This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
What are the purposes of a government in exile? What functions do they carry on while in exile? 24.54.208.177 17:13, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
They form an alliance with another country and try to win their people's independence from whoever conquered them.--24.240.186.152 (talk) 01:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Actions
I have added a section regarding Actions which a government in exile may undertake. Hopefully other persons can add to this listing. Hmortar 14:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
These are the functions that they can do, But other than Tibet and the SADR how many perfom any other action besides seeking support to gain power? CK6569 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Republic of China
The Republic of China on Taiwan is a government in exile and should be added to this listing. Hmortar 15:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
As I have noted, the claim is a fringe one. Now, how do we determine whether a claim is fringe or not? Per WP:FRINGE, a reasonable method of separating fringe from non-fringe theories is to see whether the theory has any prominent adherents. Your turn please. BTW, I don't know if you're personally involved in the Taiwan Nation Party and their lawsuit vs the US Government, but if you are, please consider the possible conflict of interest. Thanks.Ngchen 15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Based on this criteria, it is clear that Ngchen regards Copernicus' views on the earth revolving the sun as a fringe theory. Certainly, the only person advocating the Copernican doctrine in 1514 and thereafter was Copernicus himself. Obviously, no one in the government, or in the church, agreed with Copernicus' "unsupported" theories.
But, moving along to a more constructive argument, a much more reasonable method of separating fringe from non-fringe theories is to see what the theory can explain. For example, no one can explain the contradiction that "If Taiwan is a sovereign nation, when what is the purpose of the Shanghai Communique" ?? Or "Why does the PRC refuse to allow the usage of the terminology of REPUBLIC OF CHINA in the international community, but at the same time when the government in Taiwan expresses the desire to change this name, the PRC expresses very vocal opposition" ?? Or even better, "Why is it that despite all the democratic changes which have taken place in Taiwan in the last 15 or 20 years, the island is still treated as the orphan of the international community and ignored by the United Nations" ?
The answer would appear to be that this (which Ngchen calls a "fringe theory") is actually 100% correct, in other words, the legal position of the ROC on Taiwan is (1) a subordinate occupying power, beginning Oct. 25, 1945, and (2) a government in exile, beginning mid-December 1949. Today, Taiwan remains as occupied territory, and the principal occupying power is the United States of America. THESE FACTS (which Ngchen chooses to ignore) are in full conformity to the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty, which is the highest ranking document of international law regarding the legal status of Taiwan in the post-WWII era. By the way, I don't know if Ngchen is personally involved in the Taiwan independence movement, and their application to join various international bodies under the name of "Taiwan," but if he is, please consider the possible conflict of interest.
Please sign your posts. Anyway, in terms of politics, there is no objective way to prove something right or wrong, and even if there were, it would be original research. See WP:OR, as another editor had noted. W/r/t the whole "sovereign nation" mess, well if one believes in the validity of the Taiwan retrocession back in 1945 (I know most TI supporters do not) then everything makes sense. Also see WP:WEIGHT and WP:SOAP. Thanks. I stand by my claim that the proposal is fringe, due to the lack of prominent adherents. And yes, you're correct that the heliocentric theory was fringe in its day; the proper course of action then is not to promote it in Wikipedia, but rather to publish it in peer-reviewed journals where OR is welcomed. Once it gets prominent adherents, it would then merit being included here. Ngchen 14:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
ROC's government is not in exile: it operates from within its claimed territory (Taipei). The fact that Taipei only is a provisional capital (the official capital, Nanking, being occupied by Mao Tse-Tungs followers) is irrelevant here. (130.237.227.200 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC))
The point is that the ROC's "claimed territory" of Formosa and the Pescadores does not belong to the ROC. There are no official legal documents which can prove that the territorial sovereignty of these areas have been ceded to the ROC. Hmortar (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Argument of ROC government is not a government in exile can only be validated if Taiwan was indeed retroceded to China after World War 2. However, that is not a fact. ROC government currently asserts de facto control of Taiwan and it is recognized by the world, but the ROC's ownership of Taiwan is not recognized by anyone but the ROC its self. In fact, the ROC even acknowledged its lack of ownership of Taiwan when the ROC legislative yuan questioned YEH KUNG-CHAO for not having Japanese agreed to include Taiwanese territorial sovereignty transfer in the Treaty of Taipei. Yeh testified to the congress that it was simply not Japan's position to give away something it no longer owns. If retrocession has been done, then it would have been mentioned clearly on the final legally binding treaty and the ROC legislators would not have asked those question. Retrocssion by definition also means "To cede or give back (a territory, for example)", no such actions were done by Japan to return Taiwan to China or ROC. For an important matter such as settlement of territorial disposition normally requires a signed and ratified treaty, especially for the biggest war of the history of mankind. In fact, the original draft of SF Peace Treaty indeed clearly stated Japan's action of returning Taiwan, the draft stated "Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the islands of Taiwan and adjacent minor islands[.]" Intention of retrocession of Taiwan is VERY CLEAR. The record of this draft may be obtained from memorandum from Hugh Borton to Charles E Bohlen: Draft Treaty of Peace of Japan, State Department Decimal File No. 740.0011 PW(PEACE)/8-647 CS/W, State Department Records, Record Group 59 (August 6, 1947) Memorandum, Background of Draft of Japanese Peace Treaty, State Department Records, Record Group 59 (Jan 30, 1948). The language was removed from the treaty due to the fact there was no one single legitimate China at the time of SFPT signing, and it was the decision of the world to leave Taiwan status unsettled. No retrocession happened and that is an undisputed fact. If that is the case, ROC government is operating on a foreign land it has no ownership of, and that makes ROC a government in exile.Mafia godfather (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
What you are saying sounds like an extraordinary claim, and original research. Such claims need to be backed up by reliable sources. The ROC clearly had de facto control over the Island of Formosa after World War II. What you are saying is that Japan has De jure sovereignty over Formosa during and since the end of World War II, a position that the Japanese Government doesn't even take. Until consensus is reached, and as past consensus was that ROC is not a government in exile, as it remains within its own claimed territory, the entry will be removed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
It is not an original research, it is simply a political fact and reality. De facto control does not constitute ownership as we can clearly see from US military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and that does not mean the US then have de jure sovereignty over Iraq and Afghanistan. I have already addressed the "de facto argument" and the objective to use de facto contol as a way to justify ROC's ownership claim over Taiwan is its self unverifiable and invalid. There is no reliable sources out there that can justify ROC's claim of ownership over Taiwan's territorial sovereignty. there is also no reliable sources out there that can prove ROC government is NOT a government in exile. What I am saying, and you would understand if you actually read what I have written, is that Taiwan belongs to no one. That applies to ROC government as well. If ROC government is on a land it does not own, then it is a government in exile by prevailing definition. From what I can see, a new concensus needs to be reached because none of the participants in the past have sufficient knowledge in the matter to make educated decision. You are welcomed to review the discussion in the page about Second Sino-Japanese War, where the concensus is reached about "retrocession" did not happen. If retrocession did not happen, then ROC could not be a governing authority of a land it owns, then it is a government in exile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Sino-Japanese_War#territorial_changesMafia godfather (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Ngchen, can you provide any reliable or verifiable evidence that can prove ROC indeed is the de jure owner of Taiwan? Or ROC government is not a government in exile? So far, the evidences I have provided to support my case in another discussion are all reliable and verifiable.Mafia godfather (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the dispute exists is amply documented at legal status of Taiwan. The classic violation of the neutral point of view policy takes place when editors take one side of a real-world dispute, and present that side as the "truth." Alternatively, violations also occur when a minority position is presented as if it were a majority one, per the undue weight rule. Ngchen (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Stating facts is not a violation of NPOV, especially the facts can be proven from various sources without needing to use reasoning as a medium. Controversy over legal status of Taiwan does not negate the fact that the ROC government does not have de jure sovereignty of Taiwan. Also, it does not eliminate the controversy of ROC government's claim over Taiwan. If every POV presented is controversial, then the position of ROC government is NOT a government in exile is also controversial. Not to mention, ROC government is not even recognized by the world to be an independent sovereign country with capacity as one. As we can see the ROC government as a government in exile is not a minor view especiually when the world endorses One China policy per UN resolution 2758, you are basically questioning my motive for editing as to promote Taiwanese independence, but I am not. I am simply saying ROC government is a governing authority on a land it does not own, and that clearly fits into the definition of GiE. Your view that ROC government is NOT a government in exile may perhaps be the minority view after all, can you name one reliable source that can prove its validity? Let me show you an excerpt from John Dulles during his meeting with Premier of Burma in the 1950's.
