Talk:Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject China (Rated Start-Class) | |
|---|---|
 |
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments) |
|
|
This article is maintained by the Chinese provinces workgroup. |
 |
This article is maintained by the Chinese politics workgroup. |
|
|
This article is maintained by the Chinese history workgroup. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
| WikiProject Taiwan | (Rated Start-Class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
| WikiProject Taiwanese politics | (Rated Start-Class, Mid-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
.JPG)
| WikiProject International relations | |||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 15 June 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
[edit] Separate page
[edit] Merge with Taiwan (2006)
[edit] Further reading
Are the books in the "further reading" specific enough to the topic of China's supposed province to be listed here? Based on their names they seem to be about the general relationship between Taiwan and China, not the specific aspect that is the topic of this article.Readin (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removed statement
I don't think I've ever read the PRC refering to the ROC as "provincial" authorities. Even doing so would give the ROC some legitimacy. Roadrunner (talk) 04:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- The term used in most press releases and statements is to refer to the ROC as a "local authority". An example of the PRC view towards the ROC can be found in this white paper.-Loren (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Opening paragraph
We have an edit war going on between
Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China (simplified Chinese: 台湾省; traditional Chinese: 臺灣省 or 台灣省; pinyin: Táiwān shěng) is an adminstrative province of the People's Republic of China (PRC), covering an area over which the PRC has no control. PRC claims the entirety of the island of Taiwan and its surrounding islets, including the Pescadores, as parts of its Taiwan Province. The PRC has never controlled any of this territory, which is currently under de facto control of the Republic of China (ROC). The People's Republic of China claims that Taiwan is part of China, that the PRC succeeded the ROC as the sole legitimate authority in all of China upon its founding in 1949 (see Political status of Taiwan).
and
Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China (simplified Chinese: 台湾省; traditional Chinese: 臺灣省 or 台灣省; pinyin: Táiwān shěng) is a theoretical province of the People's Republic of China (PRC), covering an area the PRC has never controlled. PRC claims the entirety of the island of Taiwan and its surrounding islets, including the Pescadores, as parts of its Taiwan Province. The PRC has never controlled any of this territory, which is currently under de facto control of the Republic of China (ROC). The People's Republic of China claims that Taiwan is part of China, that the PRC succeeded the ROC as the sole legitimate authority in China upon its founding in 1949, and that the ROC currently in Taiwan is unrecognized by PRC and most of countries (see Political status of Taiwan).
It seems to me that the second paragraph is superior. The first paragraph is wrong to say "Taiwan Province...is an adminstrative province of the PRC" because the PRC does not in fact "administer" the area it is claiming as "Taiwan Province". Since the PRC has no control over Taiwan, Taiwan is a province of the PRC only in theory, not in established fact. Readin (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Again, this is not fiction. The province exists in the administrative apparatus of the PRC, it sends delegates to the People's Congress, etc.. Thus wordings like 'theoretical' are unsuitable. Other wordings in the lead are quite clear on that the PRC has no control at all over the territory. I think a delimitation is needed here, and perhaps the best would be to weed out large parts of the article. This article should deal with the actually existing institutional framework of the PRC province (how it's 'exile' apparatus functions, etc.), leaving the broader political discussion about PRC claims and cross-strait relations to other articles. --Soman (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] map caption
The caption of the map has switched back and forth between saying "mainland China" and "People's Republic of China". I believe the latter term is more appropriate here because we are talking about a legal fiction, that is to say, something having to do with laws and government. The article is not about "Taiwan Province, mainland China"; the article is about "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China". The NPOV may not be an issue because the map doesn't say whether Taiwan is part of the PRC or not. The map may be interpreted either way. Perhaps the caption should say "Taiwan in relation to areas under the control of the People's Republic of China". Readin (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- A better caption would be "Areas claimed by PRC as its Taiwan Province". That relates better to the core subject of the article. --Soman (talk) 08:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] What the article is about
The heading used to say:
Now it says:
I'm not real happy with either. The first suggests that the province really exists. But it doesn't. Taiwan Province, ROC exists.
