Talk:One-China policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Taiwan (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject East Asia (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

One China[edit]

It is true that "many important countries in the world say the controversy must solved peacefully, and this is the same important as one China." And it is also true that PRC never gives up the intention of military invasion. I don't know why someone try to delete the statements..

Can it please be clarified whether this one-china policy is policy of the USA, or UN, or other?

Quotation should be sourced[edit]

The source for these words might be obvious, but it should be included in the article: "the Government of the People's Republic of China is the sole legal government of all of China...and Taiwan is an inalienable part of the territory of the People's Republic of China."

'Different' interpretations of One-China policy[edit]

There is only ONE 'interpretation' of One-China policy: There is only one state called China in the world. The PRC government is the sole legitimate government of China.

The 'differences' are in how that situation came to be. It's a matter of succession vs civil war. -mako 22:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The true difference lies in the question whether Taiwan is politically part of China according to an international law standard. Neither succession nor civil war story would answer this question. The answer resides in the post-war treaties.Mababa 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please provide a source which says that even one country (other than PRC) has interpreted the One China policy as meaning, "The PRC government is the sole legitimate government of China." It ought to be child's play to come up with such a source. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:24, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

A source could be UN General Assembly Resolution concerning China's representation in UN(No. 2758), adopted in 1971. This resolution clearly stated that there is only one China in the world and the PRC government is the sole legitimate government of China. Since then every UN member state has complied to this resolution, except for a group of around 20-25 UN member states which continued to recognize ROC as the sole legitimate government of China instead.

The One China Policy is easily explained by realizing that under international law, the Oct. 25, 1945 surrender ceremonies for Japanese troops in Taiwan only marked the beginning of Taiwan's military occupation (there was no transfer of sovereignty on that date.) The "occupying power" under the customary laws of warfare is the "conqueror," and that is the United States of America. Hence, beginning Oct. 25, 1945, the position of the ROC in Taiwan is merely "subordinate occupying power." Then in mid-December 1949 the ROC moved its central government to occupied Taiwan to become a government in exile. CONCLUSIONS: (a) The ROC is neither a legitimate government for mainland China nor for Taiwan. (b) Taiwan is not part of Chinese territory. (c) the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China. Hmortar (talk) 15:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

- It should be defined as "One China, seperate administration" between PRC and ROC within the One China context.

Policy as obstacle[edit]

From intro:

The acknowlegement of this policy has been an obstacle in relations between the People's Republic of China and Republic of China.

Who says that acknowlegement has been an obstacle? This sounds like somebody's opinion. Surely we can find a source for this. (Or is it implicit in the body of the article that everyone sees ack as an obstacle?)

I don't think PRC considers ack to be an obstacle. Not unless they're deliberately shooting themselves in the foot. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:22, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify this. --Jiang 02:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Jiang, I don't think you ever clarify anything. --DINGBAT 19:02, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)



Removed statement that acknowledgement that PRC is the one China is required for diplomatic relations with the PRC. It isn't.

Roadrunner 06:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

(see Wikipedia:Chinese naming controversy)

PRC government is the sole legitimate government of China, as stated in the UN General Assembly Resolution concerning China's representation in UN (No. 2758), adopted in 1971. ROC government was the sole legitimate government of China until 1971.

Criticism[edit]

I removed this "Tibet, Uigher, Hong Kong, and Taiwan all want formal independence." because it's too POV to say that these regions want formal independence. Especially HK, where I know of no legitimate seperatism movement. I;d like something in the article that states which regions don't regard themselves as part of China and to what extent, and sourced too, but that statement is too loaded.

Too PRC-centric[edit]

Although this is largely a PRC diplomatic policy, the ROC did in the past have a policy that it would break diplomatic relations with any country once it switched to recognise the PRC, stating that "漢賊不兩立". Should the ROC policy in the past be reflected in this article, or in a separate article? — Instantnood 12:13, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

First paragraph[edit]

Do we really need this sentance - "This is not to be confused with China's one-child policy." Surely people will know the difference.--Horses In The Sky 14:25, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree..it looks a bit absurd.----
It's completely silly. I am going to remove it. CoramVobis 00:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Lien Chan[edit]

Lien Chan is the romanzation for 連戰 (Lián Zhàn), where Lien is the surname while Chan is his name, there was an error at the end of the article, calling him "Chan", missused as his surname.

--59.117.123.98 11:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

When did the One-China policy come into effect?[edit]

Does anyone know when the One-China policy was first put into effect? The earliest date I can find in the article is the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972 between the PRC and the USA. — Nrtm81 19:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

-Since the establishment of PRC in 1949 the question of which government represents China is divided between the two governments. Nowadays, PRC opposes Two Chinas, which means PRC opposes that there is a PRC and a ROC, in addition, PRC opposes One China One Taiwan and does not allow Taiwan independence or formation of a Taiwan character internationally. PRC treats Taiwan as it's own province.

ROC only governs Taiwan, Pesdacore, Matsu and Kinmen but still calls itself China. After 1949, there is no doubt that ROC government lost to the Chinese Communist on Mainland China. ROC continues to use the old constitution in Taiwan (with seven amendments in Taiwan now with this constitution), which was drafted in mainland China before the fall of it and that's why ROC claims that legally it represents China and on one side PRC's constitution states that PRC is the successor of ROC after 1949.

PRC and ROC both claim the other as its own and this game is both local and international (with the emphasis on money diplomacy on buying small states for diplomatic recognition) that is highly unlikely to be ended unless one of them disappears.

"Two China" article is deleted on the chinese site[edit]

That is right. It was deleted on 11/23, then was reinstalled one day later. however, it is deleted again on the Chinese site! I am telling you guys, the chinese communist spies are taking over the chinese site. here is what i wrote earlier.

before claiming theres "chinese communist spies" editing the page, why not make a rational statement first? wikipedia is editable for everyone, is government going to actually change it everytime someone change it? absolutely not. PRC government have better things to do than starting a pointless editing war against hypocrites like you.

-- On the de facto basis there are Two China across the Taiwan Strait, considering NO recognition of constitution and law between the PRC and the ROC. But the point is that PRC claims that there is only one China which is PRC so things happen as mentioned above.

Ny comment is that it may be a personal decision to alter the content of Two China earlier not necessarily a governmental action, who knows.

the chinese communists are taking over the chinese page[edit]

the communists blocked their people's access to wikipedia. and all of sudden, it seems that they unblocked it according to some people. some still can't get connected to zh.wikipedia.org

now it may seem to be nice. however, let's think it hard. why would they continue to block other web sites and only unblock this web site? The only way they will do it is because they now have control of this chinese wikipedia web site by putting their own spies into this system.

so far, they have deleted several articles, blocked many articles such as the "two China", "the treaty b/w Russian and China's borders", etc. and if you go read about the Tibet article, it did not mention anything about how the communists invaded tibet in 1949. over all, that web site is completely pro chinese communists, it is as if that whole web site is singing love songs for the chinese communists!

it simply doesn't make sense why there are mainland Chinese volunteerring for that site, when the chinese government blocked its access. normal people certainly won't be able to connect to the zh.wikipedia.org at all. and it even advertises for people to meet in chinese cities. we know chinese cops spy on their people's "illegal" activities. so you think that the chinese cops will allow its people to gather to talk about wikipedia which is a blocked site?!

someone should take some actions to make sure that chinese communist spies are not taking over that site.

  • before claiming theres "chinese communist spies" editing the page, why not make a rational statement first? wikipedia is editable for everyone, is government going to actually change it everytime someone change it? absolutely not. PRC government have better things to do than starting a pointless editing war against hypocrites like you.

