Talk:Taiwan independence movement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

no need to sugar coat stuff

There is no need to sugar coat "Japanese colonialzation" by "Japanese nationalism" The nationalism can only be justified when Taiwan officially expresses its will to joint Japan. Xplorer 09:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please start adding Reference

Hi all. This article consist lots of points that require reference. Please starting to do so, especially the sections on the "History." It will give this article a professional and meaningful touch.

Xplorer 08:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Taiwan_independence&action=edit Edit this page Are we allowed to editorialize in this space? If not just erase then...

Not really. The talk namespace is for discussion directly related to improving the article, not a 50 KB essay on the subject. See Wikipedia:Talk page. -- Tim Starling 06:32 23 Jun 2003 (UTC)

---

Someone needs to add information about the TI movement under Japanese rule. This is a topic I personally find fascinating, but which no one seems to want to talk about. User:Roadrunner

...the other two being that Taiwan develops an atomic bomb, or if Taiwan comes under "foreign interference." The above sentences is wrong according to the PR China Government's white paper. They say: However, if a grave turn of events occurs leading to the separation of Taiwan from China in any name, or if Taiwan is invaded and occupied by foreign countries, or if the Taiwan authorities refuse, sine die, the peaceful settlement of cross-Straits reunification through negotiations,... So we have to modify this sentence.

According to Five triggers for a Chinese attack on Taiwan, there are five triggers the PRC has made clear either explicitly or implicitly. It adds to the three from the white paper, but it may be more accurate, since not all PRC policy are expressed through white papers.

The first paragraph, before I changed it, was POV, as it assumed Taiwan really is a province of the PRC. But this is exactly what is in dispute; if it weren't, there wouldn't be all this Taiwan sovereignty or independence talk, and US intervention blah blah blah.

There are countless "triggers" which will lead to Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

China can use any excuse as a "trigger" to attck Taiwan, simply because ROC on Taiwan is an illegitimate Chinese government instead of a state.

Pal, you have every right to say your opinions, but if you are trying to convince someone else here, you'd better come up with something more concrete instead of biased gibberish.--G.S.K.Lee 10:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

-- Maybe this is important to be added? This statement in a recent news article in Reuters surprised me. Short of quoting the article, it implies that the US is bound legally to defend Taiwan?. The US is bound by which law? This seems to be this one to which Reuters refers? The Taiwan Relations Act Section 2 (b)(2); "It is the policy of the United states to declare that peace and stability in the area are in the political, security, and economic interests of the United States, and are matters of International concern." maybe its just interpretation --Trode 06:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Response to your remark

What I meant was, that ROC is the legitimate Chinese government until 1971. PRC succeeded ROC as the legitimate Chinese government in 1971. According to international law on succeding governments, the rights and duties of the old government transferred to the new government. Therefore ROC/Taiwan is a part of China at this moment and consequently any actions taken by PRC against Taiwan fall within the Chinese domestic jurisdiction.--User:213.148.229.221

A strongly biased Chinese arguement. The old ROC with the Chinese mandate may be succeeded by PRC. However, that ROC with Chinese mandate did not have legal sovereignty of Taiwan according to international law and the treaties. Thus, if anything to be succedded by PRC, it would only Qingmoy and Matsu but absolutely not Taiwan. The current ROC government was given a mandate from Taiwanese people. It is important to take note of the difference between the two states: the old and the new ROC. Moreover, accroding to the laws of War and occupation, even this current ROC is only a regime occupying Taiwan after the WWII and not necessarily have sovereignty over Taiwan. One can get a more neutral presentation of legal arguements from both sides on this regard from the articel legal status of Taiwan.Mababa 01:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it a widely known fact that China, represented by ROC at the time, regained the sovereignty of Taiwan from Japan after WWII? According to international law, the Chinese government DOES have a legitimate right on Taiwan. You can argue it's unfair, or "biased international law", but that's what the fact is.

