Talk:Retrocession Day

Coincidence

It stinks, then, that exactly 26 years later to the day, the Republic of China, now a democratic nation with free elections, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of internet access, respect for the individual, was kicked out of the UN and replaced by the "People's" Republic of China - with a one-party dictatorship, no elections, repression of speech, state-dictated religious practices, a "Great Firewall of China", and exploitation of people to suit the state. I do hope for reunification... with the extension of the island's freedoms to all the people on the mainland. GBC 22:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The Republic of China obvious lost that Civil War and is no longer effectively in control of China, continuing to give China's seat to a government that only holds control over a small fraction of China's citizens was delusional and a slap in the face to the Chinese people. Also, at the time the transfer took place, the Republic of China was not, in fact, a democracy. It was a single party rightist dictatorship. Not that the politics of a nation in question should have any bearing on this question, a people do not lose their international rights simply because we don't like their system of government.108.131.78.102 (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia should be a source of unbiased INFORMATION. If users who are strongly pro-Taiwanese independence want to disseminate their propaganda online, please do it somewhere else! I have not removed information supporting your point of view, so stop removing references to the Japanese Instrument of Surrender, the Potsdam Declaration, and the Cairo Declaration, which supports the mainstream view that Taiwan was returned to ROC at the end of WWII.

By the way, if you are for Taiwanese independence, why in the world are you supporting the legal basis to the continuous Japanese occupation of the island?!?? Taiwan was a colony, and I am sure your ancesstors were not Japanese citizens, so have some shame! User:dukeward —Preceding undated comment added 21:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

Actually, I agree with you politically. However, we should all play by the rules, and the Potsdam Declaration and Japanese Instrument of Surrender by themselves are primary sources that by themselves can reasonably be cited only as to what they themselves say. Interpretations of the significance of these items would require secondary sources. If you're interested in the details, I'd like to recommend checking out the article legal status of Taiwan for an incomplete list of interpretations, both pro and con. Whether the JIS returned sovereignty of Taiwan is the mainstream view or simply a mainstream view is, believe it or not, widely disputed. Ngchen (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)