It is true...There are a lot of pro-communist people managing that page. They are very hostile to ideas like independence of Taiwan and the like. Contributer314 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate to keep adding paragraphs like "Chinese Wikipia is occupied by communists" in the article entitled "One-China policy". Communist or not, a writing teacher would delete it. Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Also, I don't think some addition of trivias to this article are appropriate. What kind of impact does the renaming of an airport have?--Skyfiler 07:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"What kind of impact does the renaming of an airport have?"
ask the peaople crazy enough to rename it! ;)
also to anyone who claim there are communist in china, since when do communist carry iphone and drive BMWs, they are totalitian not communist.. it is like calling DPRK democrat cause that is what their name sez. ;P Akinkhoo (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions (need clarification in text)[edit]

The text reads: "One interpretation of one China is that there exists only three geographical regions of China, which was split into two Chinese governments by the Chinese Civil War." What are those three parts? Is Mongolia the third?

More generally, can we be more specific about what "one China" actually means? Sometimes the language suggests that THERE IS NOW one China (in which case Beijing ought to be happy--no?), at other times it seems that EVENTUALLY THERE SHOULD BE one China (but it does not yet exist, because Taiwan is de facto independent).

Apparently the former interpretation comes closest to the official line--but then, what sort of entity is this "China" that Beijing and Taipei are both said to be part of? Ethnic? Historical / geographic? Legal / political? Metaphysical? Yet to be decided?


The reason for the ambiguity of language is that 'One China' means different things to different people. To the PRC, 'One China' means that Taiwan is part of the PRC and the government there is illegal. To the Kuomintang, 'One China' means that the ROC government is the rightful government-in-exile of all of China and they only control Taiwan and the surrounding sea-space and islands. To the DPP it means that Taiwan is a part of China until independence is declared and a new constitutional government is formed. The whole reason the final language of the policy was agreed to by all parties... they were each able to spin it as a huge victory for their respective supporters. I realize that isn't much better, but I hope it helps.EclecticGeek (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

templates[edit]

Do we really need the PRC and ROC templates to the right of the article? They are a bit confusing because PRC comes first (NPOV?) so when a reader first sees the page, they only see the PRC template and not the ROC template. Readin (talk) 15:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ROC forces others to treat it as government of all of China?[edit]

Legally speaking, the Republic of China continues to maintain its version of the "One China" principle by officially (but no longer actively) claiming sovereignty over all of its territory before 1949, including Mongolia. Therefore, when conducting diplomatic relations, the country maintaining official ties with Taipei must recognize the ROC as the sole and legitimate government of all of China.

When was the last time the ROC told a country that the ROC wouldn't accept recognition unless that recognition was for the ROC as the government of China rather than as the government of Taiwan?Readin (talk) 22:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • The quote says "legally speaking" which is still the case. But even in practice, during DPP's ROC all the countries which recognise the ROC have recognised ROC as the sole and legitimate government of all of China. DPP doesn't talk about it publicly because, I suspect, this pactice is bad for their votes because their audience don't generally like this.--Pyl (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

needz more tibet?[edit]

no seriously, should tibet be in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.40.9 (talk) 11:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

why? Readin (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First sentence wrong or misleading[edit]

The One-China policy (traditional Chinese: 一個中國; simplified Chinese: 一个中国; pinyin: yī gè Zhōngguó) is a principle that there is one China and that mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan are all part of that China.


The problem with this is that countries like the U.S. and the U.K. each have a "one China" policy, but do not agree that Taiwan is part of that China. Under the U.S. "one China" policy, the U.S. "acknowledges" the PRC's belief that Taiwan is part of China, but doesn't say whether it agrees with that belief.

There are many "one China" policies. If we are to say "the One-China policy", then we need to be specific about which one we mean. Readin (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

you bring up an interesting point. To my knowledge, the U.S. is deliberately vague on what its one-China policy is. I know the PRC version is the most straightforward, and the most extreme :-), and the most easily sourced. It would be wonderful if other sourced versions of one-China policies can be found.Ngchen (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The US is quite clear on its One China policy: the status of Taiwan awaits final determination. In most public statements the US just makes vague One China noises. But this policy has been consistent with signed treaties for the last 52 years. The Wiki page does not make this clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.26.52.248 (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can't agree...The US position is more complicated than that...Even the CIA fact book shows Taiwan as part of China...86.42.22.68 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The current president doesn't get to decide on the government's cross-strait policy?[edit]

I believe under the Constitution of the ROC. The President is empowered to make policies in relations to foreign affairs, cross-strait relations and defence, while the rest of the policies are made by the Executive Yuan. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The President's policy in these three subjects is the official policy of the government.--pyl (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For your convenience, I found this quote which says what I said above, but in Chinese.

"即國防、外交、與兩岸關係是直屬總統權責的三塊" [[1]]

If you know someone who can understand Chinese, please ask them to translate for you.--pyl (talk) 18:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit wars on the ROC's diplomatic status[edit]

Please discuss here before making edits, especially personal queries and comments. I find it quite unprofessional to state those in the main text.

Personally I find the queries hostile. This is one of the examples:-

"There are several recent examples of this policy:{huh|date=September 2008|what policy?}"

Isn't the article about One China policy? Do you want people to do "One China policy" in every context?

And this:-

"huh|date=September 2008|What does the absence of diplomatic relations prove about the Vatican's view on the One-China policy? Unless a non-OR link is indicated, this is off-topic."

