Talk:Two Chinas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

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)

You can edit this page without someone there to "let" you do it. This is Wikipedia. Don't be shy. Äþelwulf Talk to me. 08:37, 12 August 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)

Not really, the internationally accepted interpretation, for example used by the UN, of international law holds that the PRC has succeeded the ROC to the sovereignty of China, including Taiwan. Hence, de jure there is only "one China" by the most commonly accepted view of the laaw. Thus, there are only "two Chinas" on a de facto basis. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't change the statement to say that their are two China's de jure because, as you say, a lot of people will say that there is only 1 China de jure. However, that doesn't imply that there are 2 China's de facto. A possibility is that there is 1 China and 1 Taiwan de facto. You'll find that whatever the claim, there are planty of people and plenty of reasons to dispute it, so I think we either need to leave it out or write up the opinions of all sides.Readin 00:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have edited the bottom sections to clear up some errors - but the first titled section still needs to be edited - I don't like the definitive conclusion that "thus there are Two Chinas", for example. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can just get rid of the sentence "Hence there "Two Chinas"". The beginning of the article says that the "Two Chinas" are the PRC and the ROC. Does it need to be restated? As a minor rewording, I would take the sentences before that and turn them into past tense because they is in a section labeled 1912 to 1949. "The People's Republic of China refused to recognise the government of Republic of China in Taiwan, and claimed that the ROC ceased to exist after 1949. However, the government in Taiwan continued to call itself the "Republic of China" and refused to recognize the People's Republic of China." The next section can describe the current situation regarding recognition, as it does in its first sentence. What do you think?Readin 07:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Why I Yanked Phrase About HK and Macau's Autonomy

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)

Description of Areas Controlled by ROC

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)

That's it

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)

Background section

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)