The top paragraph pretty much states Taiwan was ceded to no one and Japan merely renounced its rights. It is not just an argument, it was intended to be that way from the get-go. Therefore, ROC government has never acquired the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan. Mafia godfather (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, just a side note, Legal Status of Taiwan is one of the worst wiki pages ever. I did say I might go and clean it up some day, but it is pretty much a collection of rants of people from all sides who really do not know much about the relevant history or valid logical reasoning, and I am working on a project now so I really do not have much time to have edit war there. And just to be clear, it is not my objective to endorse any of the sides presented in legal status of Taiwan when I edit this page. So, please stop questioning my motive or classify me as one of those groups. ThanksMafia godfather (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
But you don't seem to understand that it is precisely the de jure sovereignty that is disputed. It's probably true that Dulles intended it to be a certain way; however, there's no reason to treat his views as determinative. We cannot take any single position on Taiwan's de jure sovereignty without violating NPOV. Ngchen (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Do you know who Dulles was? Mafia godfather (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
How would my knowledge or lack thereof about Dulles have any relevance? Your statement could be construed as a personal attack, by the way. I have not claimed that you're editing in any way due to your personal POV. Now, do you agree or disagree with my statement that "We cannot take any single position on Taiwan's de jure sovereignty without violating NPOV."? Ngchen (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I dont see how my harmless question would be anywhere remotely close as a personal attack. I simply asked that question because according to the reliable and verifiable source I just provided you, John Dulles was speaking in capacity as a US Secreatry of State. He was in a meeting with foreign senior official explaining the US policy on Taiwan. If you knew that, you would not have said "there's no reason to treat his views as determinative" because he was speaking on behalf of the US. Note how he did not say "I", but "We"? Also, Dulles was the one who not only helped drafted the SF Peace Treaty its self and also a signatory on the treaty. He is speaking both on behalf of te US AND primary source. If anything, Dulles has more say about the truth about Taiwan's status than anyone. The whole legal status of Taiwan originally becomes controversial and disputed because the ROC government decides to go against all international laws and claim Taiwan as its own, the fact ROC does not own Taiwan was not disputed before ROC done that. Ok? Also, the wiki page of legal status of Taiwan is more of a page spawned from debates by wiki users like you and me, it is not really a page about the ongoing debates started way before creation of wikipedia. I personally do not see bunch of wiki users fighting with their keybowards on legal status of Taiwan as a reliable way to determine the legal status of Taiwan is in fact in dispute. It is more of China's claim on Taiwan is in dispute. Mafia godfather (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Your question could be read as an insinuation of ignorance, which is why it could be read as a personal attack. Now, why should Dulles's views (and maybe by extension the US view) dominate? Again, do you agree or disagree with my statement "We cannot take any single position on Taiwan's de jure sovereignty without violating NPOV."? Ngchen (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
My question was crucial to my understanding of why you would discredit Dulles. Because I was expecting something even more significant from you to prove your point, I simply did not see why Dulles as scretary of state for the US and the co-author of SFPT(the very legal instrument that defined and determined the status of Taiwan after world war 2) would not have any weight when it comes to making a statement on Taiwan's status? You have the guy who wrote the treaty, tell you why he did it and what it does. What sort of reasoning prompt you to not trust him? You sources? Finally, I do not think that stating the fact that status of Taiwan is as of today undetermined is violating NPOV because it is simply a political reality and fact. Just like some people might still believe earth is flat, do you think taking the side of earth is round violates NPOV?Mafia godfather (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok, I think we'll have to take this issue to the NPOV noticeboard then. The idea that the ROC or some variant of "China" (hehe maybe the PRC) has sovereignty over Taiwan is far more mainstream than the flat earth theory. The notion that the SFPT is determinative, when no Chinese government signed it, is only one of several mainstream views; after all treaties cannot bind third parties. Anyway, I'll be posting a note on the dispute at the NPOV noticeboard to obtain outside input. Ngchen (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Please do. You know what is mainstream? One China. There is only one China, and that is not ROC. ROC is also not an internationally recognized country because that will violate UN resolution 2758. Chinese governments did not sign SFPT, but Article 21 of the treaty clearly addressed the interest of China that time in terms of its benefit as a non-signatory. The Treaty of Taipei signed by ROC and Japan clearly endorsed the SFPT, so your argument that "China did not sign it" is very weak, and hardly a mainstream view ... unless you want to go by number of people who may support it, then China would certainly win it because it has the largest population, bummer. China has to abide by the SFPT because it is a final peace treaty that settles the remaining questions of World War 2 between Japan and Allied Powers. China/ROC occupied Taiwan on behalf of Allied powers, of course they had to abide by it. I hate to ask you dumb questions again, but have you read the treaty before?Mafia godfather (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
For those interested the discussion on the noticeboard can be found here.
Keeping with WP:NEU, a compromise that may not violate WP:UNDUE is that it can be mentioned, outside of the table, with links to the relevant pages. That there is an opinion, one of many, that the RoC on the island of Formosa is a Government in Exile.
Taking multiple points of referenced material, and extrapolating new material with out references itself, does constitute WP:OR.
I am not doubting that the opinion is out there, and can be referenced (which was not done when the content was added); however, because it is not a mainstream view of the state of the RoC, then it shouldn't be presented as such. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast, I think what needs to be listed here is a fact as defined by prevailing definition. It is not really a "viewpoint" or perception. If we refer back to the source of error for validity of a fact, we may never get the fact right. It's like asking a convicted criminal if he or she is guilty, he or she would most definitely say no. Would you have asked HItler to see if he was a war criminal and take his word for it? If there are no reliable sources or evidences to prove ROC is NOT a government in exile, which I can see none of you can provide here... then we must look at this from other angles. Does ROC government fit the definition?
Wiki provides that...."A government in exile is a political group that claims to be a country's legitimate government, but for various reasons is unable to exercise its legal power, and instead resides in a foreign country. Governments in exile usually operate under the assumption that they will one day return to their native country and regain power." Princeton's WordNet provides that "(a temporary government moved to or formed in a foreign land by exiles who hope to rule when their country is liberated"http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=government-in-exile . The KEY elements are: government MOVED from its own land to a FOREIGN LAND. Other supporting elements may be the government "operate under the assumption that they will one day return to their native country and regain power."(sounds very old ROC propaganda of "recover mainland", don't you think?) What must happen is we need to have a government that moved... ROC did move its government from Nanjing to Taipei. The last piece of puzzle is whether or not Taiwan is a foreign land when ROC moved its government. From 1945 to 1952, Taiwan was an occupied territory of Allied Powers and belonged to Japanese Empire because per Hague II of 1899 Laws of War, a military occupation does not constitute territorial sovereignty transfer. Which is why the Japanese had the capacity to formally renounce the territorial sovereignty in San Francisco Peace Treaty(a treaty that is still in force today and endorsed by ROC with Treaty of Taipei). So, when ROC moved from China to Taiwan in 1949, Taiwan was a part of Japan. In 1951, Japan renounced the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan and the treaty came into force in 1952. Taiwan's sovereignty status was not ceded to anyone and thus resulted in a limbo cession status, the ROC government was still a government in exile operating on a foreign land! According to Secretary of state John Foster Dulles from the evidence I provided earlier, the disposition of Taiwan is undetermined even as of 1956. Nothing has changed since then about Taiwanese territorial sovereignty status. ROC government is a GiE from every angle you see it except ROC's own POV, and we dont ask a convicted whether he is guilty or not, right? Hope that makes sense. Mafia godfather (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast, you are a Republican man, maybe you would appreciate a little research article from Heritage Foundation. "There are also reports that Chiang's advisors convinced him that if the ROC mission stayed to represent Taiwan, Chiang would be under pressure to demonstrate in some constitutional way that his Chinese GOVERNMENT-IN-EXILE represented the people of Taiwan rather than the vast population of China" http://www.heritage.org/Research/asiaandthepacific/bg2146.cfm The bibliography would provide you the reference. Mafia godfather (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind that Legal status of Taiwan exists for the precise reason that disputes exist over who has sovereignty over Taiwan. While it may be true that Mafia godfather does not like that article, recall that not liking something is no reason for excluding something. That article, despite its problems, has existed for several years now and has been reviewed by quite a few editors of various political persuasions. And yes, I endorse RightCowLeftCoast's pointing out that taking one set of published arguments, and then concluding that said arguments are "the truth" and presenting them as such is original research and a synthesis. Not presenting the views of the PRC, ROC, Russia, and a host of other nations/governments clearly violates WP:NPOV. Finally, it's inapropriate how Mafia godfather tries to pull in US politics by appealing to RightCowLeftCoast as a Republican, in that it creates an appearance of partisan motives. Ngchen (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Ngchen, as I said earlier, the article of the legal status of Taiwan has no bearing in why or what I edit in this article. Questioning my motive and arbitrarily lump me in with one of the groups mentioned in that article will not help your argument at all. And the reason why I say using this wiki page as a basis to discredit the editing I have done on the GiE page is invalid because the controversy over legal status of Taiwan is really revolving around ROC's arbitrary claim over Taiwan's territorial sovereignty, not Taiwan its self. Taiwan's legal status is settled and uncertain, settled being it is officially a limbo cession under ROC government's care and uncrtain because Taiwanse people have yet to decide to replace ROC government with natively established government or not. It is like if Iraq being controlled by Coalition Provisional Authority for decades. The ROC government established a provincial government on Taiwan before the SFPT comes into force and claimed Taiwan has been "retroceded", that was premature and invalid. All the talks aside, would you show us any sources or information that can prove the fact i have presented is wrong? Or prove yours is right? Seems to me you are trying to go for discredit a fact with technicalities.
Let me ask you something, on the article Legal Status of Taiwan, it states "The legal status of Taiwan is a controversial issue which stems from the complex post-Second World War history of Taiwan. Various claims have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of China (ROC), and supporters of Taiwan independence over this question, with a variety of arguments advanced by all sides. The question has significant bearing on the political status of Taiwan and touches upon many aspects of international law. In practice, sovereignty over Taiwan is exercised by the Republic of China (commonly known as "Taiwan")." Where is the reference for this? Which reliable and verifiable source states that is the issue in the nut shell? I seriously doubt its validity. Mafia godfather (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Pretty much all other editors have objected to your approach as violating the neutrality policy to date. Let me try to answer some of your questions. First, there is what is known as "common knowledge." We do not have to cite that the sky is blue. If you're interested in citations from scholars supportive of the other theories, I direct you to the citations in Legal status of Taiwan. Anyone who knows anything about Taiwan at present knows that, regardless of the legalities or lack thereof, the ROC is exercising sovereignty over the island. Everyone knows that the active dispute over what entity has de jure sovereignty is controversial, and a source of potential conflict. A big differences between the Taiwan example and Iraq are as follows. No state has proclaimed itself sovereign over Iraq's territory, except for whatever Iraqi governments, while only the PRC and ROC claim Taiwan without any contest from third parties. You claim that the proclamation of retrocession was invalid; the PRC and ROC (plus Russia and a bunch of other countries) seem to disagree with you; therefore controversy exists as amply documented at the legal status article. I'm not trying to convince you that the opposing view is correct; rather just that genuine controversy exists. Because of that, neutrality precludes us from taking any side and presenting that side alone as "truth." Ngchen (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Totally missed this response. Anyway, I dont need to reiterate again that editors' concensus cannot override wiki policies. With that being said, lets address your answers. "ROC is an official country" or "Taiwan is a part of ROC" are NOT "common knowledge", they are disputed claims. I would say "sky is blue" would be disputable unless you are saying it is from human's visual perception. But I know what you mean and we won't get there. What is common knowledge is that ROC is NOT in any global communities that require staatehood to be minimum qualification and there are no official treaties or any form of internationally validated agreements that can justify these claims. Korean independence had the blessing of UN assembly resolution AND formal recognition from Japan per SFPT. What does ROC have? Oh wait, they got replaced by China and kicked out of UN per UN resolution 2758. OOPS. Wait a minute, didn't ROC get Taiwan from Cairo Declaration and Japanese instrument of surrender?? Oh wait, those were hold fulfilled by SF Peace Treaty. oops again. If Taiwan belongs to ROC is such a 'common knowledge" and if "ROC is a country" is such a undisputable fact, then they should have no problems getting into UN and not have to pay to get recognized by some small countries, after all ... recognition of independent state should be free per UN charter. If Taiwan belongs to ROC is such a "sky is blue" fact and common knowledge, howcome no countries directly involved in Taiwan's final territorial disposition arrangement can vouch for the ROC? So much for your "common knowledge" . . . which can at best only be regarded as a fringe theory.
