure everything directly relates to the "Two Chinas" topic.
If you're looking to expand this article, it needs more details on how diplomacy has been handled in the presence of "Two Chinas". How do third countries decide which one to recognize? How do they handle relations with the one they don't recognize? Does having "Two Chinas" cause confusion and how is such confusion dealt with? Some of these issues are dealt with in the article, but more detail could be provided, particularly about how things have changed over time.
There is a section called "other uses". Right now it uses weasal words: there are other situations in history that may be seen by some as "Two Chinas". More details, and especially citations, are needed here.
There are plenty of ways to improve and expand this article, but a repeat of the early history of the Chinese Civil War, long before the exile of the KMT, isn't the way to go. It may be useful to briefly mention the fall of the Qing and the rise of the KMT and CCP as separate parties, but a detailed history is best left for another article. Readin ( talk) 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The current History section reads
The Republic of China was founded in 1912, ruled by the Kuomintang as a single-party state. In 1921, the Communist Party of China was founded in Shanghai.
After the Chinese Civil War, the communist party took control of Mainland China and founded the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. The Kuomintang (and the Republic of China) retreated to Taiwan. Until the 1990s, both governments contended to be the sole legitimate government of China. Most foreign governments recognised the Republic of China as the legitimate government before the 1970s, and most switched recognition to the People's Republic of China after the 1970s.
Since the 1990s, however, a rising movement of Taiwanese independence has made the political status of Taiwan the dominant issue, replacing the debate about the legitimate government of China. One significant opinion in Taiwan is that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both sovereign, thus forming "two Chinas", or "one China, one Taiwan". The current administration of Republic of China President Chen Shui-bian subscribes to this theory, and accordingly has largely abandoned the campaign for the Republic of China to be recognised as the sole legitimate government of China. Instead, it is campaigning for the Republic of China to join the United Nations as representative of its effective territory - Taiwan and nearby islands - only.
How about
The Xinhai Revolution of 1911 led to the abdication in 1912 of Puyi, the last emperor of China in favour of the new Republic of China, governed as a single-party state by the Kuomintang. The Communist Party of China was founded in Shanghai in 1921, and soon grew to become a potent political force. An era of warlordism and almost continuous civil war followed.
As the Chinese Civil War ended, the communist party took control of Mainland China and founded the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. The Kuomintang (and the Republic of China) retreated to Taiwan.
Though fighting, including the invasion of several coastal islands by the Communists (with both successes and failures), the bombing of Shanghai and other coastal cities by the Republic of China Air Force, as well as a guerilla campaign waged by remaining Kuomintang forces in southwest China, would continue for the next several years, by the time of the Korean War the lines of control were sharply drawn: the Communist-led People's Republic of China government in Beijing controlled most of mainland China, while the Kuomintang-led Republic of China government, now in Taipei, controlled the island of Taiwan, some surrounding islands, and a number of islands off the coast of Fujian. This stale-mate was enforced with the assistance of the United States government, which, after the start of the Korean War, changed from a policy of abandoning Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang regime to the Communists, to protecting Taiwan against an invasion from the mainland, in the First Taiwan Strait Crisis.
Until the 1990s, both governments contended to be the sole legitimate government of China. With the fighting largely over, the major battleground became the diplomatic. Before the 1970s, few foreign governments recognised the People's Republic of China. The first governments to recognise it as the government of China were Soviet bloc countries, members of the non-aligned movement, and the United Kingdom (1950). The catalyst to change came in 1971, when the United Nations General Assembly expelled representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek by refusing to recognise their accreditations as representatives of China. Recognition for the People's Republic of China soon followed from most other governments, including the United States. The Republic of China continued to complete with the People's Republic of China to be recognised as the legitimate government of China.
Since the 1990s, however, a rising movement of for formal recognition of Taiwanese independence has made the political status of Taiwan the dominant issue, replacing the debate about the legitimate government of China. One significant opinion in Taiwan is that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both sovereign, thus forming "two Chinas", or "one China, one Taiwan". The current administration of Republic of China President Chen Shui-bian subscribes to this theory, and accordingly has largely abandoned the campaign for the Republic of China to be recognised as the sole legitimate government of China. Instead, it is campaigning for the Republic of China to join the United Nations as representative of its effective territory - Taiwan and nearby islands - only.