If you read the whole paragraph, it says "There are several recent examples of this policy:". They are examples. How are they off-topic?--pyl (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The original main text remains; queries about certain parts of it are placed close to the parts questioned, within "citation requested" or "clarify" templates, not in the main text itself. To me, that seems a much better way of putting the questions than to copy portions of the main text on the Talk page and put the query about each portion here, one after another. Provided, of course, that - as I thought was normal on Wikipedia - someone cooperated by responding to the citation and clarification requests, the bases of which were made clear within the templates.
They are not "personal" queries, but queries about the content of the article.
I think if you have queries over a whole paragraph of the main text, it would be best if you discuss your queries before you mark the whole paragraph with tags, nearly on a sentence by sentence basis. It makes the whole article look really unprofessional.--pyl (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If you do not want to respond to the citation and clarification requests in the way that I thought was normal, by all means let us discuss them here. Thank you for at least responding to my query about "which policy?". This query followed the statement that, on the one hand, all countries that have diplomatic relations with Taipei must accept that government as the sole government of China, and on the other hand, that the ROC had declared that a country that had diplomatic relations with it could have simultaneous diplomatic relations also with Beijing. So I asked for clarification of which of these two seemingly contradictory policies was the one of which several examples existed. The so-called examples that followed seemed irrelevant to either. I am grateful to you for having specified which policy you meant.
The ROC made the declaration during the DPP years (2000-May 2008) when the government mainly considered itself as the government of Taiwan (not of China). In practice, no country has ever taken up the offer and all countries recognising the ROC still recognise it as the sole legitimate government of China. One may speculate that Beijing would not accept duo recognition as it would be contrary to the "One China Policy".
Beijing is adamant about the "One China Policy", as the policy is one of the tools that Beijing uses to prevent Taiwan from being independent on a de jure basis: the policy makes sure that Taiwan is part of Chinese territory, regardless of which Chinese government the foreign country recognises.
The circumstances that gave rise to the "Two China situation" aren't identical to the Koreas or the Germanys. The most prominent example is that there is only one UN seat for China but there are two for Korea (and used to be two for Germany). The One China Policy was the main factor, as it has been the Policy insisted by the two Chinas (again except for the DPP years).--pyl (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
On the second example you give - well, what does the absence of diplomatic relations with the PRC prove about the Vatican's view on the One-China policy? The article suggests that some conclusion can be drawn, apparently that the Vatican recognizes the ROC claim to be the sole government of China. That is not an obvious conclusion. The United States does have diplomatic relations with the PRC, but, as the article says, has not declared its acceptance of the PRC position, but only declared that it does not challenge it. The Vatican, doubtless, does not challenge the ROC position, but its diplomatic relations with Mongolia (which Taipei officially considers to be part of China) shows that it has not in fact accepted the ROC position. So, again, what does the absence of diplomatic relations with the PRC prove about the Vatican's view on the One-China policy? If the comment about the absence of diplomatic relations has no real relevance to the subject, it has no place in the article.
Would you please also answer my only other query (either here or by a clarification within the article): What does the alphabetical seating arrangement of Chen Shui-bian, President of the Republic of China (not "President of China"), at the funeral of Pope John Paul II indicate about the Vatican's attitude on the one-China policy? I would now add: Why does the article state that he was seated "in his capacity as the head of state of China", rather than as head of state of the Republic of China? If perhaps some uncited report of the event mentioned only the word "China" in his regard (something that the article does not state), I suppose the same report had "Brazil", rather than "Federative Republic of Brazil". Lima (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't give the examples so I will leave others to answer.--pyl (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I take it we may therefore leave in the article the two "clarify" tags that I put in, together with the "citation needed" tag that someone else (perhaps you?) put in about Panama. I hope someone will respond. Of course, if they don't, your statement that "There are several recent examples of this policy of recognizing the ROC as the only legitimate government of China: for example, ..." will have to be queried explicitly.
By the way, one country did "take up the offer" - Kiribati itself. But the PRC, after spending some days trying in vain to make Kiribati change its mind, decided in line with its policy - which is not the subject of this section of the article - to sever its diplomatic ties with Kiribati. It seems therefore that it is only the PRC, not the ROC, that is quite inflexible about the one-China policy. Lima (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right. I should have been more careful with my wording. I apologise. I meant to say that "In practice, no country has ever got to accept the offer and all countries recognising the ROC still recognise it as the sole legitimate government of China".
You will note the One China policy is a policy of the current ROC government so I believe the declaration during the DPP years is no longer relevant. The current ROC government has also requested that the two Chinas should cease fire on the diplomatic front. There are signs that Beijing has accepted this request, so I don't expect to see a large number of countries switching recognitions.
I have no view on the examples, but I did put up the "citation needed" tag as I don't consider it approproate to state facts without footnotes.--pyl (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the "policy" in the article the practice of recognizing Taiwan as the legitimate government of all of China if your country recognizes the ROC at all? That is an offshoot of the one China policy, but slightly different. Anyway, I believe the sentence is clearly written (it describes a practice, and then gives examples) and doesn't need to be changed. However, if we want to sit around and over-analyze the use of one word (for whatever motivation), let's just change the word from policy to practice and be done with it. The information obviously belongs in the article, so let's just get some language we can all agree on and move on. And the Vatican point is obviously in the same vein: it is important of the practical implementation of the one-China policy. I am slightly puzzled as to why we are even discussing this. (However, POV blame gaming makes me suspicious).LedRush (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

