Talk:Taiwan

Regarding the lead

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.utoronto 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 23 states that give formal recognition rather understates the situation. Many states in practice treat Taiwan as independent but do not give formal recognition because they would mainland China would break off relations. The Peoples Republic is too important for most states to not have relations with them. ROC- Taiwan has a fully functioning government that has full control of its territory (apart from a completely empty claim to the mainland). It's a state and recognition is merely the icing on the cake.Dejvid (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Or we can try: 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.utoronto 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I like your newer proposal better, though I would prefer to keep the previous "state in East Asia" wording.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)

If you check the discussion archives, it was agreed that the introductory sentence would say nothing about Taiwan's political status. User:Jiang and I agreed on this consensus. All the information about the Republic of China's political status is already overly explained in the later paragraphs. Please do not open another can of worms. Allentchang (talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Editors change and consensus can change. Can you at least provide a link to the archive we should look at or perhaps some explanation of reasoning behind the previous consensus?Readin (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Readin. Editors change and consensus can change. As well, the introductory paragraphs are suppose to summarize the article. Clearly stating the reality within the lead sentence helps to do that. As well, there have been efforts to add in "partially recognized" in front of "state" in the lead. by adding "with limited international recognition", it is more accurate and helps to simply define and explain the reality and the facts of the region, and of the state. nat.utoronto 07:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The reality is that it is fully independent from China yet the article writes about if as having continuity with the pre war Chinese republic despite there being little territorial overlap. You can't just unpick one aspect of the consensus and leave the rest intact.Dejvid (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

The Republic of China is sovereign and independent from the People's Republic of China, yet it is a continuity of the Republic of China before the Nationalists party and the Government fled to Taiwan. The Governmental system is essentially the same as the one on the mainland, it's just now that the People and the Government are allowed to push its full democratic mandate set out under the Constitution of the Republic of China; the Constitution of the Republic of China is the same as before, before the Nationalists lost the mainland; the National Anthem is still the same. and the list continues nat.utoronto 13:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"...despite there being little territorial overlap. You can't just unpick one aspect of the consensus and leave the rest intact." But you've done just that, you picked on aspect (territory) to emphasize over the rest. This article is about a government, not about any particular country. The government moved, but it remained the same government. Chiang was still the dictator. The symbols such as the constituation, anthem, and flag remained the same. The legislature stayed the same. Nothing internal to the government changed, only the people and places governed changed. Since the ROC was not a democracy, changing the people governed did not significantly affect the identity of the government, much as my identity would not change if I sold my house and moved across town to a new house. Or perhaps more appropriately, a slaveholder's identity would not change if he lost his plantation and slaves but managed to acquire a new plantation with different slaves.Readin (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

"But you've done just that". Sure, that's exactly what I intend to do. If there is an intact consensus then I'll respect that. If someone choses to overturn one aspect then I'm free to overturn other aspects. As for your slave owner example that holds true only if you take the point of view of the slave owner. From the point of view of the slaves the plantations are quite different. The logic of what you are saying is that now that Taiwan is a democracy it has become a new state. That would be a valid point of view and you should hold to it, to be consistent. Dejvid (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If an aspect of a consensus is overturned, it should be overturned by consensus. Before changing the opening sentence, we discussed the change and reached a consensus. If you want to overturn something else, particularly something as large as the topics and structures of the several articles, then consensus should first be reached.

You are right that two entirely separate plantations are involved. In the analogy, the plantations are China and Taiwan. The owner, the Master ROC, first runs the plantation called China. He acquires a second plantation called Taiwan and shortly thereafter loses possession of his first plantation. We don't write two articles about Mr. ROC, one concerning his life while he ran one plantation and then another for the time spent running the second plantation. We just write one article about Mr. ROC. But we do write separate articles for the separate plantations. See China and Taiwan.

Your comment about the ROC changing when it became Democratic is insightful. In fact I think that marks a more significant change in Taiwan's history that it is given credit for. In a sense, that marked the first time in 100 years when Taiwanese were running Taiwan instead of the country being run by foreigners. However, this article is not about Taiwan, it is about the ROC. From the ROC's perspective it was simply an evolution, not an identity change. The name, constitution, flag, components, remained largely the same. Over time the ROC is changing. But if all changes are peaceful and slow, at what point do we say it has a new identity? Readin (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I must apologize - I expected you to be inconsistent and you're not. Further, I can see the way you have of looking at things has advantages. However it is not how county pages are normally done on Wikipedia. The pages are not simply about regimes but more about nation states. The problem of trying to treating the pre war republic as being the same as the republic that now governs Taiwan is seen when you look at the economic section - the two bits bear no relation to each other. Even the most dictatorial regime will be fundamentally change if it finds itself governing a different people - it will be faced with different problems and that will change it.Dejvid (talk) 09:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As well, democracy was always a part of the basic and constitutional laws of the Republic of China, the only difference between now and when the Chiangs were in power, is the 50ish year old martial law that basically suspended several "democratic" parts of the constitution , which was repealed in the late 80s, early 90s. nat.utoronto 02:21, 15 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.

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)

About the map of 'Constitutional administrative division of the Republic of China'

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)

Esperanto

Hello,

Here is the status of interwikis for Taiwan and Republic of China with the esperanto language:

• en:Republic of China -> eo:Tajvano
• en:Taiwan -> nothing

This should be :

• en:Republic of China -> eo:Respubliko Cxinio
• en:Taiwan -> eo:Tajvano

Can somebody with suficient rights change it? 62.16.186.192 (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Change to multi-party democracy

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!