Transfers of sovereignty are accomplished by treaty. In the San Francisco Peace Treaty, which entered into force in 1952, Japan formally and legally relinquished sovereignty over Taiwan and numerous other Pacific island holdings. Since in the case of Taiwan the treaty does not stipulate to whom sovereignty was transferred then neither the PRC nor the ROC has a legal claim to sovereignty over the island. It has been argued that, legally, sovereignty still rests in trust with the United States as principal occupying power after WWII, as it did with the likes of Guam, Somoa and the Philippines. There was an interesting US court case decided last year in which the Washington, DC, US district court largely upheld this view.

To User:213.148.229.221 - "PRC succeeded ROC as the legitimate Chinese government in 1971." You are presumably referring to the UN's recognition of the PRC as the legitimate government of China. But the UN has no legal authority to determine issues either of sovereignty or legitimacy. Its decision was made only with respect to which government occupies China's UN seat and duties. In any case, even were we to assume this argument, we would need to demonstrate that the ROC legally held sovereignty over Taiwan prior to 1971 in order to argue that Taiwanese sovereignty transferred to the PRC at that point. For obvious reasons, that is not an argument the PRC wishes to make.

wow y'all are sum kinda political freaks haha just playin. well da main thin' is during da communist rebellion in china, taiwan wasn't part of china during dat time and when japan lost da war and gave taiwan to ROC and afta da gov. was driven out of mainland, they came to taiwan, so taiwan obviously is still part of ROC. the transfer of state theory is not workable since ROC still exist at da moment, ratha it is more like a boundary change--Freestyle.king 04:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Japan did not give Taiwan to the ROC. It surrendered sovereignty over the island in the 1952 San Francisco Peace Treaty, but did not stipulate to whom sovereignty was being transferred. Thus sovereignty over the island remains in legal limbo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.38.86.91 (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

- In fact, when Chairman Mao declares the establisment of PRC on the 1st of October, 1949, in the opening speech in Tianmen Square he stated that PRC abolishes old legitimacy, old constitution and PRC changes the national title and national flag. PRC's constitution defines that historically ROC preceds PRC and Taiwan is a province of PRC which is similar from what 2006 PRC Anti-Sucession law describes.

ROC's constitution had several popular amendments in Taiwan, now with seven amendments. Taiwan independence supporters want to have independence out of ROC.

Multiple definitons

I think the lead section is too confusing. I don't think the statement "to formally declare that the Republic of China government in Taipei is (and has been) sovereign over the lands currently administered by the Republic of China" is really accurate since it's been stressed time and again by Taipei that the ROC is a sovereign state. We should go by the common definition - that Taiwan independence refers to the creation of an independent Republic of Taiwan. The DPP (according to its website at least) still states that the creation of the Republic of Taiwan is a goal. The current stance is only because "there is no consensus" to "declare independence". --Jiang 06:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I cut out the second definition in the lead, but I'm not sure whether to replace it with "Alternatively, lesser steps, such as declaring that the Republic of China is only sovereign over the areas it controls (as opposed to claiming all of China), are sometimes considered to be declaring Taiwan independence." It really gets murky here. --Jiang 06:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding 228 incident

To all friends: the 228 incident and its associated White Terror is a historical fact of Taiwan (“the government admits its past mistake and sincerely apologize for it.” Li Teng-Hui, Taiwan President), the denial of which would be akin to Holocaust denial. Neutrally and objectively speaking, discussion on the Taiwanese independence movement is incomplete without some reference to the incident, because the movement consists of its supporters, who are at least in part influenced by the incident. As such, please retain at least one reference to 228 in edits of the article. Random removal of the reference should be seen as vandalism. Thank you very much. Shawnc 12:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Archive of RFD nomination