Legal status of Taiwan as I said before spawned from the controversy of ROC's claim over Taiwanese territorial sovereignty and as a legitimate country, and China's part is to side with ROC and since they are te successor of ROC, they get taiwan as well. It's just that ROC has been on Taiwan for so long and people normally call ROC as "Taiwan", dont confuse perception with reality. Sometimes, when people say they are something they are not so often, they ended up believing it. Are you saying you are going to take that seriously? I know people wake up every morning saying they are the kings of the world abnd seriously believing that. What do you think? Sounds like ROC? The reason why nobody claimed sovereignty over Iraq was because that is ILLEGAL per Hague Convention IV 1907 article 55 and ROC did that because they felt it was going to be validated when peace treaty was signed ANYWAY. It just did not end up the way they expected. Kind of like you remodel a new bedroom for your baby and tell everyone now you are a father and then your wife miscarries. Are you still the father? No! Even though you have a baby room, people have been told, and you have all those toys you bought in preparation for the new born. Guests not knowing the truth might think you really are a father when they visit your house, but you are NOT. Get it? The claim that "you are a father" becomes disputed and that can do NOTHING to counter the FACT that the baby in your wife's womb did not become your son. If ROC wanna keep on saying it is a country and Taiwan is theirs, fine, that is their POV. But the POV does not invalidate the fact that the ROC is not a legitimate country and it has no ownership of Taiwan. Mafia godfather (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Although I am a Republican, my political affiliation does not, nor should not, have a bearing on how I edit wikipedia per WP:NEU. This should be the way it is for anyone who edits Wikipedia. I know we are human, and thus are fallible, and aren't always neutral in our editing; but that doesn't mean that we as an editing community shouldn't strive to be.
I do understand that there is the opinion out there that the Republic of China is a government in exile. I don't believe anyone here is contesting that opinion. However, it is not the only opinion out there, and thus the reason for the article Legal status of Taiwan. To present the opinion that the Republic of China is a government in exile as fact would be giving that opinion undue weight and would be violating WP:NEU. Furthermore, I concur with Ngchen that stating that opinion given the information provided thus far would fall under WP:OR and WP:SYN; however, using the heritage.org article you maybe able to use it as a reference supporting that the opinion exist in another article, or here, if we are able to come to a compromise.
Basically, the opinion shouldn't be stated in this article as fact.
I have proposed a compromise earlier, that appears to have been ignored. The opinion that the Republic of China is a government in exile, may have a place in this article, in a brief manner, but in no way should be used as a content fork to the parent article on the differing opinions regarding the legal status of the island of Formosa. Therefore, as stated earlier I propose that rather then having the content in the main table of the section, a subsection should be created that gives a brief mention that there is an opinion that the Republic of China is a GIE, with reference to a reliable source supporting the mention, followed by an equally brief mention that it is a contested opinion with a reliable source reference supporting that mention, and that other opinions exist, with a link to the Legal status of Taiwan wrapping it up. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
RightCowLeftCoast, I mentioned Heritage Foundation for fun, not to take advantage of your Republican affiliation. Notice I never mentioned that article because to me it is not a reliable source for its notable political inclination. I would much rather cite the articles and references the article made reference to(I hope you read the article). And I understands very well it should not be used as facts because it is an opinion. I just find it interesting that people who are in charge of editing this article would think the fact I presented was an "original research" for it has been a political fact for a long time with the US and Japan both have indicated that. It's an inconvenient truth, I know, but this is far less controversial than global warming. I have presented enough evidence to prove that Taiwan does not belong to ROC and hence ROC is a government in exile by the definition of a temporary government(moved provisional capital to Taipei from Nanjing) operating on foreign land(Taiwan) and attempting to liberate the old country. I really am not trying to exclude Legal status of Taiwan as an article, I just think Ngchen completely misunderstands Legal Status of Taiwan as an issue. It is really about legal validity of China's claim on Taiwan and not its legal status.Mafia godfather (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
No offense, guys, but so far all I have been asking is show me something from reliable and verifiable source that states ROC government is NOT a government in exile. RightCowLeftCoast, I saw your proposal and I am not trying to ignore it, but I strongly believe that if any compromise is to be made a valid evidence with equal if not more strength needs to be provided as a basis for the other side. You can't have one side that has evidence settle with another side that has none. In legal world, the one without any credible evidence would have lost, hands down. I hope you guys get what I am getting at. Anyway, if you want to create a subsection for it to illustrate the controversy, I will give it with my blessing, you can go ahead and draft one up for us, RightCowLeftCoast.Mafia godfather (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Currently the article lists the ROC, and then says "The Republic of China government, retreated to Taiwan, a Japanese territory occupied by Allied Powers, in 1949 after being defeated by People's Republic of China and currently administering Taiwan per San Francisco Peace Treaty Article 21. The ROC government claims Taiwan to be a part of its territorial sovereignty." I think this is the right approach. List it but provide information to clarify. I think we do need to move the current text further toward highlighting the uncertainty. I propose we do to things
Change the color of the ROC row in the table - perhaps to something grey - to de-emphasize it and to highlight the difference.
State directly in the first sentence of the description that "The Republic of China is not unambiguously 'in exile' because although it was forced out of all of its original territory (except for a few tiny islands) and has stated an ambition to return to that original territory, the ROC also claims to be the legitimate soveriegn of and has full control of the territory it now occupies." Readin (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Mafia grandfather/IP editor, I believe that the IP edit was a mistake, and not an act of sockpuppeting. Thank you for correcting that. That being said, we are not the ones who need to provide references. Rather, as the editor adding content, the burden of providing verifiable reliable source references to support the content in dispute is the editor who added the content. In this case the editor is you. So far there has not been a reliable source references given that says that indisputably that the island of Formosa is not a de jure part of China and that the Republic of China is a Government in exile. Rather, there is OR and SYNTH based on reliable source reference material. As stated I respect your opinion, and your opinion that you believe that said opinion is fact, however; to present opinion as fact is not keeping in the spirit of Wikipedia and violates WP:NEU.
Readin, this sounds like a fair compromise that I would be willing to support. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Very well, I will provide reference from education materials used by Stanford SPICE(Stanford Program on International and Cross Cultural Education) and take on this "burden of proof". It is interesting that most of the other listed GiEs hardly have any reliable sources that says that "indisputably" they are government-in-exile. Normally, these kind of list is a form of identification and you simply list facts base on definition. A fact like ROC government is a government in exile is more like saying American people are also humans, self explanatory. Anyway, I have provided my reference, please feel free to provide anything to challenge my evidence. Mafia godfather (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
By the way, since you guys done such a great job in trying to make sure ROC addition is legit with ample of evidence. You guys mind check out other links with little or no reference? Monarchy of Lao has a citation from a blog that no longer works? The page for MOL is also referenced by medias I have not heard of and a broken link. The only links that state Crown Council of Ethiopia is broken, and the rest is from the Crown Council of Ethiopia web site. Hardly a reliable source. I might as well start a web site and say I am UN secretariat in exile. Most other GiEs were also backed up by nothing but political sites. If you want those kind of sources, I am more than willing to provide dozens of links from political groups that can show you ROC government is a government in exile.Mafia godfather (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
If you believe that other entries are not up to snuff, then tag them appropriately, and if those entries aren't removed, feel free to remove them per WP:V or WP:CITE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:15, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone provide source for the statement "The Republic of China government acquired Taiwan from Japan in 1945 at the end of World War II"? As far as I know, ROC government accepted surrender of Japanese in 1945 on behalf of the Allied Powers per General Order Number One...
"The Imperial General Headquarters by direction of the Emperor, and pursuant to the surrender to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers of all Japanese armed forces by the Emperor, hereby orders all of its commanders in Japan and abroad to cause the Japanese armed forces and Japanese-controlled forces under their command to cease hostilities at once, to lay down their arms, to remain in their present locations and to surrender unconditionally to commanders acting on behalf of the United States, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom and the British Empire, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as indicated hereafter or as may be further directed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. Immediate contact will be made with the indicated commanders, or their designated representatives, subject to any changes in detail prescribed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, and their instructions will be completely and immediately carried out."
... and Japan has never given Taiwan to ROC, therefore the ROC could not have acquired Taiwan from Japan in 1945 or at end of World War 2. Please provide citation from credible and verifiable sources before adding this statement. Also, if ROC government indeed acquired Taiwan from Japan, then ROC government would not be a government-in-exile for it is operating on its own territory and not foreign territory as defined by the definitions of a GiE. Mafia godfather (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
The method of transfer can be disputed. Was is a legitimate transfer agreed to by Japan? Was it a war booty? Was it theft from Japan? Theft from the people of Taiwan? But one can hardly deny that the ROC is today in possession of Taiwan and that it got Taiwan from Japan at the end of WWII. Simply saying "acquired" doesn't say anything about how the acquisition occurred or whether the acquisition was legitimate.
The alternate wording being proposed, that the ROC aquired "the right to administer Taiwan from accepting the surrender of Japan" goes much further in taking the POV that the transfer was was a "right" that was acquired. That wording needs more support than the previous wording. Readin (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
In the reference I provided Dulles clearly stated that Taiwan was NOT ceded to anyone(including the ROC) and Taiwan issue was not a Chinese internal issue so that means Taiwan was NOT a part of China or ROC. In that sense, the ROC has NOT acquired Taiwan and it is now a government in exile operating on a foreign land. Pleas do not start a revert war unless you can find sources to justify your rhetoric or it is merely an original research. It is more accurate to say ROC government has acquired the RIGHT to administer as it was stated in SF Peace Treaty Article 21. Mafia godfather (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I have previously pointed you to legal status of Taiwan for references as to the highly disputed status of Taiwan. Your interpretation, making a particular interpretation of the SFPT supreme, is only one of many, and it would violate neutrality to present it as the "truth." It would also violate original research to conclude that said interpretation is "correct." The phrasing "right to administer per the UN" gives undue weight to said view. Therefore, I have reverted the page to the version by Readin. Ngchen (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Both the KMT and DDP politicians have said that ROC = Taiwan. Therefore, ROC is foreign to Taiwan is a fringe Deep Green theory that does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:OR:
"If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research."
I have repeteadly asked for sources to prove this theory of ROC acquisition of Taiwan and yet nobody here is able to respond to that or even abide by the wiki editing policy in place. I have been lenient on the editors here who disagreed with me and simply shovel it as controversial along with series of misinterpretation on wikipedia editing policies. I have a bit more time now so I will do my best to really crack down on this, because this really is getting a bit ludicrous.
First of all, "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based CANNOT be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic AS EVIDENCED BY reliable sources. That means even though NPOV means we should include conflicting perspectives on a topic, those perspectives NEED TO BE EVIDENCED BY RELIABLE SOURCES. The contribution I provided meet this criteria nicely, the theory of Taiwan is a part of ROC is not. That is why I repeatedly demand citation from reliable sources for this perspective. Just because a couple editors agree that it is does not make it so as wikipedia clearly states that these principles CANNOT, and I wouldd like to stress again, CANNOT be superseded by editors' consensus.