On the other hand, this article isn't really about the claims, it is really about the fictional province. Anyone have any suggestions? Readin (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
How about this:
--Jerrch 03:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hasty editing, Terminology section
I happened to press 'Enter' a bit to soon before my last edit summary was completed. I removed the 'Terminology' section, since it fits better in overall articles of the political status of Taiwan. This article should be limited to the institutional framework of the PRC provincial administration 'in exile', rather than being about PRC claims on Taiwan in general. --Soman (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Name Change
[edit] How can a soveirgn country in theory be a province of the PRC?
You can't say that a country is in theory under the rule of another country when it clearly is not, but actually an established sovereign country with its own national government.
AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 00:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia's standard is published supposedly-reliable sources, not truth. While the truth may be obvious here, China has successfully pressured many otherwise reliable sources into accepting her irredentist imperialist claims. Since some reliable sources will claim Taiwan is a province of China, we can't just ignore the Chinese imperialist editors who want to insist that we not call the claim "fiction" no matter how accurate the term is. Readin (talk) 03:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- There are some basic confusions here. To call Taiwan 'a country' is incorrect. There is no 'Republic of Taiwan', there is a Republic of China which claims Taiwan as one of its provinces. Both ROC and PRC claim to be the legitimate government of all of China, the PRC claims over Taiwan are by no means different from the ROC claims on Inner Mongolia. --Soman (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- For prove that Taiwan is an Independent counntry just read this quote I got out of the Taiwan article.Below AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- On September 30, 2007, the ruling Democratic Progressive Party approved a resolution asserting separate identity from China and called for the enactment of a new constitution for a "normal country". It also called for general use of "Taiwan" as the island's name, without abolishing its formal name, the Republic of China.AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 14:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This is of course something many inhabitants of Taiwan would dispute. If a future DPP government (please note that elections were held, in which DPP were defeated) would declare a 'Republic of Taiwan', then we would have to deal with that issue. For now, ROC is the only political unit with de facto rule over Taiwan. Saying that China's claim over Taiwan (be it PRC or ROC) are 'imperialist' is like calling Spanish claims on Catalonia 'imperialist'. --Soman (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
~~AMERICAN MIGHT, you seem to like spinning things with biased politics. The DPP is a pro-separation party, one of the three well-knowns, in fact, and also has a well-known mention that its latest President was a public enemy of Taiwan. Now, with Ma Yinjiu, a member of the ROC, what say you? Your quote means nothing.
Also, sovereignty, even established and accepted sovereigns, has been challenged before. Hawaii? So, noting that the ROC had claimed to be the sovereign entity of Taiwan does not make it the end of the subject.
As I noted just below, if we could just use the facts and not spin details with any politics, there shouldn't be an issue here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.106.43 (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Biased edits!
On July 1st, 2008 wikipedian user:Netking China decided to remove both tags. If you were to take a look at his user page you could clearly tell that he is from china. Which makes me think he is not staying with wikipedia's neutral pov policy. AMERICAN MIGHT (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
you are from the US, Which makes me think you are not staying with wikipedia's neutral pov policy considering the political inclinations of your country of origin 99.241.158.240 (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
~~I'm of the opinion, the only neutral view is the facts. In terms of land, you'd have to go with historical facts as any word of mouth or verbal claim will only result in bias. Therefore, as known throughout history, Taiwan is the island known by the western identity of Formosa. I'm not sure, but I believe it was derived from Portugese. Formosa has a native populous of Taiwanese "Hakka" persons, but have, since the defeat of the ROC in 1949, also sheltered the refugees of the fallen party. Two outcomes drew from this event: One being that of the Chinese in the mainland which believes the ROC and the natives are and have always been part of China. One nation. The other outcome, that of the ROC and later the Democratic Progressive Party, believing that since 1949, Taiwan had become a sovereign state.
I think, if it was stated this way, there should be no dispute as this is all fact and you can argue against the facts all you'd like, but that won't change them.
So, let's stop the finger pointing, "He's Chinese" "He's American", garbage and just tell it like it is.
Taiwan was part of China as a province until 1949 and its ownership has been disputed since, either staying a province or becoming a nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.106.43 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Theoretical Province?
The current opening text of the article says:-
- "Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China (simplified Chinese: 台湾省; traditional Chinese: 臺灣省 or 台灣省; pinyin: Táiwān shěng) is a theoretical administrative province of the People's Republic of China (PRC), covering an area over which the PRC has no control."