POV blaming because foreign relations is a very touchy subject in the ROC politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talkcontribs) 14:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I just do not see how seating the President of the Republic of China in the alphabetical order of "Chine (République de)" was "practical implementation of the one-China policy", as LedRush says. Would he please explain? Lima (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty self-explanatory, but sure. Evidence that the Vatican treats the gov't of the ROC as the president of China and that the Vatican doesn't recognize the PRC would be an example of the practictal implications of recognizing the ROC as the legitimate gov't of China. In the eyes of the Vatican the ROC is the legitimate gov't of China, and the ROC officials are treated accordingly.LedRush (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Not really so straightforward. The Vatican recognized Chen as the President of the Republic of China, not, as you wrongly stated, as the President of China. It didn't thereby endorse Chen's territorial claims, whatever they were. Who says that the Vatican does not "recognize" the PRC? Absence of diplomatic relations does not mean absence of recognition. The Holy See does not have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, but it recognizes Saudi Arabia: the Pope recently met with the king of that country. There have reportedly even been direct contacts between officials of the Holy See and of Beijing. The Kiribati case shows that, for the ROC, a government may recognize the Taipei government as that of the ROC and the Beijing government as that of PRC. Kiribati was prepared to do just that. It was the PRC that refused to accept that situation, not Kiribati. Your assertion that in the eyes of the Vatican the Taipei government is the legitimate government of China is gratuitous. On the contrary, while for the Taipei government Mongolia is part of China, the Holy See has diplomatic relations with the government of Mongolia. That should be enough to show that the matter is not at all self-explanatory. Lima (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I know that these relations are complicated, but I think that you are unnecessarily muddying up something that isn't that difficult. The Vatican recognizes the ROC and not the PRC. This is not seriously contested by anyone. And your contention that talking to people from a gov't means that you can't not recognize them is unrealistic. Leaders would be fools to ignore countries with whom they have bad (or no) relations. By your logic, does the US recognize Taiwan as there is so much contact between the two parties?
I wonder, what is the real problem with the sentence...are you claiming it's inaccurate or that it's wrong or that it's unclear? I don't like the way this conversation seems to be slipping off track.LedRush (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The Vatican has diplomatic ties with the ROC and not the PRC. That is a fact, not contested by anybody. It does not follow that the Vatican does not recognize the PRC. Many countries have diplomatic relations with both ROK and DPRK, but the Holy See has diplomatic ties only with the ROK and not with the DPRK, which doesn't want relations with the Vatican. It does not follow that the Holy See does not recognize North Korea. In the ROC-PRC case, it is the PRC that refuses to have diplomatic relations with governments that have such links with Taipei, but it continues to recognize them. It doesn't claim that, either in fact or in law, those governments don't exist.
What is the real problem with the sentence? It begs the question it claims to prove. It claims that Chen's reception as President of the Republic of China proves that the Holy See recognizes him as President of the whole of China (perhaps including Mongolia). The only basis it gives - that you give - for this argument is to state that receiving someone as President of the Republic of China is equivalent to acknowledging him as President of the whole of China. No clearer case of begging the question can be imagined.
And what made anyone imagine that receiving Chen as President of the ROC on a single occasion was in any way more significant than a papal nunciature at Taipei having relations day after day with the government of the ROC, President included? Lima (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
So, if I understand you correctly, your issue is that you don't believe that the Vatican believes that the ROC is the legitimate government of the mainland. I have always understood this to be the case, and a quick google search seems to confirm that sentiment, one of my first hits backs this up: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/09/opinion/oe-faison09
Has something changed recently to indicate that the Vatican has backed off this long-stated position? If so, you are indeed correct that we should amend the section so that it is clear that the Vatican only officially recognizes the ROC, but it doesn't recognize their claims over the mainland.LedRush (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Archbishop Riberi, you will notice, did not withdraw to Taiwan, like other ambassadors accredited to the Nationalist government, when the Communists took over in 1949. He stayed on, treating the change of government as ambassadors generally do when a coup takes place, intending to carry on relations with the new government as they did with the old, instead of refusing to recognize the new government and following the old government, if necessary into exile, as some diplomats did who were accredited to, for instance, the 1939 Polish government. This plan came to nothing, because the Communist government expelled him in 1951. On the failure of Plan A, he then received instructions to go to Taipei; but the Nationalist government declared him persona non grata for being prepared to have relations with the Communist government. He was allowed to visit Taiwan only once, for the consecration of a Chinese bishop, and that not as a diplomat but only on a tourist visa. However, his successor was accepted by the Taipei government. When the United Nations assigned the China seat to the Beijing government, the Holy See took account of this change: the nuncio of the time was on annual leave and never returned. Since then the nunciature is headed only by a chargé d'affaires, not by someone of ambassadorial status. All this does not seem to support the view that Seth Faison expressed in his opinion column, i.e. that, when the Communists gained power (1949, two years before Riberi was expelled!), "Rome lived in denial, stubbornly insisting that Taiwan was the true government of the mainland." (I admit that, in a long article on Riberi's work in China, I read that he was personally convinced that the Nationalist forces were going to make a come-back. Be that as it may, on instructions from Rome he did stay on under the Communist government, rather than join the government that he thought was bound to recover the mainland.)
Though I think Seth Faison's opinion is unfounded, it would surely be better to quote it in the article instead of keeping its present statements with their curious logic. Lima (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry if I sound obtuse, but are you saying that you have a reliable source that says that the Vatican didn't see the ROC as the legitimate gov't over the mainland after the war? If so, I'd like to see it.LedRush (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not claim to be able to quote a reliable source that says explicitly that the Holy See did not or does not see the Nationalist government as that of the whole of China. Only explicit statements are quotable on Wikipedia, not implicit indications as in the article on Riberi. That is why I suggested to you that you quote Faison's explicit statement, if you find it credible. Of course, when I get back to base in a couple of week's time and search for the number of the scholarly journal that contains the article on Riberi, I would then quote parts of it that cast doubt on the reliability of Faison's opinion. But in the meantime you are quite free to quote his opinion, and thus improve on the unsourced statements at present in the article, according to which the seating arrangement in St Peter's Square in 2005 and the absence of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and PRC somehow show that the Holy See does see the Taipei government as the government of the whole of China (perhaps including Mongolia). Lima (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I quite understand your position, but I agree we should cite statements when applicable.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps after all I do have something explicit. The esteemed Italian newspaper La Repubblica, quoted on this blog gave a chronology that included "1951 La Repubblica popolare cinese rompe le relazioni diplomatiche con la Santa Sede ed espelle il nunzio apostolico Antonio Riberi" (1951. The PRC breaks diplomatic relations with the Holy See and expelled the Apostolic Nuncio Antonio Riberi). It explicitly states that there were diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Communist government in China until 1951. A less reliable but concordant source is this, which says: "Le relazioni diplomatiche della Santa Sede e del Governo cinese si sono rotte quando nel 1951, due anni dopo l’arrivo al potere di Mao Tse-Tung, è stato espulso il nunzio apostolico, l’Arcivescovo Antonio Riberi" (The diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Chinese government were broken when in 1951, two years after Mao Tse-Tung's coming to power, the Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Antonio Riberi was expelled). More reliable is the report of the ZENIT agency, quoted on I Segni dei Tempi of June 2005: "Pechino ha interrutto le sue relazioni con la Santa Sede nel 1951, quando ha espulso il Nunzio apostolico nel Paese, l’arcivescovo Antonio Riberi" (Beijing broke off its relations with the Holy See in 1951, when it expelled the Apostolic Nuncio to the country, Archbishop Antonio Riberi). Will these be sufficient to meet your desire for "a reliable source that says that the Vatican didn't see the ROC as the legitimate gov't over the mainland after the war"? I presume that by "the war" you mean that between the Communist and the Nationalist forces. Well, these sources show that there were diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Communist government from immediately after the war until 1951, and so the Vatican cannot be said to have seen the ROC as the legitimate government over the mainland after the war. Lima (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If you prefer Spanish to Italian, what about this, "Pekín y Roma rompieron sus lazos en 1951, cuando el Gobierno de Mao Zedong expulsó al nuncio apostólico, el arzobispo Antonio Riberi", found here? Lima (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Your sources don't do what you think they do. Please give evidence that the vatican has changed it's long standing policy of recognizing the ROC as the sole legitimate gov't of China. And when you do this, please remember that having priests in a country isn't the same as recognition.LedRush (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
LedRush, the alleged policy is not so long-standing, since diplomatic relations have existed between the Holy See and PRC. You might as well say that the Holy See's policy was to recognize the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China! Having priests in a country is, of course, not enough for diplomatic ties. Having an accredited diplomatic representative is. Enough for now. Lima (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
You are defining a two year time in which the Vatican supposedly had relations with the PRC as long standing? Really? But the policy of recognizing the ROc, which has been going on for a little under a century, that's what you have a problem believing? I really don't understand your points on this.LedRush (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we all need to take a step back here. What are we really trying to do with this article? Certainly we all agree that a handful of countries recognize the ROC and not the PRC, and these countries generally recognize that the ROC is the legitimate gov't of all of China. I didn't think it was in question that the Vatican was still among them (though if someone can show me any reference that the Vatican has backed off from this belief, of course I will stand corrected). Why don't we clean up the paragraph and delete references to seating orders and alphabets, and just list a couple of countries that have this view?LedRush (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestion to delete references to seating orders and alphabets is indeed welcome. I will do it for you. I leave it to you to "list a couple of countries" that hold the view that "the ROC is the legitimate gov't of all of China". You realize, of course, that you must source your assertions that these particular countries hold that view. It is not enough to challenge others to produce evidence that they do not hold that view. That is what you have been doing. You have done it again just above: "show me any reference that the Vatican has backed off from this belief". "Backed off" - as if it had been proved that it once held that belief! It for you, first, to show some valid reference that the Vatican has held that belief. Your Faison reference has been shown to be invalid.
Please credit me with a minimum of intelligence. Of course I do not consider a two-year period to be long-standing. The two-year period of diplomatic relations between PRC and Holy See makes clear how absolutely unfounded is the assertion that the Holy See has always recognized ROC as the government of the whole of China.
And please stop confusing the three distinct notions of
  • recognizing a country
  • having diplomatic ties with a country
  • accepting or supporting a country's territorial claims. Lima (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I clarified your contribution in the main text by saying that the diplomatic relations that the Vatican has with the ROC is official but the relations with the PRC is unofficial. It is similar to the US position on China. The US relations with the PRC is official and the relations with the ROC is unofficial.
I believe the countries having diplomatic relations with the ROC recognising the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China (I didn't say all of China). It is the effect of the One China policy. It is easy and hard at the same time to prove this assertion: it is easy for the curious party to call the ROC Department of Foreign Affairs and ask them, but it is hard to list reliable sources for all 23 countries.
In general, I don't think this assertion is challenged because of the prominence of the One China policy.
At the same time, I also believe that it would also be absurd to challenge the PRC side of the assertion and ask for people to provide footnotes for the 150 or so countries.
The assertion is valuable for the sake of knowledge so I think that it is in the public interest for this assertion to be made despite the lack of footnotes.
The foreign relations of the Republic of China article lists the following:-
Vatican City (The Holy See)* (1942)
1942 apparently was the time when the official relations started. If you don't think it is correct, you are welcome to make changes, but please start with the discussion page.
I don't think we need to go into territorial claims in this article. And you are right, these 3 concepts are different and they shouldn't be mixed up.--pyl (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, 1942 was the time when official relations began with the then government of China. The relations continued but with the new government in 1949, just as relations continue with a country when the government changes either by election or (generally) by coup (for instance in Latin American countries in the past) or victory of rebel forces (as in Ethiopia with the overthrow of the Derg). The relations were broken off (by the PRC government) in 1951. In 1952 relations were resumed with the Nationalist government, now in Taipei. Lima (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I find the following irrelevant to the "One China Policy":-

"A writer on the Los Angeles Times claimed that "the Vatican was unable to accept the possibility of a Communist victory in China, so when it actually happened, Rome lived in denial, stubbornly insisting that Taiwan was the true government of the mainland".[1] This view is contradicted by the fact that the Vatican had diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China from the time of the Communist victory until 1951, when the Beijing government broke off the relations and expelled the Apostolic Nuncio, Archbishop Antonio Riberi.[2][3]"

I think the writer is trying to make a point that the Vatican had some diplomatic relations with the PRC until 1951 when the Vatican representative was expelled by the PRC.But I don't think that's relevant to this article: the "One China Policy". Can we just remove the Vatican bit altogether.