The Taiwanese nationalism → Taiwanese independence redirect was nominated for deletion at WP:RFD on December 6, 2005. The result of the nomination is that Taiwanese nationalism has been redirected to Taiwan independence to avoid a double redirect. The nomination is archived below in accordance with RFD policy. → Ξxtreme Unction {^yakł_blah} 11:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Taiwanese nationalism → Taiwanese independence (effectively a double redirect) -- Taiwanese nationalism is not synonymous with Taiwanese independence. Taiwanese nationalism is the promotion of Taiwan as a nation, while Taiwanese independence is the promotion of Taiwan as a state. You can have a Taiwanese nation (such as by promoting a Taiwanese culture that is separate from Chinese culture) but no independent Republic of Taiwan, just like there is a Tibetan nationality, but no independent Tibet. We can perhaps say that the Democratic Progressive Party, in playing identity politics, favors a Taiwanese nation, but is not promoting Taiwanese independence through the Five Noes.--Jiang 00:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Section(s) removed until valid references are provided (Everyone is welcome to add to this section

However, the fact that the Chinese government gives no voice to the 30% of the people who support a form of independence and even states that it will attack Taiwan "if it drags China's feets" (meaning opposition to the indefinite maintenance of status quo that certain anti-unification elements such as KMT legislator John Chang) shows that if China does take aggressive moves against Taiwan, it will be doing so for the support of only five percent of the 22 million Taiwan residents. Whether a country that is striving for social democracy is willing to risk its crediblity by violating the self-determination rights of the 22 million people of Taiwan is an issue that is worth observing in the coming years. Xplorer 04:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

If you cannot even know the population of Taiwan, stop writing. It is 24 millions, not 22 --Xplorer 04:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I also removed the following from the same user:

However, unofficial surveys conducted in China by international agencies shows that 70% of mainland Chinese people do not even care whether Taiwan should be part of China. Moreover, Chinese government repeatedly fails to recognize that a significant population of Taiwan, not just the minority they claim to, actually supports some form of political separation. The fact that a world power would blindly ignore this reality suggest that its strict adherence to the "One China Principle" is a political card for to hang on to the legitimacy it has in ruling China.

The surveys in questions need to be cited. And the last sentence is blatantly pov, unverifiable speculation. --Jiang 01:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to upload a graph from The Mainland Affairs Council, ROC[[1]]. It is a line chart of polling data on Taiwan public opinion regarding Unification or Independence between Aug. 1999 and Apr. 2006. I understand the interpreation to this chart will be subjective. So, I will point out one of the crossing points and let the readers to form their own opinions. However, I think the source of this data is very important for academic research and I hope wiki users could keep it there. --Chcyang 08:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing it. —Nightstallion (?) 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to upload the file but it was deleted immediately. Therefore, I would leave the web link here[[2]]. Maybe I will try to insert it into the section "Support" if I can figure out a way to do so.--Chcyang 16:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing Bias and incorrect grammar

There are several parts of this article which are definately biased. Particularly toward the PROC position and the entry is obviously not that of an English Speaker because the grammar was very bad. Anyways, I have removed "about his non-supporting toward's Taiwan independence, aligning with the Chinese President's interest," because the US has a One-China policty, but the US policy does not align with the interests of the Chinese president, because the US supports a free and democratic Taiwan, if not independent from China. I replaced that sentence with a neutral-standpoint which doesn't state alignment of interests with US policy, rather, the simple fact that officialy the US supports a single, unified China, at the moment, formalized peacefully and no-coercively. Infinitelink 22:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Added NPOV warning tag, this article is full of bias towards the PRC. Shaun Eccles-Smith 04:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC).

Can you elaborate (beyond what Infinitelink has already corrected for)?--Jiang 04:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No Criticism Section?

Why is there no criticism section to discuss the POV of those who oppose TI? It does not neccessarily have to contain only those POVs from the CCP, but also those from the KMT or third party observers. Here's an article from a former professor of mine we could use, and I happen to agree with his views on this issue: Taiwan Voters Slow Independence Push--Lssah 88 15:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case, there would have to be a similar section for Chinese reunification. Given that there isn't (and that it would probably lead to many disputes), perhaps it's best if actually we keep the same format for both pages. John Smith's 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Besides, I think getting an article from the "Calgary Herald" is a bit daft just because he's an ex-prof of yours. There are plenty of commentaries by larger newspapers/organisations. John Smith's 16:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The Calgary Herald wages its own media war against Quebec separatism. Every time the editors look at an independence movement elsewhere on the planet, they see it through this distorting lense. They are well-known for their blunt editorial style, calling Québécois an their elected leaders "nazis" whenever they feel like it. I wouldn't use articles coming from this newspaper as a credible reference if the subject is a national independence movement. Hugo Dufort 09:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

//Can someone add an "Arguments for and against" section? I've been trying to get TIers (haha, Taiwanese Independence or Tibetan Independence? Texas Independence anyone?) to explain their point of view, but it always tended to degenerate into a flamefest. :( 195.225.107.17 15:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

...