Theoretical? What theory is that? Constitutional legal theory? International legal theory? I think the sentence is pretty clear already that it is a province within the claimed territory of the PRC that it has no control over. So I propose:-
"...is a claimed province of the People's Republic of China (PRC), covering an area over which the PRC has no control."--pyl (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- While legitimacy of the PRC's claim to Taiwan is greatly disputed, the PRC's control of Taiwan is not. The "administrative" nature of "Taiwan Province, Republic of China" has as much credibility as the flat-earth society. The key attribute of this "administrative province" is that it exists to promote a fiction that the PRC rules Taiwan (and even the PRC doesn't believe that fiction because when they refer to the "Taiwan authorities" they're referring to the ROC, not to their own administrative structure).
- The very existence of this article is borderline POV. The only reason for its existence is so that when someone stumbles across "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" they can look it up and find out what it is and not be confused by the natural tendency to believe that something called "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" would be ruled by "People's Republic of China".
- The fictional nature of the administration is at the core of the topic and should be front and center, not just part of a later descriptive clause.
- I'm not completely satisfied with the word "theoretical", but "fictional" didn't work because the structure actually exists even if it doesn't actually administer anything. It is used here as a way of contrasting "theory" and "practice". "In theory" the structure administers Taiwan, but "in practice" Taiwan is governed by the Republic of China. Can you think of a better word? Readin (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thats why I proposed "claimed province". I didn't say administrative, because seriously, what administrative when the PRC doesn't any control? "Administrative" is definitely the wrong word here. I thought my proposed sentence was pretty clear already: the PRC claims Taiwan as a province but it doesn't have any control over it.
- We need this article because Taiwan is commonly recognised, acknowledged etc to be part of China. I don't think we need to say if this POV is right or wrong but there is enough public interest for this article to be there. But I totally accept that we need to point out that the PRC has no control over Taiwan.--pyl (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- We need this article because Taiwan is commonly recognized, acknowledged etc to be part of China. No, it is not. It is primarily recognized as part of China in diplomatic circles. Otherwise it is commonly recognized as a separate country. Readin (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- The reason for this article is that in some circumstances the phrase "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" will appear either as an attempt by China to cause a belief to be instilled by repeated usage of a phrase (see "A lie repeated often enough comes to be seen as truth") or out of a desire to appease China. But there is no such province. There is a Taiwan Province governed as part of the larger country Taiwan(formally "Republic of China"), but there is no Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China other than the legal fiction that is their administrative apparatus that doesn't administer anything.
- The article on Gandalf begins "Gandalf is a fictional character that appears in the novels..." just as it should. It would wrong to start off "Gandalf was the leader of the Council of the Wise and trusted confidant of the kings of Rohan and Gondor..." and not mention that he is a fictional character until later.
- If the article is not about the administrative structure set up by the PRC, but is really about the land and the people that the PRC claims to govern, then this should not be a separate article but should redirect to the Taiwan Province, Republic of China article. Readin (talk) 21:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- You said:-
- "It is primarily recognized as part of China in diplomatic circles. Otherwise it is commonly recognized as a separate country."
- This I agree. I should have qualified my statement at first place. Sorry. I can accept your argument that this can be a redirect page to the "Taiwan Province" page then just we simply just talk about PRC's claim, like what we have done in the "Taiwan" article. But I don't believe the proposed deletion and redirect has consensus. Please correct me if I am wrong.--pyl (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- There is a related discussion over at Talk:Free Area of the Republic of China. Readin (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- You said:-
- One more thing. It is like the Mainland Area of the Republic of China. Mainland China is claimed by the ROC but the ROC does not have any control over it. I wouldn't call the "Mainland Area of the ROC" a "theoretical Area of the ROC". It is legally a "claimed area of the ROC". The ROC just doesn't have any control over it (legally, outside ROC jurisdiction).--pyl (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- At this point in time I would call the "mainland area of the ROC" mostly theoretical ("mostly" only because Taiwan does control Kinmen and Matsu which are often considered part of mainland China). I'm not sure the history of the term, but an article on the Mainland Area of the ROC might be on a little firmer ground because prior to 1949 the ROC did control the mainland area, but I don't know if that's what it was called then. Readin (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- It was just China. The division of the ROC into the Mainland Area and the Taiwan Area was done by Lee. There were some divisions within mainland China during WWII. But there was no such thing as "Mainland Area" in law.