NPOV also focuses on facts being used to support a perspective. Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.WP:NPOV I have provided "facts" with credible sources to back these facts, and if there are any credible disputes to this fact, these disputes should be made with reliable sources as well, standards apply to any "perspective" as far as wikipedisa's concern should be applied to these "disputes". I have seen none of such credible disputes other than editors' rants.
NPOV touches on "undue weight", and my contributions are fully evidenced and meet the criteria of a well referenced FACT and even being referenced in official government documents, official site of a UN agency and textbooks of top education institutions. However, since some editors disagree and call it a "minority view" and should not be given undue weight. Let's take a look at the "Taiwan is a part of ROC" view and see if it is acceptable as a majority view?
"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" No such references have been provided, there is no way to reliably verify such a viewpoint as a "majority view", this perspective shouldn't even be in this article per wikipedia policy.
Second, verifiability. With all the references I have provided from Stanford University, UNHCR, official record of meeting for former Secretary Dulles, and research report to the congress... I see none of them fail the test of verifiability. As for the opposing view of "Taiwan is a part of ROC", I have not seen even one ounce of evidence or citation , so there was no way to see if it is verifiable.
Finally, no original research. "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." WP:OR My contribution has been affirmed by various verifiable sources as FACT and they are not unpublished, arguments, speculation and ideas. If anything, the theory of "Taiwan is a part of ROC" would be more of an OR since we have not yet seen any verifiable sources backing this perspective. It is therefore an unpublished argument speculated by some wiki editors who have noticeably limited knowledge on the target subject.
For the reasons I listed above, I will revert this back again, and I urge you all who disagree with me either comply to wikipedia editing policies and provide necessary citations to make your perspectives "evidenced" or request an administrator to oversee this issue. Thanks for your time.
By the way, Ngchen, if you want to quote me, at least quote it right. I did not say ""right to administer per the UN", I said "The Republic of China government acquired the right to administer Taiwan from accepting the surrender of Japan in 1945" and I have provided evidence for it from UNHCR. Perhaps you should make sure you read thoroughly first before making any changes on any contributions of other editors on any wikipedia articles. I do not know why you bring up "DPP and KMT", they are both political parties within the administered territories of the Republic of China government and whatever they say represent their political bias and should NOT be considered as verifiable facts as "such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ". "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I have never cited from any of their sites or publications, I hope you take some time and read through "verifiability" WP:V.Mafia godfather (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
It's common knowledge that both the KMT and DPP accepts ROC = Taiwan. Ma Ying Jeou and Chen Shui Bian have both said ROC = Taiwan in their speeches. Most Taiwanese are either KMT or DPP supporters. Your POV is not accepted by either of the two major parties in Taiwan, and as a fringe view should not belong on Wikipedia. The WP:OR guideline clearly say "whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia." What you need to prove is that the majority of Taiwanese views the ROC as foreign. Also, please do not edit war until this issue is resolved. Thanks. T-1000 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There are three problems with the contention that KMT and DPP both accepting ROC=Taiwan. First, it's not true. The KMT still considers itself the legitimate government of China. The KMT still prefers to call the country "China". It still prefers to name national organizations with "China" or "Chinese".
Second, even if it were true, they would mean different things with the same language. The DPP is saying the "ROC" is really Taiwan, while the KMT would be saying that "Taiwan" is the Republic of China.
Third, the KMT and DPP do together represent all opinions on the topic. Another country, China, also claims to own Taiwan. That country has enough money and influence that many other countries parrot its claims.
This third reason also presents a problem for Mafia's argument. Another problem for Mafia's argument is Article 1 of the UN charter, signed by the ROC, that says the ROC should respect the self-determination of peoples, meaning the ROC had no right to rule Taiwan without Taiwanese consent - which was never freely given. (The UN Charter counts as a source?) There are plenty of other arguments for different views. Ngchen is right that Mafia should spend some time looking at the many arguments on the Legal status of Taiwan and Political status of Taiwan pages.
The reason we can say the ROC acquired Taiwan is the simple fact that the ROC took control of Taiwan and maintained control for the next 65 years. The ROC got possession. That doesn't make it right, wrong, legitimate, illigitimate, legal, illegal, or anything else except a plain and simple fact of life. Readin (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Readin, I am not arguing anything actually, I am simply providing the fact that ROC does not own Taiwan and that is a fact. If I am arguing about anything, it would be the understabnding of wiki editing policy of the editors here, because they are basically taking things out of context without reading the entire article. Historically, ROC came to Taiwan to accept Japanese surrender on behalf of Allied Powers and at that point no sovereignty transfer has taken place for Hague II of 1899 Laws of War AND Hague IV of 1907 Laws of War clearly suggest military occupation does not equal sovereignty transfer ... "Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. "(Article 55). Which is why sovereignty disposition of Taiwan was not done until Japanese formally done so in 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. That is not even an argument, it is an undisputable fact. In 1951, Japan formally renounced all sovereignty rights of Taiwan in the peace treaty, and according to former secretary John Foster Dulles who co-authored the treaty, it was intentionally done so that Taiwan's legal disposition would be undecided. Dulles also statd that Taiwan's position was not an internal issue and that would mean Taiwan was not a part of China, ROC or PRC. That should be very clear. If that is the case, the ROC fits the definition of GiE perfectly and which is why the references I provided from authoritative 3rd party sources all affirm that fact.
Readin, i do not know why you would say that my argument is "Article 1 of the UN charter, signed by the ROC, that says the ROC should respect the self-determination of peoples, meaning the ROC had no right to rule Taiwan without Taiwanese consent - which was never freely given." I searched through the ENTIRE discussion page and I could not find where I said this. This is complete falsehood and a serious misrepresentation. Can you please THOROUGHLY review what you have written to be verifiable before you click "save page"? My contribution is NOT about Taiwanese self determination or independence, it is about ROC is a government in exile because it is a foreign government operating on a foreign land. My fact deals with Taiwan's disposition is not yet determined and certainly NOT acquired by the ROC. All I need to provide is reference and evidence that this fact is valid. I am not trying to prove anything, I am simply stating a fact that readers of wikipedia would find valuable. I have never challenged ROC's right to administer Taiwan, it was well within their right to do so per international laws, but the fact remains that Taiwan does NOT belong to ROC and they merely administer Taiwan like how US administers Iraq and Afghanistan. As to your statement on "The reason we can say the ROC acquired Taiwan is the simple fact that the ROC took control of Taiwan and maintained control for the next 65 years. The ROC got possession. That doesn't make it right, wrong, legitimate, illigitimate, legal, illegal, or anything else except a plain and simple fact of life" What you are suggesting is that ROC government should impose a double standard that while agree with Stimson Doctrine on Manchuria but yet agree that military annexation of Taiwan is acceptable? I suggest you provide proof to back your perspective for that is against every prevailing international laws today. Mafia godfather (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
What I mean is that both the KMT and the DPP both consider the ROC to have sovereignty of Taiwan, which renders Mafia's viewpoint fringe even within Taiwan itself. Therefore, whether his arguments are right or wrong doesn't even matter. T-1000 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
T-1000, first of all, you cannot use the argument of KMT and DPP both accepting ROC=Taiwan for both of them are essentially political advocates inside ROC administrative jurisdiction. It is highly likely the groups are biased, extreme, and promotional" in nature. For reliable sources, it is best to use 3rd party published work like what I have been using. Especially I am contributing a FACT, not a perspective. Taiwan is a part of ROC is only a position held by those inside ROC and not outside of it, and Taiwan is a part of China is a position of PRC and ROC government. If you want to dispute my "fact", you must follow ikipedia guideline and present a well evidenced fact to be included per NPOV policy. The problem I am havibng is I hear you all say "Taiwan is a part of ROC" is a "majority view" but yet no citation or evidence are given for such view. When Readin made the revision of the text he also failed to provide reference to the change. If it is such a prevailing view and a commonly accepted fact, there should be plenty of 3rd party published sources that can be used to back it up. However, so far only mine is able to upheld the challenge.
Since you mentioned Chen Shuibian has said ROC = Taiwan in his speech, allow me to refer you to his recent statement about Taiwan as a "territory still under military occupation of the United States, which Obama and Gates have failed to enforce." http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?sec=1&id=7896 Ludicrous? Yes. But that signed affidavit also enough to debunk your argument. At any rate, their positions can only be identified as "perspctives" and not enough to be called a fact.
Wiki OR guideline states "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." WP:OR My contribution has been affirmed by various verifiable sources as FACT and they are not unpublished, arguments, speculation and ideas. If anything, the theory of "Taiwan is a part of ROC" would be more of an OR since we have not yet seen any verifiable sources backing this perspective. It is therefore an unpublished argument speculated by some wiki editors who have noticeably limited knowledges on the target subject. Since my contribution is NOT a perspective but a fact, it cannot be considered as a "an extremely small minority" viewpoint for the fact you do not know the fact should not make it a minority view. In fact, your view is probably more of an extremely small minority for you cannot even provide reference to prove its validity. You can start a revert war all you want, but the fact remains that you are trying to weasel your way out when my contribution fits wikipedia guidelines and yours dont. Anyway, as I said, I have more time to really get to the skinny on this now so you better do better than trying to label my "facts" as "perspectives".Mafia godfather (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I looked through your source; I can't find the text that says the ROC acquired the "right" to rule Taiwan. Would you please quote it. Further, even you seem to agree that the ROC currently has possession of Taiwan (I say "posession", not "title"). Are you seriously trying to argue the ROC is not in physical posession of Taiwan? Are you saying that in reality (reality, not legality - who cares what the lawyers think), when you go to Taiwan you and everyone else there don't have to follow the laws of the ROC? That the taxes you pay there don't go to the ROC? That the ROC can't confiscate for ROC use anything it wants in Taiwan? You're arguments are entirely legal and not based on reality. You ignore the real world in favor of pieces of paper. Wikipedia is supposed to report the facts, not legal fantasies. Readin (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Readin, I hate to mention that you have yet provided any sources that even justifies "ROC acquired Taiwan", if you want a compromise, I think we should remove that statement "The Republic of China government acquired Taiwan from Japan in 1945 at the end of World War II while the ROC was engaged in a civil war with the Chinese Communist Party" altogether. My sources are to prove ROC is a "government in exile", none of the sources said ROC is ambiguously one or not, so I think to be fair we need to remove your wording of "not unambiguously 'in exile'". Also, the reason you provided after because" was really a form of original research and not backed by any evidence. The ROC acquired the right to administer Taiwan is a paraphrase of the ROC took control of. If you want, I can change that to "took control of". I just did not want to change your effort so much that it upsets you because your contribution rally misrepresents historic facts. Readin, if you really want to know basis where ROC got their "right" from, please refere to Hague Convention IV Article 55 and SF Peace Treaty Article 21 which led to Treaty of Taipei. Do you need me to quote them all for you? I am sorry if such obvious linkage isnt clear to you, but perhaps you should research and learn more about the subject matter, or better yet, spend more effort in finding a realiable source to prove "ROC acquired Taiwan". That is what I am very eagerly anticipating for.