I deleted the "Taiwan Province" under the picture under "Support", because Taiwan Province doesn't exist.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jerrypp772000 (talk • contribs) .

It does as an administrative division under the Republic of China. License plates in Taiwan often carry the designation for "Taiwan Province" (台灣省).--Jiang 00:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This division has no leader and is in the process of being formally dissolved. Nostalgiphile 20:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It also exists under the People's Republic of China system. AQu01rius (User | Talk | Websites)  00:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Move

I reverted the move to "Taiwan independence". This not just a movement; it is a concept with different interpretations. One of these interpretations is that Taiwan independence already exists and is not something that needs to be attained.

Besides, "use common names" calls for using "Taiwan independence" as the article title over "Taiwan independence movement"--Jiang 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

"right-wing political movement" is POV

I suggest using the term "right-wing" for the Taiwan independence movement is highly POV. It could equally be describe as an anti-imperialist left-wing Liberation movement advocating the right of self-determination. I know that sentence was POV in the opposite direction, I was just making a point. TiffaF 15:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As the movement has and is very much supportive of Japanese and American imperialism and is strongly capitalistic, it could hardly be considered left-wing at all.

View of other powers

I deleted the following phrase although historically it was held by the other major signatory powers with regard to the view that the SFPT's ambiguity meant that Chinese claims on Taiwan were invalid. The statement is uncited, and I know of no evidence of this. If someone can reliably source this statement, feel free to add it back. Thanks. Ngchen 02:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Gibberish in the "Significance" section

The statement:

However, this interpretation of the Taiwan Relations Act is somewhat flawed. The President of the United States, an act of Congress signed by the President, or a declaration of war would be required to approve of military action, just as they do normally for other conflicts.

Grammatically makes no sense. I'm not quite certain what the author means to say as I have no expertise or knowledge on the subject, so I will not undertake to correct it and will leave it to others.

--Thistledowne 21:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this section and the following one should be merged under a general heading like "Interpretations of Taiwan Independence". N0574 (talk) 03:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

History of the Taiwanese Independence Movement

This section begins with details of different "occupying" powers, but then somewhat repeats itself in listing these, along with some others, again: "the people of Taiwan have been occupied in partial or in whole by various groups from the 1600s, the Dutch, the Manchu, Koxinga and the Ming dynasty loyalists, the French, the Qing dynasty, the Japanese, and then by Chinese nationalists". The rest of the section does little to clarify what is meant by "the people of Taiwan". Correct me if I'm wrong (with references please), but, apart from the Pescadores, Chinese colonization of Taiwan was virtually non-existent until Koxinga kicked out the Dutch. If we are trying to state that Koxinga and the Ming loyalists were, like the Dutch, colonizers of Taiwan's aboriginal peoples, (Amis, Atayal, Tsui...and the others), we should make that clear. However, it seems to me - I don't really know - that Taiwanese Aborigines are not the main proponents of independence; the descendants of 17th to 19th century Fujianese and Haka Han peoples are those who we would most associate with Taiwanese independence. Then I must ask when the French get involved? I never knew of this. I thought the Spanish were in the south for a short while before the Dutch become dominant, but I never heard of a French colonial presence. Clarifications with references would be greatly appreciated. 74.56.160.212 10:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit war over who China says should decide Taiwan's future

Please stop the edit war. The changes to say China thinks decision should be made by "all China" is a step in the right direction because the sentence is describing China's view. Using something similar to China's phrasing makes sense. However as written it is probably a step too far toward the PRC POV. If inflammatory non-neutral words like "Taiwan Province" are to be used, then they should be in quotes to make it clear that they are coming from PRC, not from Wikipedia editors, and a citation needs to be provided for the quotes. Does anyone know where that year 2000 white paper can be found?