Readin ( talk) 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change with PalaceGuard008's acquiescences. My biggest concern with changing it myself was accuracy, and if he says I should change it that's good enough to me. Readin ( talk) 05:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
@
Lemongirl942: Please present the list of reasons of your revert to my edits as you promised two days ago. Also, a content you
restored with reason "Restoring per source
" contains word "sovereignty", yet the source itself mentions no "sovereignty" at all. Did you actually read the source? --
Matt Smith (
talk)
03:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
the authorities on Taiwan claimed to be the sole legitimate government of all of China, including the mainland. As for the rest of the content you are adding, it may(or may not) be suitable for adding to One-China policy or Political status of Taiwan. But this article is a summary of the situation and is supposed to only briefly provide context. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
But this article is a summary of the situation and is supposed to only briefly provide context" is your own opinion, not a policy. Please explain your reasons of the revert. Thanks. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 04:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If the source does not mention "sovereignty", please do not create the word on your own. That can be considered violating policy WP:NORThat's your opinion and it seems you don't understand the policy properly. As for the second, yes it is my opinion (and I if consensus is to include more here, I wouldn't mind). The important thing is, we do stuff by WP:CONSENSUS here. If you don't have consensus, you don't make the change. If you edit war or force your changes, I won't hesitate to report you to ANI which will probably result in you being blocked. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
References
Sun Yang-ming (1994), for example, contends that, at most, the meaning of 1991's ROC constitutional reform is simply that the ROC tacitly admits that its jurisdiction does not currently extend to the mainland. The reform cannot be seen as the ROC's explicit admission that it is giving up its sovereignty over the mainland, or as an attempt to legitimize zhong-gong's sovereignty over the mainland, or even acknowledge such attempts, since doing so would be against the ROC Constitution.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Gonna look at these sources later
I will have to look through these and see how it is described. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 12:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Bhutan is the wrong colour in "The map shows the One-China policy in practice" which appears to incorrectly show that Bhutan recognised the PRC. This is not the case because both the ROC & the PRC claim territory controlled by Bhutan. Consequently, Bhutan has refused to recognise either the ROC or the PRC. 1.127.104.203 ( talk) 14:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I removed the following. While it's a nice writeup, it's very much WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. DrIdiot ( talk) 05:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
In Chinese history, periods of prolonged political division and dynastic transition saw the existence of more than one "China" at the same time. [1]
China was politically divided during several sustained periods historically, with two or more states simultaneously existing on territories associated with "China" and claiming to represent "China". Examples include the Spring and Autumn, Warring States, Three Kingdoms, Sixteen Kingdoms, Northern and Southern dynasties, and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms periods, among others. Just as the PRC and the ROC formally claim exclusive mandate over the entirety of China, [2] [3] [4] historical Chinese dynasties that existed during periods of sustained political disunity often claimed exclusive Chinese politico-cultural orthodoxy at the expense of others.
During dynastic transitions, it was rare for one dynasty to end abruptly and transition smoothly to a new one, resulting in the existence of more than one entity claiming to be "China". [5] For instance, during the Ming–Qing transition, the Ming dynasty existed alongside the Qing dynasty from 1636 to 1644. The predecessor of the Qing dynasty, the Later Jin dynasty, was established in 1616 and ruled over northeastern China whilst the Ming dynasty ruled over China proper. [6] Following the fall of the Ming dynasty in 1644, remnants of the Ming imperial family, whose regime is known in historiography as the Southern Ming dynasty, continued to rule parts of southern China until 1662. [7] Multiple ephemeral regimes also existed during this period, including the Shun and Xi dynasties on mainland China, and the Ming loyalist Kingdom of Tungning on Taiwan.