In terms of international politics and territorial sovereignty, a country's acquisition of a territory usually means transfer of sovereignty. If not, it is either a lease or an occupation. Again, I am not arguing that the ROC is not in physical posession of Taiwan, I am stating the fact that the ROC government does not own Taiwan even though they do in fact administer it. Please quote me directly and not try to paraphrase, you have demonstrated enough misrepresentaton and I do not appreciate your strawman tactics at all. I have explained to you that a territory can physically be controlled by a country and not be a part of it. Examples I have given would be Iraq and Afghanistan under US control. ROC was in same position and just happened to be marooned on Taiwan since they lost mainland. If you do not know enough about the subject, I strongly recommend you spend more time editing articles of subject matters you do know more about and not presenting arguments that demonstrates your lack of merit to edit this article. The world today happen to care a lot about international legal principles, so I am sorry that you do not like lawyers, but we are not talking about arguments here... we are talking about facts. Just because Taiwanese in Taiwan abide by ROC laws does not make Taiwan a part of ROC in terms of territorial sovereignty. ROC is legal administrator of Taiwan, by that logic, the people inside the territory would be within jurisidiction of the ROC. Just like Afghans and Iraqis back when US was the occupying power. A perfect example would be HK and Guantanamo Bay. New Territories of HK was leased to UK and during the time UK had control over HK's New Territories the HKers there had to abide by British laws and pay British taxes even though territorial sovreignty belonged to China. If British declares HK a part of UK, it would not have been honored and recognized by the world even though UK has physical control of the territory. Guantanamo Bay is a territory formally a part of Cuba and the US has a permanent lease on it; however, individuals within the leased area would abide by US laws as it is administered by US. See the US superme court decision on Boumediene v. Bush. Readin, if you want, we should get an administrator involved and we will settle the issues regarding wikipedia policies. I really do not want to get into these debates on ROC's legal and de facto control with you because you obvious lack relevant knowledge in this and I am getting a bit tired of repeating the same concept, perhaps more time spent in enriching yourself on this would make all these legal concepts crystal clear to you. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
If you think "took control of" works better than "acquired" and it will end the issue, that's fine with me. I think in this case it is a distinction without a difference. Readin (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Good, then we have an agreement on this issue.Mafia godfather (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
As you yourself said: Facts are "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". The KMT and DPP both have a ton of followers (as nearly every Taiwanese is either a KMT or DPP supporter), which renders their viewpoints a major POV. The NPOVpolicy demands that major POVs be represented. Opinions from the NPOV page is ""a matter which is subject to dispute.". The KMT and DPP both seriously disputes your additions. Therefore, what you added is not a fact, but an opinion. Again the WP:OR guideline is "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research". You can call your stuff facts, but as long as the KMT and DPP disagree with them, they are still a minority POV. T-1000 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
There isnt any serious dispute, T-1000, if so... please quote it and it must be from a 3rd party source. Technically KMT and DPP ar all from ROC's side in that sense so they are not qualified as "3rd party". NPOV policy deals with perspectives or opinions, I stated a fact and nobody here can provide a 3rd party published evidence that can dispute the fact I presented, therefore, it is a fact without serious dispute. You cannot just say it is disputed because you and a few others here do not like it. Show me a 3rd party evidence that states ROC acquired Taiwan is a fact, otherwise, save your time and stop responding until you have some solid proof. So far, your positions have NO cited sources, your position is bona fide extremely small minority and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
You said that the ROC is a government, and does not have sovereignity of Taiwan, therefore, neither the ROC nor Taiwan is a country (ROC has no land, Taiwan has no gov't). However, in the following source:
We see that 82.8% of the Taiwanese people believe that ROC/Taiwan and PRC are two separate countries. Since 82.8% of the Taiwanese believe the ROC is a country, your contribution are disputed by the majority of the Taiwanese people. Your contributions are therefore not facts, but a "extremely small minority" opinion and that should not belong on Wikipedia. So any survey that shows majority Taiwanese people believing that ROC/Taiwan is a country will disputes your "facts". T-1000 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
It is a fact that neither the ROC nor Taiwan is a country. The poll you have contributed is merely a poll conducted by a media in Taiwan and published by the ROC government, that alone is already a presentation of an "opinion"(not a fact, but a perspective) and from a non 3rd party source since it is from ROC government thus neutrality is compromised. I am curious, have you learned about quality of evidence in your past education? It would be a good place to start. You need to learn to compare apple with apples, I have presented a "fact", you cannot present an "opinion" and try to dispute it. It does not work that way. If it is a fact that you have lost your home to a bank because you do not make your payments on time and the banks are taking over your home, you can say it is your home and you are still squatting there with your plasma TV and workout equipments, but that does not dispute the fact that your house is no longer yours. 90% of people in China believe Taiwan is not a country and a part of China, does that make it a "fact" that Taiwan is a part of China? No. Your argument simply does not held water, I'm sorry. Finally, the poll only gave people 3 options: two countries, a split ROC and a split PRC. The question of the survey gives no room for people to choose "no comment", "don't know" or "neither". the option "two countries" might also be interpreted as "Taiwan is independent". If I was approached by the pollster, I probably woud not have answered the question and my vote would never be counted. The poll only shows 1005 people who already believe ROC is a country and it is Taiwan. THis poll is not representative of those who are informed about the fact I have contributed. Mafia godfather (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
You have asked for sources which is a valid thing to do. There are several reasons we haven't provided them here.
Some things are so well known they don't need sources.
There are so many diverse we don't know which ones to provide.
Ngchen and I, and I suspect T-1000 also, have been through these discussions so many times we're a bit tired of digging up the sources and we already know where you can find them because...
Ngchen has already told you were to go look to find them.
The wording you're objecting to, that the ROC "acquired Taiwan" was the result of a long discussion and compromise between different views of the relevent facts. Readin (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
You guys needed someone who knew about this subject more to engage in the discussion. It is obvious that I meet the qualification.As wikipedia edit policies permit, consensus can be changed. It is obvious to me that ROC acquired Taiwan isnt a very well known fact for no reliable sources out there can show it. I can show where US got to be a country, I can show how China got HK, but you are telling me that there are no sources at all to show ROC acquired Taiwan because it is so "well known"? This is not something self explanatory like "sun is hot" or "American people are humans". Come on, Readin... You and I both know that argument cant fly. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, if you've ever visited Taiwan, you would know that it is as self-explanatory as "the sun is hot" and "American people are humans". When you apply for your visa, you apply to a repsrentative of the ROC. You go through ROC customs when you arrive. When you need a visa extenstion you apply to ROC police force. When you seek residency you seek it from the ROC. You pay taxes to the ROC. The police you see everywhere are ROC. So are the fire-fighters. The soldiers you see are ROC. On ROC national day the celebrations celebrate the ROC. The national flag you see everywhere is ROC. The people who live there travel on ROC passports. The ROC obviously got control of Taiwan. Readin (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Born and raised in Taiwan, and I can tell you there are enough people who would tell you that ROC controls Taiwan but not acquired it. Especially after the lift of martial laws, which I have lived through a portion of it, many Taiwanese youths were taught to embrace "retrocession theory" and only finding out that it is not true to rest of the world. That is why you cannot find any 3rd party reliable source today to endorse that theory. So no, just because Taiwanese were fed with circumstantial evidence that Taiwan is a part of ROC(all the things you have just mentioned) does not make it "self explanatory" fact especially when direct evidence point to the contrary. As I said, fact is not about an opinion. Just because a village of people believe planet earth is flat does not make earth flat in fact in that village. I do not disagree with the FACT that ROC government does control Taiwan, and I have pointed out many similar examples like US occupied Iraq and Afghanistan, but I have problems with Taiwan is OWNED by ROC. And that is not a fact, no matter how many villagers inside ROC feel about it. Mafia godfather (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
As T-1000 has asked previously, all these Taiwanese people are not "no one," are they? And since they are not no one, and they do dispute the claim that the ROC "is" in exile, would it not be violating the rule against original research to conclude that these people are wrong?
Yes, it is true that some third party sources make the claim; some other third party sources (eg. Joe Hung, the PRC, Russia, etc.) make contrarian claims. We cannot take sides without violating neutrality. And again, it would be original research to conclude that one group of scholars is right and the other wrong, and present it as fact. Ngchen (talk) 13:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I have filed a Request for Comment concerning Mafia godfather's past and ongoing conduct. At least one user endorsement other than myself is needed to certify the dispute. Ngchen (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
An Oct. 1959 US court case held that no treaty had ever transferred the territorial title of Taiwan to the ROC. See http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/shengvs.htm Moreover, the official "Starr Memorandum" authored by the US Dept. of State in 1971 held that the ROC did not acquire title to Taiwan territory via either the Peace Treaty of San Francisco or the Treaty of Taipei. Excerpts from that official document are here http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/starr.htm Hence, I believe that the view that the ROC is a government in exile is correct. Hmortar (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Although it is my pet peeves to not use web pages from political sites as reliable source, what you got there is still much better than what they have -- nothing. Mafia godfather (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Here is another good reference -- In 1964, French President Georges Pompidou (then premier) stated that "Formosa (Taiwan) was detached from Japan, but it was not attached to anyone" under the Treaty of San Francisco.
At any rate, the key issue in this entire discussion should be "What was the legal status of Taiwan in early December 1949 when the ROC moved its central government to the island?" In this regard, we should consider various definitions of the term government in exile. Here are some more popular definitions --
(1) A government whose chief executive and other principal officials have fled their state in the face of hostile armed forces but which is recognized as the de jure government of its native country by at least one other state.
(2) A temporary government moved to or formed in a foreign land by exiles who hope to rule when their country is liberated.
(3) A government established outside of its territorial base.
(4) A political group that claims to be a country's legitimate government, but for various reasons is unable to exercise its legal power, and instead resides in a foreign country. Governments in exile usually operate under the assumption that they will one day return to their native country and regain power.
(5) A government which has either been forced out by revolution or usurpation, or invaded and taken over by another nation, and is now taking refuge elsewhere.
(6) A body which claims to be the legitimate government of a state, but which is unable to establish itself in the state in question.
I have collected statements of the officials of the US, UK, Japan, etc. and would like to use those to bolster the existing text. Here are my proposals for changes --
ITEM #1
The Republic of China (ROC) government is not unambiguously 'in exile' [citation needed]
=== propose to change to ===>
By moving its central government to Taiwan in December 1949, before Japan had renounced all right, title, and claim to the island in the 1952 Treaty of San Francisco, the Republic of China (ROC) became a government in exile.
ITEM #2
although it was forced out of all of its original territory (except for a few tiny islands) and has stated an ambition to return to that original territory, the ROC also claims to be the legitimate sovereign of and has full control of the territory it now occupies.