If the writer wishes to retain this section, then can I suggest that this section be inserted somewhere in the "foreign relations of the Republic of China" article?--pyl (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And thanks to Readin for removing it. Lima (talk) 14:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Map of RoC/Taiwan on CIA World Factbook[edit]

I have added this sentence in context of USA relations with RoC/Taiwan: "Nonetheless, the map of the PRC on the United States' CIA World Factbook shows Taiwan included on the map of the PRC.[4]

My addition is accurate, referenced and is obviously pretty relevant in assessing the US position. Why was it removed? (I have put it back in). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. has many agencies. Their maps may or may not reflect U.S. policy. If we do talk about the map, should we also mention that the CIA Fact Book lists Taiwan as a "country"? Should we mention that the CIA Fact Book says that Taiwan is governed by the ROC (not the PRC)? The CIA is not in charge of U.S. diplomacy or foreign policy. Readin (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok - I will add in an extra sentence adding in how Taiwan is also listed on the CIA Factbook. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you forgot to mention that none of the CIA statistics relating to the PRC includes those in Taiwan.--pyl (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
This is the full change I have made as it stands now - referring to the map and the fact that "Taiwan" (as the CIA calls it) is listed on the CIA World Factbook:
Nevertheless, on the CIA World Factbook, while Taiwan has a separate entry, it is not listed under "T" but at the bottom of the list. Moreover, the map of the PRC on the CIA World Factbook shows Taiwan included on the map of the PRC.[5]
Even this amended statement has been deleted - why? It is fully sourced, highly relevant and from an important US authority - the CIA. What is wrong with it? (I have put it back in). Regards Redking7 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the discussion here, but does anyone other than Redking feel this statement is relevant? To me, this sentence is just absurd. Who cares what a map on a website says, when it doesn't indicate the US position on something at all? By including the statement, we lend weight to the idea that there is some conflict within the administration, while there is no proof of any such thing.LedRush (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

If Redking7 wants the map mentioned, then Redking7 also needs to mention the fact that none of the statistics relating to the PRC includes those in Taiwan. If the map and the order of "Taiwan" is relevant, why aren't the statistics important? How is the statement relevant to "One China policy" anyway?--pyl (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the entire paragraph as it stands after my additional sentences dealing with the CIA World Factbook etc:
When President Jimmy Carter in 1979 broke off relations with the ROC in order to establish relations with the PRC, Congress responded by passing the Taiwan Relations Act, which while maintaining relations, stopped short of full recognition of the ROC. In 1982 President Ronald Reagan also saw that the Six Assurances were adopted, the sixth being that the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Still, United States policy has remained ambiguous. During the House International Relations Committee on April 21 of 2004, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, James A. Kelly, was asked by Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) whether America’s commitment to Taiwan’s democracy conflicted with the so-called One-China Policy. He admitted the difficulty on defining the U.S.'s position: "I didn’t really define it, and I’m not sure I very easily could define it." He added, "I can tell you what it is not. It is not the One-China principle that Beijing suggests." [2] Nevertheless, on the CIA World Factbook, while Taiwan has a separate entry, it is not listed under "T" but at the bottom of the list. Moreover, the map of the PRC on the CIA World Factbook shows Taiwan included on the map of the PRC.[6]
My additional sentences give balance - The paragraph as it stood stated "the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan"...but balance requires that we also add that the US includes Taiwan/RoC on the map of the PRC. If its not possible to have a balanced presentation of US policy on Taiwan/RoC, then all of the para should be taken out. Otherwise, the amendment is needed.
As to relevance, how could one say that the fact that the US World Factbook includes Taiwan/RoC on the map of the PRC is not relevant to a discussion of the US interpretation of the One China Policy.
As to the omission "of the statistics relating to the PRC includes those in Taiwan". I do not know what this Editor means or is referring to but if the Editor wishes to cover off statistics, a further change would be welcomed.
Ultimately, this is about balance in the article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Have a detailed look at the statistics and figures in the China entry of the World Factbook. Despite the map you mentioned, the figures don't include Taiwan's figures. It essentially doesn't mention Taiwan except to say that "China considers Taiwan as its 23rd province".
So does the map mean much when the figures don't back up the map?
US position on Taiwan is ambiguous. That's common knowledge. Maybe you want to find another example to show that instead of quoting a Factbook map that conflicts with the figures within the same article--pyl (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe this ambiguity on the U.S. position can be noted. After all, it is interesting. In a broader context, perhaps the reader can be informed about how due to the controversial political status of Taiwan, even little things like how a map is drawn can fire up people on all sides. Ngchen (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
So why don't we find another example of the ambiguity of the US position on this. I think we can all agree that there is some gray area and that the US has issues in navigating those areas. I just think it's ridiculous to talk about maps as if they're meaningful in the context of what the US policy actually is (i.e., using maps as proof that the US says one thing about the policy but the maps are evidence that it's not true). However, Ngchen is probably right in that a sentence about how important the Chinese (and Taiwanese) view the maps could color another sentence on how the ambiguities need to be addressed by the US. Isn't there a better example of these problems than maps on a CIA website?LedRush (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The CIA is not a diplomatic agency. It is not a policy making agency. The CIA map-makers are definitely not policy makers and they definitely are not diplomats! Whether or not the policy makers and diplomats pay close attention to CIA maps is unknown. The map on the CIA website could represent little more than the personal opinion of one guy in the department, or perhaps the personal opinion of his boss. Or it might represent a mistaken interpretation of US policy by one of those people (even much higer-ranking diplomats have mis-stated U.S. the U.S. position on this issue.)
The CIA factbook counts as a reliable source of "facts", or at least that what it claims for itself. If it were called the CIA U.S. policy book we could consider it a reliable source of U.S. policy.
On an issue as contentious as Taiwan, we must recognize that as a "reliable source" of "facts", even the CIA must be treated as only one source and not the ultimate source. We have to look at many sources. We're not going to list how every source maps Taiwan, so we shouldn't mention how the CIA does it. Readin (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


I agree with Editor that there is ambiguity to the US approach. I think few would argue with that. I never took out any of the text suggesting the US policy was not the same as the PRC One China Policy...but the text as it stood was not balanced. I went on to note that the US includes Taiwan/RoC on map of PRC. Indeed, that highlights the vert well. Nevertheless, I will take up the suggestion and go ahead and add extra words explicitly mentioning the ambiguity.
As to statistics, if Editor wishes to add another sentence dealing with them, go ahead - sounds like Editor is familiar with them.
As to [w]hether or not the policy makers and diplomats pay close attention to CIA maps is unknown, does any genuine and serious Editor seriously think the CIA included Taiwan/RoC on PRC map 'by accident'! Similarly....we must recognize that as a "reliable source" of "facts", even the CIA must be treated as only one source. No one is suggesting the CIA is the only source worthy of mention. However, there is no valid argument to excluding it as a source in a discussion of the US approach to the One-China Policy.
Once again, this change I have made, just brings much needed balance to the article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the amended paragraph as it stands now:

When President Jimmy Carter in 1979 broke off relations with the ROC in order to establish relations with the PRC, Congress responded by passing the Taiwan Relations Act, which while maintaining relations, stopped short of full recognition of the ROC. In 1982 President Ronald Reagan also saw that the Six Assurances were adopted, the sixth being that the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Still, United States policy has remained ambiguous. During the House International Relations Committee on April 21 of 2004, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, James A. Kelly, was asked by Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) whether America’s commitment to Taiwan’s democracy conflicted with the so-called One-China Policy. He admitted the difficulty on defining the U.S.'s position: "I didn’t really define it, and I’m not sure I very easily could define it." He added, "I can tell you what it is not. It is not the One-China principle that Beijing suggests." [3] Another visible sign of the ambiguity of the US position is the CIA World Factbook. On the World Factbook Taiwan (the RoC name is not used) has a separate entry including analysis of its distinct statistics. However, it is not listed under "T" but at the bottom of the list. Moreover, the map of the PRC on the World Factbook shows Taiwan included on the map of the PRC.[7]