This seems like a case where a compromise wording can be found rather than the repeated reverts. Perhaps something like this?

In the 2000 White Paper, the Chinese government stated that the people of Taiwan do not have the right to determine their own fate by declaring independence through a referendum or otherwise because such a decision must be approved by the people of mainland China too. The paper further stated that unification is the only option.

The "approved by the people of mainland China too" would probably read better if it said "approved by 'all Chinese'" or something like that, but until the white paper is found and we can dig up a quote we shouldn't use 'all Chinese' in this context as it would violate NPOV. Readin (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Found a link to the paper here [3] but I don't have time to dig into it right now. Readin (talk) 04:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I dug far enough to find this wording used by China in saying why Taiwanese can't determine their own future: "The sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to all the Chinese people including Taiwan compatriots, and not to some of the people in Taiwan.".Readin (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten it to say

In the 2000 White Paper, the Chinese government stated that the people of Taiwan do not have the right to determine their own fate by declaring independence through a referendum or otherwise because "The sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to all the Chinese people including Taiwan compatriots, and not to some of the people in Taiwan."[6] The paper further stated that unification with mainland China is the only option.[7]

and provided a links to a copy of the white paper.Readin (talk) 20:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo independence influence

I removed this paragraph

The United Nations acceptance of the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence has been on watch by the PRC. Beijing has bluntly and publicly denied Taiwan any push for independence. Conflicting views arise from both sides with the PRC declaring Taiwan has no rights, and the separatists emphasizing on democracy and freedom. Su Tseng-chang of the Democratic Progressive Party has said that Kosovo has about 2 million people determined to be their own masters, while Taiwan has 23 million people with a solid democratic foundation.

Kosovo has not had an important influence on Taiwan's independence. While there are certainly parallels and one could write a high-school essay to compare and contrast the situations, the Kosovo situation has provoked merely the same old arguments from both China and Taiwan. en If someone feels strongly that the paragraph belongs in the article, please rework it. I looked at the Times of India reference and didn't find some of the statements that it appears the ref should support. Also the word "separatist" is pov pushing and should be changed. Readin (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you have sources saying Kosovo has no influence at all? You are welcome to fix the wording, but the reason for denying the connection really isn't acceptable. Is not like we are mentioning Quebec independence. Considering the communist party avoid commenting on taiwanese independence unless necessary, this is front page news on xinhua sources. There are many types of independence, this one is without a doubt relevant because of the UN motion. Benjwong (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not have credible sources saying that Kosovo has no influence at all on Taiwan Independence, nor do I have credible sources saying the amount of snowfall in Antarctica last year didn't affect Taiwanese Independence. If you want to include something the burden of proof that it deserves inclusion is on the includer. The argument that China has commented on it or that it is front page news doesn't make it encyclopedic information regarding Taiwan Independence. Pretty much anytime Taiwan makes international news or does anything where it behaves like any other state, China makes a statement about how Taiwan has no right to do so, and Taiwan makes a statement that of course it has right to do so. If Taiwan manages to establish diplomatic relations with Kosovo, then we can add the info to the page on Taiwan's diplomatic relations. But for now, the fact that China has repeated for the upteenth time that Taiwan shouldn't have international relations while Taiwan has reiterated for the upteenth time that it has every right to have international releations, is not providing any additional information about the topic of Taiwan Independence.Readin (talk) 17:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan does not actually need to establish direct diplomatic relations with kosovo for their independence to be relevant (especially for wiki). Benjwong (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I still plan to remove the section unless someone can provide a good reason for keeping it. But for now I've removed the POV word "separatists". If you are going to insist on including something, you should at least take responsibility for making sure it meets our NPOV policy and not just tell others it's their job to fix your work. The paragraph needs more work than I have time to do right now. Readin (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The kosovo declaration is a few days old. It really is just a starting point. Where I partially agree with you is that it might materialize to nothing. For example if the upcoming Taiwan election doesn't even mention kosovo at all, then yes I would consider deleting it. The chance of that? PRC is not going to come out and say "Kosovo went indepedent with UN's help. Taiwan might too". If you are looking for a reason this obvious to make wikipedia, you won't find it anytime soon. The relevance is all in the procedures. Who else agrees with Kosovo, are these the same people agreeing with taiwan independence etc. Threats, more anti-independencelaws? This should go well past 2009. Benjwong (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This was not mentioned (at least that I see) in the 2008 taiwan election. The section is removed. Benjwong (talk) 06:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan independence and People's Republic of China's future