=== propose to change to ===>
Although it was forced out of all of its original territory (except for a few tiny islands) and has stated an ambition to return to that original territory, the ROC also claims to be the legitimate sovereign of and has full control of the territory it now occupies.
== ADD ==> propose to add new footnotes here about US and British diplomats views from 1949, and 1954, to the effect that Taiwan territory did not belong to the ROC.
ITEM #3
Taiwan was put under the administrative control of the Republic of China government from accepting the surrender of Japan in 1945[*] while the ROC was engaged in a civil war with the Chinese Communist Party. In 1949 the ROC government under Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan.
== ADD ==> propose to add additional references to show that both in the UK and Japanese view, Taiwan does not belong to China, and the ROC is a government in exile.
Today is Jan. 26th and will edit the above into the ARTICLE in the Republic of China section on Jan. 29th unless there are some serious objections. Hmortar (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I object for two reasons. First, as shown by the lengthy discussion above, a serious dispute exists over whether the ROC is or is not "in exile." FWIW, the countries of the world are split on that question. I remember reading about how Japan's official stance is to avoid taking any view on the question, and that many if not most of the world's countries try to do the same thing. Some other countries (e.g. Russia, Cambodia, and others) take the view that Taiwan is "Chinese" territory, and these two at least consider Taiwan to be de jure part of the PRC. The existence of a bunch of embassies in Taipei further suggests a sort of tacit recognition of sovereignty, since embassies are generally located in the capital of a foreign state. Finally, there is a conflict between stating that the ROC is a government in exile, and the article on rump states which states that the ROC is a rump state. Anyway, viewing the ROC as being in exile is only one of several mainstream views, and I'm afraid this POV would be given too much weight and emphasis with the proposed changes since rightly or wrongly, said claim is at odds with the de facto situation. Ngchen (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to clarify. The only thing disputed right now is ROC's claim over Taiwan, which you support, and it is a claim with no credible 3rd party evidences to serve as reference. Japan avoided to comment on to whom Taiwan belongs to, that means the Japanese is taking an exception of ROC and PRC's claim over Taiwan. Japan remained that they have given up territorial sovereignty of Taiwan, and will play no part in supporting either China's claim. This has nothing to do with the FACT that Taiwan does not belong to ROC. Te fact some other countries took the side of Chinas and support this fringe view has no significance whatsoever for at the end they need to abide by the legal effectiveness of SFPT. I understand Russians did not sign this, but as a member of the UNPSC they need to follow the majority decision of the nations that have agreed to this. Secondly, Cambodians did sign off on the treaty as well. Existence of embassies mean nothing but the countries agree to have diplomatic relations, but that does not mean ROC has true de jure capacity to enter into foreign replations. If the ROC wishes to pay and make them feel like they can still behave like an independent state, that is their problem. It is a fact that ROC government currently has no place in international bodies that allow states only, and ROC has no legal capacity to enter into foreign relations for China or Taiwan. Just because you can sell cigarrettes to a minor does not mean it is legitimate. If these countries want to make friends with ROC instead of China, that is their own issue and they have their own incentives. Do not mistaken it for legitimate legal capacity which ROC has NONE of pe UN resolution 2758. I once again urge you to do more research and understand the concepts THOROUGHLY before posting. Mafia godfather (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
But the key point is, as several posters above have continually pointed out, and which (in my considered opinion Ngchen is consistently ignoring) is that there are no legal documents which can prove that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan was transferred to the ROC at any time BEFORE the ROC moved its central government to Taiwan in early Dec. 1949. That is the issue at hand here. As for Japan, in the past it has expressed a view on this question. Ngchen states that embassies are generally located in the capital of a foreign state -- yes, that is true, and they can also be located in a government in exile. There is no conflict there. Moreover, why do you bring up the issue of the "de facto situation"? Everyone can see that the ROC is in Taiwan, but the question is "Where is the legal basis for their presence in Taiwan?" The mainstream view is that Taiwan was Japanese territory until renounced in the Treaty of San Francisco on April 28, 1952, so . . . . it is certainly not a violation of NPOV or UNDUE:WEIGHT to state this obvious fact and to come to the striaghtforward conclusion that when the ROC moved its central government to Taiwan in Dec. 1949 Taiwan was not in any way, shape, or form "Chinese territory." Please re-read the definitions of government in exile given above. According to what I have seen of Ngchen's editing on various Wiki pages, he/she is insistent on a program of promotion and/or advocacy that the ROC on Taiwan is an independent sovereign nation!! and Who cares if the facts don't back up that position!!! Hence, such a strong position of advocacy for a position (which is not supported by the evidence) is certainly a violation of NPOV. But, if I am wrong, then please give us the relevant verifiable facts so that we can sort this matter out. Hmortar (talk) 14:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
First, let me remind everyone about how it's improper to attack other editors. Now, with regard to the whole "legal documents" issue, yes I readily agree that such a line of reasoning is one school of thought, and yes, it must not be ignored. But it is not the only school of thought; after all, there are the views of the PRC, the ROC itself, Russia, etc. etc. So therefore, how should we fairly present all sides, and do so in a way that gives the proper proportion of weighting to each point-of-view? I am arguing that the de facto situation on the ground ought to play a large role in determining which views to emphasize, while not ignoring other schools of thought. As I pointed out above, we would be engaging in original research if we take various schools of thought, and then conclude that school X is correct, regardless of what X is. And the de facto situation is that a Chinese state, the ROC, is acting as sovereign and treated as sovereign over the island of Taiwan by pretty much everybody.
Oh, and BTW, a substantial problem with considering the SFPT to be determinative that oddly hasn't received much attention is with regard to the question of Korea. The Korean POV has always been that Korean independence was achieved both de factoandde jure back in 1945. This POV, if taken to its logical conclusion, would diminish the role of the SFPT since it did not go into effect until years later. Surely said Korean POV is quite mainstream, just to let everyone know. Ngchen (talk) 14:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Once again, I want to second Hmortar's request to request for relevant verifiable facts. I have repeatedly asked for credible 3rd party reliable sources, but Ngchen has not yet provided evidence for this claim of his. We have gone through enough voir dire process and he has proven to be not informed enough to explain wikipedia policies and not learned on the subject enough to correctly evaluate the underlying issues with this subject. From the lengthy discussion above and other pages we can see Ngchen often misquote the evidences he cites and even misrepresent the policies and positions of other editors, I find his qualification to challenge the validity of my contributed facts questionable.
Frankly, I don't find it amusing to keep on reading the limited historic knowledges he share on this discussion board. The example of Korean independence really tops all. Everyone knows that when it comes to attaining independent statehood from another state like Korea(Taiwan never declared independence after 1945), the rules are to be applied a bit differently. It can then be applied with Uti possidetis, "a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of obtaining independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new states being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the changing of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power". It is true the territorial sovereignty still belonged to Japan until SFPT, but when SFPT comes into effect, the Japanese recognizes Korean independence and that effectively formalized the deal, then that valdiated Korean's native government established prior to the treaty on August 15, 1948 and not liberation of 1945.(Ngchen, please stop misrepresenting facts, I am serious.) Not only that, In November the UN General Assembly recognized Korea's claim to independence and made preparations for the establishment of a government and the withdrawal of occupation forces. The United Nations Temporary Commission on Korea arrived to supervise the election of a national assembly, which was held in May 1948. the international community has validated Korean's request to be independence, NOT just Korean POV, and to make it all official, Japan had to recognize it in SFPT. Just to let you see how IMPORTANT a treaty is when it comes to territorial disposition. However and whenever a country wants to declare independence is not as important as if they formalize it. In the case of Korea, they did it, in te case of Taiwanese Republic of 1895, not so lucky. The US declared independence on July 4, 1776, but it was not formally recognized until September 3, 1783 when both US(newly established state) and the British(owner of the territorial sovereignty of the new state) signed Treaty of Paris. But do Americans celebrate September 4th? No. They celebrate July 4th. What if the Americans lost? Then the US would still be a part of Britain now and the declaration would be meaningless without formal recognition. So, no, it is NOT logical to say Korean's POV on their independence in 1948 would diminish the role of SFPT.
Ngchen, the difference between Taiwan and Korea as I said earlier is that Korean expected to get formal independence, and they got it with UN recognition AND formal blessing from Japan per SFPT, but Taiwan was left in limbo status due to conflict of Chinas even with returning Taiwan to China was expected and nobody ever decided on its territorial disposition so it must be administered by ROC government per UN charter. I hope that was not too much for you to digest. Mafia godfather (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Please address the real issue, are any of the stuff you and Hmortar wrote widely accepted in Taiwan? Facts must stuff that no one disputes, are the Taiwanese that think "Taiwan is a country" no one? One again, I am forced to reference this guideline:
"If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research". T-1000 (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Again, please do not misrepresent wikipedia policy as you often do, T-1000. Facts are without serious disputes, not no disputes. There are always someone going to say earth is flat. Please address the dispute, if any, with reliable 3rd party evidence. telling me opinions of people on a fact is not going to help your case. the way Taiwanese think about Taiwan and ROC altered and evolved through time, but that does not change the fact that ROC has never acquired the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan and if it runs on a foreignland, then it is a government-in-exile, just like the way it is identified in the sources I have provided. Your sources? I am waiting. less talk, more verifiable reference please. Mafia godfather (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
This is not what the Wikipedia guideline said, The number of Taiwanese greatly outnumber of flat-Earthers. The opinions of the Taiwanese form a major POV, and NPOV said that Major POVs cannot be ignored. T-1000 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am speechless. T-1000. I really am. "The number of Taiwanese greatly outnumber of flat-Earthers." That's classic. You know what, you probably would agree Chinese can overturn any facts if they believe otherwise, huh? Let me ask you this:
According to NY Times, four of five university students still rely on China’s heavily censored media for their news. Do you think what young Chinese believes to be facts about 1989 Tianenmen Square protest would be a strong POV that can make what was facts to us all back then now disputable? Think about it. Mafia godfather (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
China's POV is a major one, just as Taiwan's POV is another major one. that's why the dispute exists. Per NPOV we do not give conclusions on which side is right. The issue is that you're saying a POV held by 23 million is fringe (comparing it with a POV held by 3000 people), which is absurd. As for the PRC's human rights issue, that is disputed, that's why there's a page on Human rights in the People's Republic of China, similiar to legal status of Taiwan. T-1000 (talk) 20:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Following up on the example w/r/t Korea, I apologize for not making my point clearer. My point is that the Korean POV states that from 1945 Korea was de facto and de jure independent. Since the SFPT only existed years later, it's importance is diminished; after all, how can independence be achieved in 1945 without a treaty? (But it was achieved - according to the Korean POV). Further, as a victim of colonization, Korea also considers the annexation treaty and such void ab initio, which jives nicely with the PRC's refusal to recognize the 1895 cession and so on. Ngchen (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Not true. How Koreans like to celebrate and choose what day to celebrate their independence is arbitrary and serves very little legal bearing, so you will never see any official statement from ROK government that its "de jure" independence date was from 1945. Please show me, because that means whoever put that down would need to retake Korean history. As I said, US independence was July 4th 1776 but its recognition didnt happen until treaty of paris in 1783. If US did not win and the revolution failed, the declaration of independence would have been meaningless, like the Taiwanese Republic of 1895. There are two facts when it comes to Korea, and I hate repeating myself, but Korea is NOT Taiwan. Korean independence was declared, Taiwanese independence was not. Korean independence was blessed and validated by UN general assembly decision in 1948, not Taiwan, Taiwan's disposition was NOT determined since 1952. Japan formally RECOGNIZED Korean independence and wrapped the whole Korean independence up, but Japan merely renounced territorial sovereignty of Taiwan and not ceded it to anyone, including the ROC. Korean independence has much to do with UN decision and SFPT, just because they celebrate Gwang-bog-jeol on 8/15/1945 does not mean that is when they had "de jure" independence. What if something happened that time and they ended up not getting recognized and Japan never recognize them? That happened to Taiwan. If SFPT was so meaningless, why bother have it? Why did almost every single war in the written history ended with peace agreements? Mafia godfather (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Ngchen said: "And the de facto situation is that a Chinese state, the ROC, is acting as sovereign and treated as sovereign over the island of Taiwan by pretty much everybody." Again, this is advocacy for an unsupportable point of view. After Dennis Wilder made his comments in Aug. 2007, how many leading members of the United Nations or other world bodies voiced vigorous objections? Please give me your answer.