Just what is objectionable here? Looks very much better balanced than before to me. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like only Redking wants this language. I agree with others that this is just not notable and unfairly and inaccurately lends weight to a CIA map. However, I am not opposed to actual (i.e. NOT this map issue) examples of the ambiguity of the US policy for balance.LedRush (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The map comment needs to be deleted. Better examples of the America's lack of recognition of Taiwan can be found such as Clinton's statements about no support for Taiwan independence and no support for Taiwan's membership in international organizations requiring statehood as a condition for membership.
The current example of James Kelly's reply is much better than the map thing because Kelly was an "Assistant Secretary of State" - someone who is actually involved in diplomacy and policy-making. No one said the map was an "accident". It was obviously deliberate. But it can still be wrong. One can very deliberately do something without realizing it is a mistake to do so. The guy who drew the map, or his boss, simply may not be aware of the subtleties of U.S. policy.. Readin (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I would accept that the CIA Factbook is a reliable source of fact. I also accept Redking7's argument that the inclusion of Taiwan as part of the PRC is not an accident. The CIA may not be the US government's agency for policy making, but it is US government's agency to publish information based on US point of view. I am happy with the proposed wording.

I read somewhere in Wikipedia that the "ROC" was actually mentioned in a previous edition of the factbook, but it has since been deleted. Given that fact, I don't think the CIA is that oblivious to this issue to keep this map throughout all editions.

I don't think the Clinton example is that good. The lack of recognition of a state on Taiwan does not automatically mean recognition of Taiwan as part of the PRC. The map asserts that Taiwan is part of the PRC.

I am actually more curious about this bit of the paragraph:-

"the sixth being that the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan."

I did some research on it and I see conflicting results in relation to this. The six assurances article didn't say "the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan", but there is evidence the wording in this article has been altered by an editor. Does anyone have the exact wording?--pyl (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Pyl, I'm glad to hear that you consider the CIA fact book a reliable source of facts on the Taiwan issue. The fact book clearly lists Taiwan as a "Country" so you can stop trying to remove every instance you find where Taiwan is described as such.
Please do not repeat Redking7's strawman about the map being an "accident". No one is claiming that it is so the argument is disingenuous.
As for your question, the U.S.'s agreement with China was worded very carefully to avoid agreeing with the PRC's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan. That policy of not recognizing PRC sovereignty over Taiwan has not changed. Readin (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As to "[the CIA Map] is just not notable" - How can one say that the fact that the CIA includes Taiwan/RoC is not "notable"? Can any Editor seriously claim that that is not very notable in the context of a discussion of the US and the One-China Policy?
As to "[change] unfairly and inaccurately lends weight to a CIA map." - whats unfair about the paragraph?
As to "I am not opposed to actual (i.e. NOT this map issue) examples of the ambiguity of the US policy for balance" - just what is wrong with this map example. Its an extremely clear example indeed. No plausible reasons have been given for its exclusion - so one can only conclude objections stem from a POV. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Readin, I would appreciate it if you do not take this Wikipedia editing thing personally. I feel that you are taking things more and more personal, and I find this act unprofessional. I accept the CIA fact book a reliable source of facts from the US perspective. The publication didn't say that Taiwan's a country (the list is for countries or locations). You noticed that Hong Kong, Macau and the EU are there too? And yes, like Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau also have "country names" and "country codes" in the publication, so CIA is not saying Taiwan is a country. I invite you to show us where "the fact book clearly lists Taiwan as a 'Country'".

Also, I'm open to accept something as a reliable source of facts even if it has a different position from me. I think it is our job as editors to do a balance of POVs. I am not running a political campaign here. I edit according to the Naming Convention (Chinese), which right now treats "Taiwan" a geographic location and a common name for the ROC. If you are uncomfortable with that, I suggest that you get consensus to change it. I find it offensive that you vent your frustration on me.

If the inclusion of Taiwan as part of the PRC in the map is not accidental (as Readin also accepts), then it has its intents and purposes. I accept this sufficient for the purpose of mentioning in the article from a US' perspective.

Redking7 I think there is a base of Taiwan independence supporters here who have a tendency of overlooking the status quo. They are likely to object to something instinctively if the inclusion doesn't fit their political objective. I think the status quo is exactly what you are trying to state: Taiwan is not an independent country, and the US position is ambiguous: the fact that the PRC map includes Taiwan but the statistics doesn't means exactly that.--pyl (talk) 09:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I did notice that Hong Kong and Macau are also in the fact book. I haven't been looking for every instance where those entities are referred to as countries and changing them.
Look in the fact book's Taiwan article under "Government". It says
Country name:
conventional long form: none
conventional short form: Taiwan
local long form: none
local short form: T'ai-wan
former: Formosa
Earlier you said "I would accept that the CIA Factbook is a reliable source of fact." with a full period stop. After I told you the fact book calls Taiwan a "country", you backpedaled and are now saying you only consider it "a reliable source of facts from the US perspective" and you say it has a POV that must be balanced. I expected as much.
If you want the U.S. official perspective on Taiwan, use sources from the agencies and leaders who decide what that perspective is. Get information from the State Department, the White House, etc. Don't consider an agency that has nothing to do with such decisions authoritative on U.S. perspective because they are not the authors of that perspective. You might as well trust the maps from the Department of Motor Vehicles.
At least your are correct in saying that it is a POV that must be balanced. Shall we pull out every map we can find and note how Taiwan and China are displayed in each one?
I would also point out that the fact book uses language that clearly implies Taiwan is not part of China, as in "The dominant political issues continue to be the relationship between Taiwan and China", giving Taiwan's location as "Eastern Asia, islands bordering the East China Sea, Philippine Sea, South China Sea, and Taiwan Strait, north of the Philippines, off the southeastern coast of China", and "China has overtaken the US to become Taiwan's largest export market".
Perhaps the article should say more forcefully that the U.S. considers Taiwan to be completely separate from China. Readin (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Read Hong Kong and Macau. Now Hong Kong and Macau are "clearly" countries as well.
I think what you are doing is similar to the media taking 3 secs of people's statements out of context and broadcast it over and over against someone. Other than the full stop that you seemed to pay so much attention to, did you read the full paragraph?
I don't think the CIA is publishing a Motor Vehicles fact book, so I don't think the analogy is sound. CIA is about world intelligence gathering, right?
If you want to, go for it. I don't have any problems with that.
Common names perhaps? Are political entities always countries? Now with that PRC map including Taiwan, do you think CIA is really "clearly" showing that Taiwan is a country?
If you can back up that statement, sure. But I think the current evidence available shows an ambiguity.
It is unacceptable to have one person argue the same point over and over again and unilaterally change the article. The comment about the map is infuriatingly absurd and does not indicate that the US believes the PRC is the sole legitimate gov't of China (including Taiwan), as has been stated. The US policy is confusing, but it clearly doesn't mean that. The article should remain the same until a consensus arises to change it. If anything, a consensus has been reached to delete the map statement.
Consensus? Was there? Ngchen said:-
"Maybe this ambiguity on the U.S. position can be noted. After all, it is interesting. In a broader context, perhaps the reader can be informed about how due to the controversial political status of Taiwan, even little things like how a map is drawn can fire up people on all sides."
I don't think that's saying we should delete the map. Please let me know if I am mistaken.
I said, "if anything" the consensus was to delete. I read Ngchen's statement to say that we should delete the use of the map as evidence, put in real evidence, and perhaps talk about the delicate nature of the topic by including a sentence about how maps piss people off.
And please don't call people who want a more accurate and less trivial description of US policy as "Taiwan independence supporters" who are making personal arguments. Quite honestly, I wonder why one person fights so hard to include a piece of information that doesn't remotely say what he wants it to say.
I wasn't talking about anyone in particular or calling anyone who disagrees with putting the map as "Taiwan independence supporters". They may well be, but I said "...are likely to object to something instinctively if the inclusion doesn't fit their political objective". I think there is a misinterpretation with my statement. There is nothing personal about that statement.
You may not think it's personal, but it isn't supported by the discussion and it insults the integrity of the majority of views here.
If one person refuses to play nice, perhaps it's time for an arbitration...or we could invite comment on another forum. However, it is NOT ok under Wikipidedia policy to continually edit an article with controversial and minority views while a discussion is ongoing.LedRush (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
This bit I agree. I don't think anyone should edit the article on this subject until the discussion is complete. Edit wars are not constructive.