Historically, various Sinospheric regimes that ruled over modern-day Korea, Vietnam and Japan came to identify themselves as "China" and claimed to be legitimate successors to the Chinese civilization. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Through the adoption of names of China and the invocation of traditional Chinese concepts like Sinocentrism and Hua–Yi ethnic distinction, there were effectively multiple states claiming to represent "China" simultaneously. Such regimes as the Joseon dynasty of Korea, the Tokugawa shogunate of Japan, and the Nguyễn dynasty of Vietnam, among various others, held this political and cultural view. [8] [9] [12] [13] [14]
References
Sovereignty1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Sovereignty2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Sovereignty3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Two Chinas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 26 August 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is written poorly: "...and the Kuomintang remain control of Taiwan." It probably should be, "...and the Kuomintang remained in control of Taiwan." Just a thought. In fact there are many more similar errors in this release. I would gladly edit it without adding or subtracting any information if you would let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NedWinter ( talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I removed the phrase "de facto" from the statement that their are "Two Chinas" on a "de facto" basis. Many would claim that "in fact", Taiwan is not a "China", because the name "China" should not in fact be used for Taiwan, so Taiwan is only "China" no a "de jure" basis. Readin 01:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I undid the edit that created this line: " People's Republic of China (PRC) - established in 1949, currently controlling mainland China. Hong Kong and Macau also nominally belong to PRC but entitled to high degree of [[Autonomous entity|antonomy]" (emphasic added). I thought I should explain why. The word "nominally" seems to push a POV. It seems pretty obvious that HK and Macau are firmly under Beijing's control, despite them having greater autonomy than other parts of China. The word "entitled" also seems out of place, perhaps only because I've seen "granted" or "given" more commonly used. Perhaps "entitled" is a better word. The biggest reason though, is that the sentence about HK and Macau having a higher degree of autonomy compared to the rest of China, is that it doesn't do anything to explain the meaning of "Two Chinas", which is the topic of the article. Readin ( talk) 22:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Current article says Republic of China (ROC) - established in 1912, currently controlling Taiwan Province and part of Fujian Province. Previously, it was changed to Republic of China (ROC) - established in 1912, currently controlling Taiwan and several small islands and island groups. But then it was changed back. The current wording is controversial, incomplete, and misleading. First, it is controversial because the term "Taiwan Province" is offensive to many people who consider Taiwan not a province, but a nation. "Taiwan Province" is often used by people to assert their claim that Taiwan is part of China. The wording is incomplete, because ROC actually controls more than just "Taiwan Province" and part of "Fujian Province". For example, Taipei is not considered part of "Taiwan Province" by the ROC. Finally, it is misleading because the amount of "Fujian Province" controlled by the ROC is very tiny. I believe the other wording is better because it uses common terms for the areas controlled by the ROC, just as common terms are used by for the areas controlled by the PRC. The areas controlled by the PRC are described as "currently controlling mainland China, Hong Kong and Macau." Each province is not listed individually, and administrative division names are not used for non-provincial areas controlled by the PRC (for example, it says "Hong Kong", not "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region"). The previous wording listing Taiwan and other islands simply describes the territories without making judgments or granting legitimacy to any particular POV. For these reasons I will restore the previous wording. Readin ( talk) 23:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I've had it up to *here* with idiots who want poorly written drivel instead of researched, nuanced, and grammatically correct material. If you want crap, go right ahead and eat it. Yes, I'm talking about you, User:Da Vynci.
If you seriously think, for even a second, that the current version is better than the one you've reverted away ( diff), then there is absolutely no point for me to put in any effort here at all. Wikipedia is probably the only encyclopaedia on earth that (1) doesn't know how to spell encyclopaedia and (2) lets idiots rule the earth. Goodbye. -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 07:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
We've been having an edit war recently with a large background section being added and removed. The new background section clearly has information that doesn't need to be here. For example " Yuan Shikai and the Beiyang clique, using their influences with the former imperial court and armed forces, controlled the new government in Beijing. Disillusioned followers of Sun Yat-sen formed a separate government in Guangzhou in 1917. Other autonomous enclaves included Chang Tso-lin's Manchuria ( Fengtian clique) and the Ma clique of the Northwest." makes for difficult, off-putting, reading without adding significantly to the understanding of "Two Chinas". This information clearly belongs in an article more dedicated to either the history of China or the history of the Chinese Civil War. It doesn't belong in this article.
The new additions, if they are to be kept, need to be modified to be sure everything directly relates to the "Two Chinas" topic.
If you're looking to expand this article, it needs more details on how diplomacy has been handled in the presence of "Two Chinas". How do third countries decide which one to recognize? How do they handle relations with the one they don't recognize? Does having "Two Chinas" cause confusion and how is such confusion dealt with? Some of these issues are dealt with in the article, but more detail could be provided, particularly about how things have changed over time.