Office/Agency: National Security Council
title: An Issue Undecided
date: August 30, 2007
quote: "Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community. The position of the United States government is that the ROC -- Republic of China -- is an issue undecided, and it has been left undecided, as you know, for many, many years."
(source: Comments by Dennis Wilder, National Security Council Senior Director for Asian Affairs)
Moving along, T-1000 misses the point. What is the population of Taiwan in relation to the population of the number of UN members who agree that "The ROC on Taiwan is not an independent sovereign nation." ...?? Even if we include 10 million overseas Taiwanese along with the over 20 million Taiwanese currently living in Taiwan, that figure of 30+ million compared to a world population of 4+ billion is note even 1%. Even if we do vast some adjustment of the figures, it would be hard to see how it could pass 15%. Hence, from the reference point of the world community, the MAJORITY VIEW is that Taiwan is not an independent and sovereign nation. A recent court case (April 7, 2009) US Court of Appeals, Washington D.C., held that: "America and China's tumultuous relationship over the past sixty years has trapped the inhabitants of Taiwan in political purgatory. During this time the people on Taiwan have lived without any uniformly recognized government. In practical terms, this means they have uncertain status in the world community which infects the population's day-to-day lives."
Hence, I must reply to T-1000 and Ngchen: Please address the real issue, are any of the stuff which T-1000 and Ngchen wrote widely accepted in the world community?? Facts must be the stuff that the majority does not dispute, so are there members of the world community who maintain that "ROC/Taiwan is not a country" ??? Yes, most of them. Once again, I am forced to reference the WIKI guidlines to make the charge that T-1000 and Ngchen are engaged in a campaign of "advocacy" for a particular point of view, in direct violation of NPOV. Such a charge is fully supported by their continuing lack of supplying verifiable facts to support their minority viewpoint. Hmortar (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Hmortar, I said that it's common knowledge that Taiwanese consider Taiwan a country, not that I consider Taiwan a country, so I don't know where you got the advoacy stuff. I never said that the ROC is a country, only that ROC/Taiwan's status is disputed. Since you admitted that the Taiwanese dispute "Taiwan is not a country", calling the ROC a government in exile would be a violation of NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 04:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
A country needs to have land, what lands does this ROC government own? If any.Mafia godfather (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Go ask the Taiwanese. They're the ones viewing Taiwan as a country and disputing your contributions. T-1000 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I am a Taiwanese. And I believe burden of proof is on you since now your claim is in dispute. WP:PROVEIT. Mafia godfather (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Please. The majority of Taiwanese views Taiwan as a country is common knowledge. Since that major POV already exists, the NPOV policy forbidden conclusions about whether a major POV is right or wrong. T-1000 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Please refer to my villagers belive earth is flat example, thank you. An opinion can only be a fact if the fact is there is such an opinion. That does not make what the opinion states is indeed a fact. Taiwan may be a "country" to Taiwanese people, and I do not refute that opinion exists, but it is a fact that nobody in the world recognizes this and government on Taiwan has no legal capacity to enter into foreign relations for Taiwan. And don't try to counter me with existence of embassies, because that has nothing to do with "capacity". Just because you can sell drugs does not mean it is a permitted business practice. Once again, I demanded 3rd party reliable sources, and you come back with an opinion again, which does not help your argument at all.Mafia godfather (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Whether Taiwan has legal capacity to enter into foreign relations is again disputed by the Taiwanese people, as they believe that Taiwan's foreign relations are legitimate. As for the flat earthers, "The group rose to about 3,000 members during its peak under Charles K. Johnson." At it's peak, the flat earth group has about 3000 people. The Taiwanese population is 23 million + the countries that recognize the ROC, which is why the flat earth theory is fringe while the Taiwanese people's POV are not. Are you seriously trying to compare 3000 people and 23 million people? Furthermore, you're arguing that the Taiwanese people's POV is not a major POV in regards to Taiwan's political status itself, and I think everyone can see that is absurd. T-1000 (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I dont think you know what legal capacity is, T-1000. And you totally miss my point on the analogy using the villagers who believe earth is flat... Comparing the number of villagers and number of Taiwanese is like comparing apples and oranges. What I was stressing at was just because a group of people believing a fact is wrong does not mean that fact is NOT a fact when applies to those people. Why the heck are you comparing number of people in Taiwan and number of people who are in Flat Earth society? Couldn't you tell that i totally pointed out the absurdity of your argument with the China example? Mafia godfather (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Once again, your contributions are not facts because they don't meet the definition of fact on Wikipedia. T-1000 (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid you missed my point about the de facto, rather than the de jure situation. On a de facto basis, other countries maintain so-called unofficial relations with the ROC government, treating it as the sovereign over Taiwan and elsewhere. For instance, the American Institute in Taiwan issues visas to Taiwanese people wishing to visit the USA. And, with PRC consent, foreign carriers DO fly to Taiwan after concluding various aviation agreements. But yes, various countries take widely different approaches with regard to what they believe to be the de jure situation. Haiti for instance actually DOES recognize the ROC as legitimate. A bunch of other countries remain silent with regard to both the ROC, as well as what entity holds the sovereignty of Taiwan island. Some countries such as Russia flat-out recognize PRC de jure sovereignty over Taiwan. Many other countries are intentionally silent. Anyway, since the actual question is disputed (see legal status of Taiwan for details and references), and this is not a forum, we cannot take sides without violating NPOV. Therefore, all sides with a substantial following must be presented. Ngchen (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
ROC has no legal capacity to be a country, that is why hardly any countries recognize ROC unless there is a monetary incentive package involved. If I pay some sex workers well enough, I bet I can have them call me God if the price is right. But that does not make me a God. You seem to ignore the concept of legal capacity and choose to use the same inept argument that has already been debunked over and over again. It is a fact that ROC government currently has no place in international bodies that allow states only, and ROC has no legal capacity to enter into foreign relations for China or Taiwan. Just because you can sell cigarettes to a minor does not mean it is legitimate. If these countries want to make friends with ROC instead of China, that is their own issue and they have their own incentives. Do not mistake it for legitimate legal capacity, of which the ROC has NONE of as per UN resolution 2758. When was the last time the ROC did join any state-only organization as a member state? If it is, in fact, a country?Mafia godfather (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Does anyone feel a request for mediation with the Mediation Cabal would be useful? I feel we're either talking past each other, and/or people are editing tendentitiously and/or engaging in advocacy for their favored POV. I would be glad to request MEDCAB assistance if others are willing to participate. Ngchen (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, can we go directly to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee? Mediation is just a place to talk, and we've done plenty of that here. T-1000 (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Please get arbitrator involved, I can't keep on seeing T-1000 repeating the same inept argument over and over again.Mafia godfather (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
If someone actually wants to file an arbitration case, they can go ahead; however, I will try to summarize my position and what I believe to be Mafia godfather's position at the MEDCAB page. I'm not sure the Arbitration committee will take the case at this point, since we might not have exhausted other remedies. Ngchen (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I think T-1000 is right. I see the Mediation Cabel as a place to get help cooling things down when tempers are flaring. I don't think we have that problem here. This seems to be more of a problem of reasonable people seriously reaching different conclusions. Arb Committee might be a better choice. Readin (talk) 15:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not support or oppose going to arbitration; however, I will remind everyone of a few things. First, while everything else tends to be collaborative, arbitration is not. All sides will end up having to point out the worst aspects of the others' behavior, and conversely defending one's own. Arbitration is the last resort, and it tends to produce results that do not please everyone, not to mention it's drawn out. Second, arbitration looks solely at user behavior; it almost always will not make binding decisions upon content. Yes, I myself believe that some users need improvements in behavior, and I DO question the commitment of some users to neutrality. I do hope that such users can see the proverbial light. But no, I doubt the current situation is really due to reasonable people coming to different conclusions. So an advantage of going to arbitration would be to get binding rulings and sanctions against those who for whatever reasons are being disruptive in practice. To summarize, arbitration is a proverbial sledgehammer. I would prefer to resolve the issues without having to resort to it, and if we really have a case of miscommunication, then hopefully MEDCAB can help resolve the disagreement.
On a side note, I wonder why the initial enthusiasm toward going to MEDCAB evaporated so quickly, with several users now clamoring for arbitration? Ngchen (talk) 16:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps reasonable wasn't the right word. Really what I meant is civil and calm. Only two users, myself and T-1000 have mentioned something beyond Medcab. I can't speak for T-1000 but my initial reaction to the Medcab suggestion was that it was probably insufficient, but I didn't have the opportunity to write up a response until a couple hours ago. Readin (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know, Mafia godfather has initiated a MEDCAB request located at [1]. Those wishing to participate might want to go there. I have restated my position over there already. Ngchen (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Specific biases
Mafia has said his position is not POV, that he is merely reporting fact. I think it would be useful to point out some specific POV inherent in his position.
What does it mean to "acquire" or to "posess" something www.m-w.com has the following definitions for "acquire"
1 : to get as one's own: a : to come into possession or control of often by unspecified means
Note that this definition fits our purpose of trying to avoid a POV about the possession or control, and even avoids saying whether it is possession or control (at one point Mafia indicated that "control" was ok to say).