LedRush said:-

"The comment about the map is infuriatingly absurd and does not indicate that the US believes the PRC is the sole legitimate gov't of China (including Taiwan), as has been stated."

Redking7's proposed statement said:-

"Another visible sign of the ambiguity of the US position is the CIA World Factbook. On the World Factbook Taiwan (the RoC name is not used) has a separate entry including analysis of its distinct statistics."

I think Redking7's point is to show ambiguity, not to make an absolute assertion that the "US believes the PRC is the sole legitimate gov't of China (including Taiwan)". A PRC map that includes Taiwan but doesn't include Taiwan's statistics may not show sovereignty or an endorsement of territorial claim, but it does show ambiguity, doesn't it?

I accept Readin's view that CIA is not a policy making agency, and earlier in the paragraph there is a sentence that says:-

"United States policy has remained ambiguous."

So I guess if Redking7 is trying to use the map to show ambiguity of the US policy, then I think the map is out of place. But if Redking7 is using the map to show the ambiguity of the US position in general, then the map is fine.

Should we work towards a consensus maybe by being more specific then?--pyl (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If we want to show ambiguity, let's use a real example. If there really is ambiguity, shouldn't it be easy to come up with a citation or example that can actually be attributed to the US gov't? The map just doesn't do what RedKing want's it to do.LedRush (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of primary sources, like this map, qualifies as Wikipedia:Original research. Explicit discussion of implicit meanings in that map without a secondary source is to be frowned upon. That said, I've dropped several potentially useful sources with official policy statements onto Talk:United States in response to LedRush's question there. They can provide a much more appropriate, reliable, and direct source of information for expansion. If you need more, you may also tag this article with an {{expert-subject|United States}} or hunt down the foreign policy and Taiwan WikiProjects for additional feedback. MrZaiustalk 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Before people misconstrue what I said, let me point out that I am all in favor of including the note about the map. Sure, U.S. policy has been ambiguous, perhaps deliberately so, but part of that ambiguity is the putting out of various possibly inconsistent statements. Now, the map is part of the ambiguity. Other parts include the Six assurances (IMO, the pro-TI people take it out of context, in that the "Chinese" probably referred to the PRC regime), and the joint-communiques with the PRC. A potential problem here is the possibility of engaging in original research-after all, a synthesis of these various facts to argue for the ambiguity, unless already published elsewhere is a synthesis. OTOH, w/r/t the concerns raised by MrZaius, stuff which is self-evident to anyone looking at it from a primary source does not count. The fact that the CIA map plots Taiwan in the same shade as the rest of China is self-evident to anyone who bothers to look, FWIW. Ngchen (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that the CIA doesn't speak for the US. And that a map being one color doesn't mean that the PRC governs Taiwan. Can't we get better examples of the US ambiguity than a map published not by a policy arm of the US that doesn't really say whether ROC or the PRC governs a land, or even that two governments don't govern a common area.LedRush (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The color of the map is obvious, but the reason for the coloring is not obvious. It is not clear that this shows ambiguity in U.S. policy. More likely it shows that the policy is not always well understood. Readin (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The mapmaker wasn't speaking at all, for all we know. Again, this is WP:OR, plain and simple. You cannot derive statements about a government's official policy from a map on a reference site - This map, stripped of any context & adequate description on the site, and the ends towards which editors here intend to use it perfectly matches the warning in WP:RS that reads "Primary sources are not considered reliable for statements of interpretation, analysis or conclusion." Base your description of the government's official policy on their official policy statements and analysis thereof, or you sacrifice the encyclopedic nature of the piece. MrZaiustalk 15:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Tell you all what, now that the OR ish nature of this stuff has come to light, let's see if secondary sources can be found w/r/t the ambiguity. If so, let's reference them and have what they say in the article. If not, then the material has to go, at least w/r/t any inferences that aren't blatantly obvious. FWIW, I think it's debatable as to whether the fact that Taiwan is colored the same as the PRC implies that at least the CIA factbook considers it part of the PRC is blatantly obvious or not. After all, it is a well-known convention vis-a-vis the reading of any colored political map, that the same color is used for the same entity, and neighboring entities are given a different color. But if we can sidestep the issue with secondary sources, let's do that. Ngchen (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Readin and Ngchen on the colouring and map reading bit. I think common people (Wikipedia's audience) who read the map will reach the conclusion that Ngchen reached. It is obvious. To argue otherwise is like saying "You can't always walk across the road when there is a green light because the green light doesn't say you can walk. It is just showing a colour".--pyl (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
When I see a map that's the same color, I think that it is one entity, but I don't know whether that entity is governed by the ROC or the PRC. Seeing as the US policy is to state that there is one China, but not to say that the PRC governs Taiwan, my reading of the map seems more plausible. Anyway, as I've said for a long time now, why don't we just find a REAL example of US policy ambiguity and cite that?LedRush (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Correction (remember what I was saying earlier about even high-level diplomats getting it wrong - so no surprise at someone misstating it above), (talking about the Shanghai Communique) "In the Communique, both nations pledged to work toward the full normalization of diplomatic relations. The United States acknowledged the Chinese position that all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China." Official U.S. policy acknowledges that both the ROC and PRC had a "one China policy" that said Taiwan was part of China, but the U.S. does not explicitly agree with that position. Readin (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The question is not whether the coloring and implication of the coloring are obvious, the question is whether a map on the "CIA fact book" (not the "U.S. policy book", not the "diplomatic directives book", not the "State Department book", not the "White House foreign relations book", and not the "foreign affairs book", but the CIA book) should be interpreted as a statement of U.S. foreign policy. This is especially questionable given that the fact book is inconsistent in its maps.
Hong Kong is unquestionably part of the PRC, but the "Hong Kong" map shows "China" as a different color from HK. Despite the PRC map, the Taiwan map shows Taiwan its own color separate from "China". Greenland's relationship to Denmark is similar to HK's relationship to China, yet Denmark's map doesn't show Greenland at all.
If the map were meant to show U.S. foreign policy, at the very least the "Hong Kong" map would not label mainland China as "China" because as a matter of policy we definitely consider Hong Kong part of China. Readin (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Just my .02, but I think "the truth (tm)" is that the US policy towards One China is intentionally ambiguous. The PRC saves face by saying that it only deals with countries that do not recognize Taiwan, but they realize that the US treats Taiwan as a separate entity when it comes to arms sales and other "hard power" issues. In other words, the article should be ambiguous because it isn't a "yes" or "no" position. The CIA map and other formal publications will pay lip service to the formal policy, but that doesn't mean that it is the whole story. SDY (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The question is whether a map on the "CIA fact book" should be interpreted as a statement of U.S. foreign policy. No it isn't. It's whether or not a map on a largely unofficial reference site is WP:RS that warrants mention next to real reliable sources, such as the policy statements linked above. The answer, of course, is an emphatic no. This isn't some smoke filled room where we're trying to decode hidden messages in American policies. This is an encyclopedia where discussion of primary sources is to be avoided in cases like this and to be extremely cautious to avoid analysis and deep discussion of other primary sources, although quoting the more obvious policy statements is acceptable. MrZaiustalk 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the CIA map is an unreliable source on the topic of American foreign policy. I'd just add that the state department's formal statements are also unreliable primary source statements on what American policy is (as opposed to what it claims to be, which can clearly be reported) for this particular area. SDY (talk) 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I partially agree with you. The state department's formal statements are reliable sources of de jure policy. They need to be considered against other actions for de facto policy. By "other actions" I don't mean a CIA map. I mean keeping a de facto embassy in Taiwan, making formal agreements (though not calling them "treaties") with Taiwan. Those are actions worth mentioning for showing the ambiguity in U.S. policy. Readin (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