I want to discuss some political issues about Taiwan and People's Republic of China. This is a complicated issue because it is
related too many factors, such as history, political environment, economic environment, and so on. I would like to
correct some common misunderstanding for the Taiwan independence.

   1.What is the issue between Taiwan and China? The answer is secessionism. 
            1.1 The secessionism exists in both developed countries and developing countries. Many people misunderstand that 
the secessionism just exist in developing countries. I can make many example for the secessionism happened in 
developed
 country. In history, there is Kingdom of Hawaii in U.S.A.

            1.2 The secessionism also exists in democracy country. 

            1.3 After realizing some misunderstanding, we can define the origin of the secessionism.

   2.   What does the secessionism endanger Taiwan and China?

   3.   What is the attitude from US to this issue? This quesion is sub-divided into three history periods:

            3.1  From 1948 to 1992, the government in Taiwan dose not chase the secessionism, but the US government supports 
them to do it.

            3.2  From 1992 to 2004, the government in Taiwan chases the secessionism, and the US government supports them to 
do it.

            3.3  From 2004 to now, the government in Taiwan chases the secessionism, but the US government does not support them to do it.

  4.   Is there any peaceful ways to solve this problem?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001beibei (talk • contribs) 19:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC) 

This isn't really a discussion forum for political views. It is a forum for discussing article content. Your premise Taiwan's desire for formal recognition of independence is secessionism is clearly a point of view (POV) that is noted in the article but is not the only POV noted in the article nor should it be the only POV in the article.Readin (talk) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

KMT is right wing and DPP is left wing?

I wouldn't quite say that. Maybe it was the original intention of the DDP to be a left leaning party before it gained presidency. The history of the last 8 years doesn't really prove that and also when I did a quick google search on "DPP Left wing" in chinese "民進黨 左派", the first link said that the KMT and DPP have swapped their perceived traditional territory, and the rest of the links from the google search mostly consider that the DPP has departed from their left leaning position.

I can recall Chen Shui-bian said the following in his 4 Wants and one Without speech:-

"台灣沒有左右路線，只有統獨的問題"

And wiki translates it as:-

"Taiwanese politics is without the question of left or right, but only the national question of unification with China or Taiwan independence. "

Should we just get rid of the left wing and right wing paragraph in the article? I don't think it's informative or even relevant within the scope of the article.--Pyl (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably yes, because Western readers will associate those left-right wing things with their own nationalistic and social focused parties. 87.184.4.95 (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Opening sentence

We should change the current "Taiwan independence is a political movement whose goal is primarily to create an independent and sovereign Republic of Taiwan out of the lands currently administered by the Republic of China (ROC) and claimed by the People's Republic of China (PRC)."

into the broader and more neutral

"Taiwan independence is a political movement whose goal is primarily to turn lands controlled by the Republic of China into into an internationally recognized independent and sovereign republic of Taiwan."

• Supporters of Taiwan's independence have various goals. Some insist on changing the name to "Republic of Taiwan" while other simply want the republic (small r) to be identified with Taiwan or simply want to avoid interfence from China.

• International recognition is an important goal to many Taiwan independence supporters - more important than a formal name change. These people argue that Taiwan is already sovereign and independent as the ROC, they just need international recognition for that fact.

• The current opening sentence suggests that TI supporters want to carve up the ROC. Is anyone proposing that? I thought TI supporters wanted all of what is now the ROC to be part of the internationally republic of Taiwan.