There is a section called "other uses". Right now it uses weasal words: there are other situations in history that may be seen by some as "Two Chinas". More details, and especially citations, are needed here.
There are plenty of ways to improve and expand this article, but a repeat of the early history of the Chinese Civil War, long before the exile of the KMT, isn't the way to go. It may be useful to briefly mention the fall of the Qing and the rise of the KMT and CCP as separate parties, but a detailed history is best left for another article. Readin ( talk) 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The current History section reads
The Republic of China was founded in 1912, ruled by the Kuomintang as a single-party state. In 1921, the Communist Party of China was founded in Shanghai.
After the Chinese Civil War, the communist party took control of Mainland China and founded the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. The Kuomintang (and the Republic of China) retreated to Taiwan. Until the 1990s, both governments contended to be the sole legitimate government of China. Most foreign governments recognised the Republic of China as the legitimate government before the 1970s, and most switched recognition to the People's Republic of China after the 1970s.
Since the 1990s, however, a rising movement of Taiwanese independence has made the political status of Taiwan the dominant issue, replacing the debate about the legitimate government of China. One significant opinion in Taiwan is that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both sovereign, thus forming "two Chinas", or "one China, one Taiwan". The current administration of Republic of China President Chen Shui-bian subscribes to this theory, and accordingly has largely abandoned the campaign for the Republic of China to be recognised as the sole legitimate government of China. Instead, it is campaigning for the Republic of China to join the United Nations as representative of its effective territory - Taiwan and nearby islands - only.
How about
The Xinhai Revolution of 1911 led to the abdication in 1912 of Puyi, the last emperor of China in favour of the new Republic of China, governed as a single-party state by the Kuomintang. The Communist Party of China was founded in Shanghai in 1921, and soon grew to become a potent political force. An era of warlordism and almost continuous civil war followed.
As the Chinese Civil War ended, the communist party took control of Mainland China and founded the People's Republic of China on October 1, 1949. The Kuomintang (and the Republic of China) retreated to Taiwan.
Though fighting, including the invasion of several coastal islands by the Communists (with both successes and failures), the bombing of Shanghai and other coastal cities by the Republic of China Air Force, as well as a guerilla campaign waged by remaining Kuomintang forces in southwest China, would continue for the next several years, by the time of the Korean War the lines of control were sharply drawn: the Communist-led People's Republic of China government in Beijing controlled most of mainland China, while the Kuomintang-led Republic of China government, now in Taipei, controlled the island of Taiwan, some surrounding islands, and a number of islands off the coast of Fujian. This stale-mate was enforced with the assistance of the United States government, which, after the start of the Korean War, changed from a policy of abandoning Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang regime to the Communists, to protecting Taiwan against an invasion from the mainland, in the First Taiwan Strait Crisis.
Until the 1990s, both governments contended to be the sole legitimate government of China. With the fighting largely over, the major battleground became the diplomatic. Before the 1970s, few foreign governments recognised the People's Republic of China. The first governments to recognise it as the government of China were Soviet bloc countries, members of the non-aligned movement, and the United Kingdom (1950). The catalyst to change came in 1971, when the United Nations General Assembly expelled representatives of the Chiang Kai-shek by refusing to recognise their accreditations as representatives of China. Recognition for the People's Republic of China soon followed from most other governments, including the United States. The Republic of China continued to complete with the People's Republic of China to be recognised as the legitimate government of China.
Since the 1990s, however, a rising movement of for formal recognition of Taiwanese independence has made the political status of Taiwan the dominant issue, replacing the debate about the legitimate government of China. One significant opinion in Taiwan is that the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are both sovereign, thus forming "two Chinas", or "one China, one Taiwan". The current administration of Republic of China President Chen Shui-bian subscribes to this theory, and accordingly has largely abandoned the campaign for the Republic of China to be recognised as the sole legitimate government of China. Instead, it is campaigning for the Republic of China to join the United Nations as representative of its effective territory - Taiwan and nearby islands - only.