- "Kinmen and Matsu" are commonly considered as part of the Taiwan Area, and they are definied to be within the Taiwan Area in law as well.
- The problem I have with the word theoretical is it is an ambiguous word: "What theory is that?" That's why I just described it a "claimed province...... no control". The essence of my proposed statement was 1. it is claimed by the PRC and 2. the PRC has no control. What do you think of that?--pyl (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- Again, having the fictional (better word?) nature of this entity that exists on paper front and center is important. Perhaps we should restructure the opening to not follow the standard "XXX is..." that most articles use. "Although the PRC has never controlled Taiwan, it has created a governing structure in exile for territory it claims as Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China." Or perhaps we could start with "On paper, Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is and administrative division of the PRC governing Taiwan. In practice, the PRC has never controlled Taiwan and the structures are propaganda tools for reinforcing the PRC's claims to be the legitimate government of Taiwan."
- That the PRC doesn't control Taiwan, and that the "governing structure" for "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" doesn't actually govern are indisputable. That a "governing structure" does not govern and has never governed is not only key information, it is information that needs to be clarified because of the misleading nomenclature. Readin (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- At this point in time I would call the "mainland area of the ROC" mostly theoretical ("mostly" only because Taiwan does control Kinmen and Matsu which are often considered part of mainland China). I'm not sure the history of the term, but an article on the Mainland Area of the ROC might be on a little firmer ground because prior to 1949 the ROC did control the mainland area, but I don't know if that's what it was called then. Readin (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
24.168.106.43 (talk)I do believe there's quite enough independent Taiwan articles abound on Wikipedia for those opposed so that the PRC's belief that Taiwan was never supposed to have separated could have its own stake on the internet. And this article itself is already riddled with sarcasm and dissenting voices that it barely holds true to its intention anyway. We have an article about Taiwan under the ROC and we have an article of Taiwan just as a piece of Earth. Do we really need to be arguing more about this? Taiwan under the ROC is there. If somebody doesn't want to accept that, that's their problem, no? So, what is this blather about this article's legitimacy? Its purpose is to serve as a footnote regarding what China, the PRC, basically the former/present sovereign of Taiwan, depending on viewpoints, believes.
Besides, at least the PRC has its autonomous regions that retain minority culture and self-government. Hong Kong still has its own governing body, which then judging from the argument that PRC has no control over Taiwan's affairs, would still not discount its assumed sovereignty over it. The PRC presides over several regions it relinquishes direct control over, Taiwan would be viewed by them as nothing different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.168.106.43 (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
- I reread the article and couldn't find any sarcasm.
- What independent Taiwan articles do you speak of? None of them are able to treat Taiwan as the independent nation it is. Instead, they follow NPOV and either don't dispute the claim that Taiwan is part of China or they provide both points of view. There are quite a few articles that go too far the other way in claiming that Taiwan is part of China despite NPOV, but I haven't seen any survive for long saying Taiwan isn't part of China.
- Regardless of whether there are articles that say Taiwan is part of China, NPOV is supposed to be observed in each article. If other articles need to be fixed you can attempt to do so, but the failures of other articles to observer NPOV doesn't mean that this article should fail as well. This article observes NPOV by presenting the facts that are undisputed. It doesn't try to judge whether Taiwan is part of some large "China". It doesn't try to judge whether PRC claims to Taiwan are legitimate. It reports that the governing structures the PRC have set up for Taiwan don't govern anything and that the PRC doesn't actually control Taiwan. This is quite different from your examples of regions the PRC presides over but relinquishes direct control over. The PRC has never had any direct control over Taiwan that it could relinquish. Even the PRC's point of view recognizes this. When they refer to Taiwan's "local authorities", they mean the ROC government, not the "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" structures the PRC has set up. Readin (talk) 03:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I dont' think there is any sarcasm in this article either. But I think the "theoretical administrative........ has no control" quite over emphasising.
Readin suggested two sentences with the following phrases:-
-
- "governing structure in exile"; and
- "On paper...".