• "Administered" needs to go. I'll make that change. "Administered" suggests you're doing it on behalf of someone else - "governed" is more neutral. See Talk:Taiwan#.22Administer.22_versus_.22Govern.22 for more information.

Readin (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

PRC or China

"Beijing's military actions in 1996 failed to influence the outcome of the elections. That and other actions such as the creation of the Anti-Secession Law that claimed the PRC had the right to use military force against Taiwan increased the view among ordinary Taiwanese that China is a hostile, enemy nation and therefore they do not want to be part of that nation. "

Externally, the question of Taiwan independence is tied to maintaining independence from the PRC. Internally, it is tied heavily to recognition that Taiwan is not part of China. For example, pan-blue supporters who hate the PRC and want to keep Taiwan out of the PRC's clutches are not considered independence supporters when they insist Taiwan is "part of China".

The statement above is talking about the effect on the population of Taiwan. After the events described, polls in Taiwan showed an increase in people who consider themselves "Taiwanese only" as opposed to "Taiwanese and Chinese". I doubt there was any change in the number of people who considered themselves "PRC and ROC" as opposed to "simply ROC".

China is therefore the correct word in this context. Readin (talk) 14:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Readin's right. China is correct. That's why in my last edit, I did:-

"China" is associated with the image of a hostile enemy nation...

I thought the quotation marks help the readers to understand that "China" here means the concept of China in general and it doesn't just mean the PRC. But maybe the quotation marks didn't achieve that purpose that's why Readin removed that.--pyl (talk) 14:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. It is certainly true that the PRC scored no popularity points during that period; in fact, the PRC lost a good deal of whatever popularity it had. That being said, the hostility is primarily toward the PRC, right? How much of it was directed toward the pan-blue supporters? And who precisely does "ordinary Taiwanese" refer to? Perhaps the statement should be qualified as referring solely to TI supporters, since TI opponents tended to view things very differently. Finally, I'm afraid this whole part is drifting into the realm of original research. Ngchen (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It is true that the whole paragraph lacks citation and it has a lot of speculations but that's another issue.

The sentence is talking about China in general. The fact that the PRC did all those nasty things to Taiwan made ordinary people in Taiwan have a bad image of the PRC as well as China in general, so the people in Taiwan don't want to part of the PRC, and they don't even want to be part of China at all. They just want to be Taiwan.

The editor who wrote the sentence didn't make any distinction between pan-blues and pan-greens. The editor was just talking about the ordinary people in Taiwan generally, just anyone walking on the streets in Taiwan. That's why when I changed all "Chinas" to the PRC on 10 May this year, I left that one alone because that one "China" was intended by the editor. The statement may be original research, but China (not just the PRC) was the intended word in that statement.--pyl (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So is it your contention that the ordinary people walking the streets, even the blue supporters, became hostile toward "China?" Such an extraordinary statement cannot be allowed to stand w/o strong citations. If no one can come up with them, then perhaps the whole paragraph needs to be deleted. AFter all, no information is superior to wrong information. Ngchen (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what I meant. That statement was not my contention, I was just explaining to you what the editor who wrote the statement intended to mean. I didn't write that statement.

I agree that statement may violate the no original research rule or other rules of Wikipedia. Maybe you want to approach it that way?--pyl (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Passport cover (again)

I see that someone had added the passport cover image to this page. IIRC, the cover was a privately produced one, and has no official status. If such is the case, then either the image should be removed, or the caption should clearly state that said cover is unofficial. Ngchen (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

We removed the image from a different article - I can't remember which one but we had good reason for removing it because of it's (to the best of our knowledge) unofficial status. This page is different in that it is specifically about Taiwan independence which at this point is unofficial. I think the cover is fine here as an example of TI sentiment and the practicalities of attempting to travel on a confusingly labeled passport. However, we should still try to get more information about the cover so we can accurately describe below the picture. Readin (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to say clearly whether it is official or unofficial, but I don't know for sure. Hopefully what I've written at least doesn't leave any impression that it is official. Readin (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)