"Possess" is defined as
1 a : to have and hold as property
2 b : to enter into and control firmly
Neither of these definitions speak to what is right or what is wrong. Neither says anything about whether the owner should have, hold or control.
The first POV then, is insisting on interpretations of "acquire" and "possess" that don't match the definition given by a notable POV (the notable POV being a well-known and respected dictionary).
Legality over reality: Acquiring something legally is different from acquiring something practically: I may have the deed to the car, but if it's not in my possession then I really don't have it. "Let's go to the bank, does anyone have a car?" "I do, here's the deed." "let's go then". "I can't some guy I don't know has been driving it for 30 years and won't hand me the keys" It's not really your car then, is it?
The POV of people outside Taiwan vs the POV of the people inside Taiwan and the POV of the Taiwan government: The topic in question is Taiwan. Therefor, despite the population of Taiwan being tiny compared to the rest of the world, the POV of the Taiwanese people is very important and certainly notable. Similarly, it is the government of Taiwan that is running things there. The POV of that government - and its POV is very clear about it owning Taiwan - is very important and certainly notable.
The POV of whether there even is such a thing as "international law". Again referring to www.m-w.com this time for the definition of "law":
1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : control, authority
Notice that these definitions keep using to words like "enforced", "enforcement", "enforcible". Who enforces the supposed "international law"?
The POV that the definition of a country depends on recognition by other country. This is a recent theory in human events. How would there be a first country if it couldn't be a country until another country existed before it? This new definition conflicts with the Montevideo convention.
POV that one interpretation of the a law is the only valid interpretation of the law: There is no supreme court of international law. In fact there aren't much in the way of lower courts for international law. Therefor any interpretation of the law cannot be authoritative unless it is clear that all notable parties agree with it.
Readin, I think it seems like you are trying to force the argument that the facts I have stated are actually arguments or not facts by pointing out a couple things that may seem like POV. Let me tell you how it is not going to work. When one states a fact for the purpose to inform, it should be as specific and unambiguous as possible. It is fact that the ROC has come to take administrative control of Taiwan but has no ownership of Taiwanese territorial sovereignty, in that case, the best word to reduce unnecessary confusion is "to control" for both "acquire" and "possess" have meanings that may give people the impression of "ownership". Any notable and respected dictionaries would not define "control" as "ownership". So, no offense, to try to play the vague card by stating ROC "acquired" or "possesses" Taiwan is a cheap shot to try to make people believe ROC has ownership of Taiwan when in fact it does not. THAT is my POV, my POV is to use the best definition that creates least amount of confusion and ambiguity for a simple fact. My POV in that has NO relevance to the fact I have contributed.
You tried to argue ROC's de facto control of Taiwan outweighs its lack of legality in its ownership claim over Taiwan. It may sound logical with what you said about the car, but do you think it is valid? Seriously. Someone stole your car or even borrow your car for extended period of time, would you say that person has the ownership of the car? Would you say that person has "acquired" or "possessed" your car? Or would you say that person is now "controlling" your car. Because if not, let me know where your car is, I would not mind go and "acquire" or "possess" it so I may donate to charity groups and see if they want it without the pink slip. Most legal principles dictate that the car in your analogy would still be yours. Why? Because if the car is ever recovered, it would be rightfully yours. If the car ever gets into troubles, the liability is yours. Why? It is REALLY your car. Do you own a car, by the way? Because this seems to be a general knowledge for those who passed driver's license exam. Back to ROC's case, the legal owners of Taiwan in the case is the people of Taiwan. Taiwanese people today still in fact owners of Taiwan and the ultimate decision maker for Taiwan. ROC government's control over Taiwan did not diminish Taiwanese people's ownership of Taiwan, and Taiwanese people in fact are the ones who empowers ROC's administrative control over Taiwan. So, your lost car example simply does not work on Taiwan. It is best described by my nanny analogy. ROC is like a nanny for Taiwan, it is in charge of it, but does not own it.
Let's be very careful on terminologies here. Formally speaking, there is no such thing as "Taiwan government", it is the Republic of China government. ROC government on Taiwan was established in China in 1911, and the government has not been naturalized to be a natively established government in Taiwan. POV of Taiwanese people also need to be changed to "POV of ROC citizens", for the POV in this case is determined under the premise that ROC is the sole governing authority on Taiwan, and thus loses significance since ROC is a disputed party here. Just like if we are to find out the facts about holocaust, perhaps the POV of the Nazis would not be as helpful as the POVs of the Allied powers and the Jewish prisoners. How about Nanking massacre? How important is the POV of Japanese government. What about Tiannamen Square? The POV of entire Chinese population that has been influenced by Chinese communists would very much make the casualties of students highly disputable. You still think it is very important? How many felons ended up getting convicted pleaded "not guilty"? Absolute most. The statements I brought forth are from academic and official records, on top of that, those parties that have the CAPACITY to validate the facts. ROC wants Taiwan and claims it as its own despite the legal reality indicates the contrary, I am sure many teams that ended up losing the super bowl would say the game was unfair and they were indeed better teams, but do we take those POVs seriously enough to overturn the fact they lost? No.
Who enforces international laws? Present day, that would be the UN. Interestingly enough is the very body that recognized Korean Independence(to Ngchen) and replaced ROC with PRC. As far as I can see, they have enforced quite a lot of laws we can obviously witness today.
You said "definition of a country depends on recognition by other country" and made reference to Montevideo convention. Allow me to clarify Montevideo definition that definition of a country depends on CAPACITY to enter into relations with other countries. [[2]] Not merely recognition by other country. Readin, if you do not understand the legal concept of the laws you quote, I suggest you research before you make an assertion base on false interpretation. ROC currently claims to be owner of Taiwan and legal government of China, it is acting in that capacity, a capacity that is not recognized by the world. It is as legitimate as Russia's recognition of South Ossetia. ROC's only recognized capacity is as administer of Taiwan, and that has enabled it to establish unofficial agencies throughout the globe. This definition also only religiously applied to newly formed states after the adoption of the convention, and all existing states such as the signatories prior to the existence of the definition would be grandfathered.
ROC as all other states who created UN agreed to the charter as the supreme law of the international laws and we all the supreme court of international law the THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE as stated in UN Charter Chapter 14. "All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter."(UN Charter Art 2 Sec 2) Also, "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail. "(UN Charter Art 103) Since ROC was the original signatory of UN when it was acting in CAPACITY as rightful China, it was already agreed that it will comply to what the world decides when it comes to legal questions. So, Readin, again... uninformed about relevant knowledge hurts your argument. I urge you once again to enrich your knowledge prior to making arguments, this is wikipedia, it saves everything we post and you lose credibility everytime you argue about issues you do not understand.Mafia godfather (talk) 07:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I point out that you have a bias in favor of legality over reality. You respond by explaining the law to me. I think that proves my point.
Your point about the ROC having signed the UN charter and therefor being bound by it is a point I have often made to people who refuse to recognize the Taiwanese people's inherent right to choose their own destiny. However as a legal point it is still POV. If interpeting law were trivial and obvious there wouldn't be so many lawyers.
You rightly say that "When one states a fact for the purpose to inform, it should be as specific and unambiguous as possible." However one should not be more specific than is possible. In this case it is difficult to be specific when there are so many notable POVs.
Your statement that the UN enforces international law leads to a contradiction. You claim the UN enforces international law and you also claim that the ROC violates international law when it exercises sovereignty over Taiwan. If both are true, then the UN would be enforcing the law by either removing the ROC from Taiwan or at least preventing the ROC from exercising sovereignty in Taiwan. However, as we've demonstrated, the ROC continues to exercise sovereignty there (much to the dismay of people who resent the Chinese having moved in and doing so much damage to the island setting the island back many years in its development and continuing to hinder said development). So either the UN does not enforce international law, or the ROC is not violating international law in the eyes of the UN.
Three other editors with widely divergent political views disagree with you that your theory is the only correct non-fringe theory worthy of mention. I've seen Ngchen editing for a long time and he is so even-handed that I've had a difficult time figuring out his biases. T-1000 is an editor I nearly always find myself opposing in his attempts to push his POV (and I'm sure he feels the same way about me). Yet all three of us unanimously agree that you are clearly violating NPOV with your edits. Why do you suppose that is? Readin (talk) 03:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Events like Tiananmen Square are disputed, which is why the article gives the number of people killed by the PRC: "The official Chinese government figure is 241 dead, including soldiers, and 7,000 wounded.[28]" and other sources, such as the NATO intelligences "7,000 deaths – NATO intelligence.[36]" to comply with the NPOV policy. You, on the other hand, totally ignore those countries that recognize PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan, and the POV of the majority of Taiwanese. That is a direct violation of NPOV.T-1000 (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid Mafia godfather has made the mistake of conducting original research in his answer above, again by concluding (for a bunch of reasons he spells out) that the ROC as a matter of fact does not possess the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan. He points to the rule on fringe theories to justify his claims; however, that rule defines a fringe theory as one that does not have any notable adherents. The view that the ROC is legitimate is held by, well, at least the governments of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Vatican City, and a bunch of other genuine states. Such states are notable. Whatever their reasons for doing so, the fact that they consider the ROC legitimate means the view is not fringe. Likewise, the view that de jure sovereignty over Taiwan has somehow passed to some version of "China," is a view that has been published in reliable sources, and therefore is also not fringe. Just to be perfectly clear, it is original research to conclude that one set of arguments trump another, when both have been made. (Here's something: fringe views such as Holocaust Denial are held only by extremely tiny minorities; not by entire nation-states!)
BTW, the MEDCAB request was rejected, with a note to specifically keep WP:FRINGE in mind. Ngchen (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
ROC currently claims to be owner of Taiwan and legal government of China. (I believe that current ROC government officers point to the ROC Constitution for the basis of their territorial claims over mainland China, and note that there have been no revisions of the ROC Constitution which ever modified those claims.) Ngchen advances an argument to say that: The view that the ROC is legitimate is held by, well, at least the governments of Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Vatican City, and a bunch of other genuine states. Such states are notable. Whatever their reasons for doing so, the fact that they consider the ROC legitimate means the view is not fringe.
But if these "genuine states" consider the ROC legitimate, then when their citizens want to travel to mainland China, they would need to apply for a visa with whom? It appears that they would need to apply for a visa with the ROC government authorities. In fact, is this what the citizens of these countries do? Can anyone provide verifiable sources to show that this is true? Or to provide some sources to explain exactly what these "genuine states" are recognizing when they recognize the "legitimacy" of the ROC? I believe that some Editors are assuming that the actions of these "genuine states" imply a well-reasoned NPOV, but that may be an illusion. Hmortar (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Whether the POVs are well-reasoned or not is not for us to decide, since that would involve original research. We're only allowed to describe the controversy neutrally. Ngchen (talk) 15:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