I think these phrases are over-emphasising and I think that's why some people think that they are sarcastic phrases. Why can't we just state the facts as is and have a statement saying "claimed province.............. has no control". I think that's pretty clear to anyone who reads the sentence that the PRC doesn't have control over Taiwan but the PRC claims the area as part of the PRC.--pyl (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
- The very title of the article carries a very strong implication that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China. The title is very un-NPOV, not surprising since the whole thing was set up by the PRC for propaganda purposes, and it is important to balance that problem as soon as possible in the article. Having an initial sentence that pretends that Taiwan is a just like Hunan or Shandong, followed by a later sentence explaining difference, is insufficient. As I explained above, we wouldn't start an article on MacBeth with a first line that treats him as a real historical figure and only later explain that he was a fictional character.
- I guess I can see the objections to "on paper" and "governing structure in exile". "on paper" is probably too strong because there are real people off paper whose job it is to pretend to represent Taiwan.
- "governing structure in exile" is defined by M-W as "the state or a period of forced absence from one's country or home b: the state or a period of voluntary absence from one's country or home" and the administrative structure in the PRC cannot actually call Taiwan it's "country or home".
- I can understand the hesitation to use current wording "theoretical" because the meaning is not precise as we would like. We should look at alternative words but we need to find something that fits into the first clause of the first sentence rather than something that only appears as a follow on. Readin (talk) 18:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
-
- Readin said:
- "The very title of the article carries a very strong implication that Taiwan is a province of the People's Republic of China. The title is very un-NPOV, not surprising since the whole thing was set up by the PRC for propaganda purposes"
- Well, I don't think about this article from a propaganda point of view. I believe the PRC is entitled to have an article to state their POV, although this POV has to be balanced by others. Let me show you another example, Australian Antarctic Territory is an internationally disputed claim, but the way it is stated is pretty NPOV. Similarly should we just start the article like this?
- "Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China refers to a claimed province of the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering an area over which the PRC has no control"; or
- "Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China refers to a claimed province of the People's Republic of China (PRC) covering an area administered by the Republic of China"
- Either sentence states both necessary facts: it is a claimed territory and the PRC has no control over it.--pyl (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the PRC is entitled to have an article to state their POV In fact they are not. See WP:forum and WP:Content Forking One such Wikipedia fork is Wikinfo, whose major difference from Wikipedia is, in fact, its approach to content forks: multiple articles covering a subject from different POVs are actually preferred to Wikipedia's goal of a single article covering the subject from the neutral point of view. Wikipedia's policy is that this practice is not a legitimate way for contributors to deal with a lack of consensus.
- Both of your suggestions start with "Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China refers to a claimed province of the People's Republic of China (PRC)". This is problematic as it says Taiwan is "of the People's Republic of China" with is the very subject of dispute.
- By comparison, the Australian Antarctic Territory says the territory is "of Antarctica", not "of Australia".
- "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China is an area claimed but never controlled by the People's Republic of China. It is currently governed by the Republic of China." would be a better start and more in line with the Australian Antarctic Territory article. Readin (talk) 14:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Readin said:
[edit] Merge Proposal (2008)
[edit] Reunification Problem
I yanked this section as it is very one-sided and completely unreference:
- According to the policy "one country, two systems", the government of PRC advocates that if the mainland China and Taiwan are reunified, the "administrative region" which has more autonomous power than the special administrative regions of Hong Kong and Macau will be established in Taiwan. In this case, the government of PRC may not station its garrison in Taiwan, and the government of Taiwan may preserve its garrison. The Anti-Secession Law instituted by the National People's Congress of PRC stipulate that "After the country is reunified peacefully, Taiwan may practice systems different from those on the mainland and enjoy a high degree of autonomy".
Readin (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's a statement by Deng Xao Ping. That was his offer to Taiwan if Taiwan would reunify with the mainland on the basis of One Country Two Systems. I am busy right now but I will find the reference later. It is a very well known offer.--pyl (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- Here is the reference:-
--pyl (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Even after the reference is found, there needs to be some balance. For example, wouldn't Taiwan's government (ROC) have to give up its ability to engage in independent foreign relations as a sovereign nation? Wouldn't Taiwan lose any claim to foreign help should the PRC reneg on it's promises and begin to interfere in Taiwan's internal affairs? Deng made the offer - what was the response and why? Readin (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
-
- The section "Reunification Problem" is quite similar to the section Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China#Offer to Taiwan, therefore I added a link instead. UU (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Representation section problem
The entire section is original research, and the spellings are incorrect! Someone needs to fix it, for intelligence's sake! Joe9320 of the Wikipedia Party | Contact Assembly of Jimbo Wales 10:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