Readin ( talk) 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change with PalaceGuard008's acquiescences. My biggest concern with changing it myself was accuracy, and if he says I should change it that's good enough to me. Readin ( talk) 05:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
@
Lemongirl942: Please present the list of reasons of your revert to my edits as you promised two days ago. Also, a content you
restored with reason "Restoring per source
" contains word "sovereignty", yet the source itself mentions no "sovereignty" at all. Did you actually read the source? --
Matt Smith (
talk)
03:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
the authorities on Taiwan claimed to be the sole legitimate government of all of China, including the mainland. As for the rest of the content you are adding, it may(or may not) be suitable for adding to One-China policy or Political status of Taiwan. But this article is a summary of the situation and is supposed to only briefly provide context. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
But this article is a summary of the situation and is supposed to only briefly provide context" is your own opinion, not a policy. Please explain your reasons of the revert. Thanks. -- Matt Smith ( talk) 04:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
If the source does not mention "sovereignty", please do not create the word on your own. That can be considered violating policy WP:NORThat's your opinion and it seems you don't understand the policy properly. As for the second, yes it is my opinion (and I if consensus is to include more here, I wouldn't mind). The important thing is, we do stuff by WP:CONSENSUS here. If you don't have consensus, you don't make the change. If you edit war or force your changes, I won't hesitate to report you to ANI which will probably result in you being blocked. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 04:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
References
Sun Yang-ming (1994), for example, contends that, at most, the meaning of 1991's ROC constitutional reform is simply that the ROC tacitly admits that its jurisdiction does not currently extend to the mainland. The reform cannot be seen as the ROC's explicit admission that it is giving up its sovereignty over the mainland, or as an attempt to legitimize zhong-gong's sovereignty over the mainland, or even acknowledge such attempts, since doing so would be against the ROC Constitution.
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Gonna look at these sources later
I will have to look through these and see how it is described. -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 12:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Bhutan is the wrong colour in "The map shows the One-China policy in practice" which appears to incorrectly show that Bhutan recognised the PRC. This is not the case because both the ROC & the PRC claim territory controlled by Bhutan. Consequently, Bhutan has refused to recognise either the ROC or the PRC. 1.127.104.203 ( talk) 14:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I removed the following. While it's a nice writeup, it's very much WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. DrIdiot ( talk) 05:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
In Chinese history, periods of prolonged political division and dynastic transition saw the existence of more than one "China" at the same time. [1]
China was politically divided during several sustained periods historically, with two or more states simultaneously existing on territories associated with "China" and claiming to represent "China". Examples include the Spring and Autumn, Warring States, Three Kingdoms, Sixteen Kingdoms, Northern and Southern dynasties, and Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms periods, among others. Just as the PRC and the ROC formally claim exclusive mandate over the entirety of China, [2] [3] [4] historical Chinese dynasties that existed during periods of sustained political disunity often claimed exclusive Chinese politico-cultural orthodoxy at the expense of others.
During dynastic transitions, it was rare for one dynasty to end abruptly and transition smoothly to a new one, resulting in the existence of more than one entity claiming to be "China". [5] For instance, during the Ming–Qing transition, the Ming dynasty existed alongside the Qing dynasty from 1636 to 1644. The predecessor of the Qing dynasty, the Later Jin dynasty, was established in 1616 and ruled over northeastern China whilst the Ming dynasty ruled over China proper. [6] Following the fall of the Ming dynasty in 1644, remnants of the Ming imperial family, whose regime is known in historiography as the Southern Ming dynasty, continued to rule parts of southern China until 1662. [7] Multiple ephemeral regimes also existed during this period, including the Shun and Xi dynasties on mainland China, and the Ming loyalist Kingdom of Tungning on Taiwan.
Historically, various Sinospheric regimes that ruled over modern-day Korea, Vietnam and Japan came to identify themselves as "China" and claimed to be legitimate successors to the Chinese civilization. [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Through the adoption of names of China and the invocation of traditional Chinese concepts like Sinocentrism and Hua–Yi ethnic distinction, there were effectively multiple states claiming to represent "China" simultaneously. Such regimes as the Joseon dynasty of Korea, the Tokugawa shogunate of Japan, and the Nguyễn dynasty of Vietnam, among various others, held this political and cultural view. [8] [9] [12] [13] [14]
References
Sovereignty1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Sovereignty2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Sovereignty3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).