So to summarize, would it be fair to say that (1) trying to draw inferences from the map is either original research, and/or perhaps giving it undue weight, and (2) the U.S. deliberate? ambiguity w/r/t how it views the situation de jure needs secondary sources before something can be added? IMO that's perhaps the fairest way. Hopefully someone can find secondary sources noting the various ways the U.S. is ambiguous, and/or makes inconsistent statements. Ngchen (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be the consensus to me.LedRush (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Vote on CIA World Factbook map & entry[edit]

Looks to me like politics is prevailing over intellect. To move on and at least see where discussion stands, I propose the usual headcount. The question is:

In principle, do you support including a note on the CIA World Factbook (including mention of the "map" and the "Taiwan" entry) in the article? Answer: "Yes" or "No":

Yes - As discussed, inclusion brings balance to article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No - Consensus above was not to include it, and starting this question 3 days after consensus was reached seems somehow wrong...like asking the same question over and over until you get the answer you want. Interpreting the map is original research, the source is from an agency not able or allowed to comment on US policy, and the informaion just doesn't say what the advocates here want it to say.LedRush (talk) 13:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No Readin (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality[edit]

I have asked that the article be looked at from a neutrality point of view by Wikipedia:WikiProject Neutrality. Below is the text of my request to them:

  • Put simply, the ruling editors will only allow selective information that suits their pro-Taiwan stance into the article - particularly in the discussion of the USA position. I attempted to insert a sentence bringing some balance re the USA position on the One China Policy. I proposed that a sentence be added stating that the CIA World Factbook includes Taiwan on the map of the Peoples' Republic of China. Somehow this was not considered fit for inclusion. Spurious reasons were given as to why this could not be added. My proposed change was discussed:here.

I doubt it will my request will do any good but it is worth a try. Perhaps the perspective of neutral outsiders would be better respected by political Editors - though I don't know how active the Neutrality Project are or if they have time to get involved. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Actively pursued?[edit]

Pyl just made some changes to the articles removing one section where it said that the ROC's claims on the mainland was not actively pursued and stating in another place that the DPP didn't actively pursue it, but that Ma just reasserted it (implying that he has reversed course).

My understanding of what Ma did was he just reasserted the ROC's legal claim. This is not actively pursuing the end to that claim, in my mind. Any other opinions? Was there something different behind the changes?LedRush (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I made any changes so that the article now says "actively pursue". Here is the diff:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=One-China_policy&diff=243832714&oldid=242603122
The relevant paragraphs now say:-
"Legally, the ROC continues to maintain its version of the "One China" principle by constitutionally claiming sovereignty over mainland China."
"Before democratization in the 1980s and 1990s, the authoritarian Kuomintang government actively claimed that the ROC is the only legitimate "One China" while the PRC is illegitimate. While this claim was not actively pursued by the DPP government during 2000 and 2008, the claim has been reasserted by the current KMT government."
I think "reassert" was exactly what I said. The claim was asserted but I didn't say it was actively pursued. I can't reach a conclusion that the ROC is now actively pursing the claim by interpretating that statement myself, express or implied.
I am agreeable to discuss if you can reword the statement so any implication that the ROC is now actively pursuing the claim is eliminated.--pyl (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
[ec]I'm sorry if you felt this was an attack which required you to be defensive. That was not my intent.
In the first change, you deleted the phrase that it wasn't actively pursued? Do you mind explaining why, please?
In the second change you made you begin the sentence saying that the DPP didn't actively pursue the policy and then use the word "but" and saying Ma has reasserted the claim. This makes it seem like the DPP didn't actively pursue the policy but Ma does. Because this is not your intent it should be changed.LedRush (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[EC]::Thanks for the offer...I'm gonna give the second phrase a shot.LedRush (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, it's all good. I didn't consider it as an attack at all. I was just a bit surprised that the sentence could be interpreted as impliedly saying the ROC is now actively pursing the claim, which wasn't my intent. But there is no "but" in that statement. Anyway, go ahead and have a shot, we will discuss.--pyl (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, there wasn't a but, there was a "while [something], [something different] which is like a "but". Anyhoo, I've made a change...tell me what you think. Also, why did you delete that first phrase?LedRush (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Thanks Pyl.LedRush (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, because when the sentence was left with only "no longer actively pursue", I felt the sentence was giving the impression that the ROC no longer cares for the claim at all (like the DPP years), and that's why I removed it. I have reinstated the phrase as well as your change. I think it looks good now. Thanks to you too.--pyl (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The official ROC position is that its Constitution asserts its de jure sovereignty over all of China, including Taiwan, the Pescadores, Matsu and Kinmen....That's what needs to be reflected. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there one policy, or several?[edit]

It seems that I hear the "One-China policy" mentioned by different countries that have different positions. Are we sure there is only one "One-China policy" or should we be starting the article by saying that there are a set of similar policies held by several countries, all relating to the idea that there is only one "China" (as opposed to "Two Chinas"). It seems that the US has a One-China Policy that differs from China's One-China Policy that both differ from Taiwan's One-China Policy. Readin (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Officially there is only a single "One China Policy" promulgated by the PRC. The One China principle, on the other hand, is the idea that the PRC and ROC use as a basis for continued dialogue. People often confuse the One China Policy with the One China principle. It is worth noting that no mainstream political figures in Taiwan accept PRC's One China Policy. The United States is supposed to abide by the One China Policy, but things were complicated with the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act. While the US wants to maintain its vague stance, it still technically abides by the One China Policy. The alliance (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There is only one "One China" policy....Of course, it is differently nuanced by different countries....This is the world of diplomacy after all...It's central core, not recognising the Mainland and Taiwan as two separate sovereign states is universally recognised. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"constitutionally claiming Mongolia"[edit]

I think this may be OR. I am familiar with the fact that the word "Mongolia" appears in the ROC constitution, but so does the word "abroad". Obviously the ROC does not claim the latter. Furthermore, the constitution of the country where I currently live, Germany, has several references to the country's 1937 borders (much further east than now), but that does not mean Germany does claim any of those areas anymore. Certainly if Taiwan still claims Mongolia there must be some reliable sources for this? Not just some interpretations made by wp editors? Yaan (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


The following is taken from the Constitution of the Republic of China:

→1.4 "中華民國領土,依其固有之疆域,非經國民大會之決議,不得變更之。" In other words, because Mongolia is listed in the previous version of the Constitution as part of the ROC, Article 1.4 of the current Constitution maintains this claim. After the abolition of the National Assembly in 2005, the Legislative Yuan assumed its powers and has not changed the constitutional boundaries of the ROC.

→It was also common to see Outer Mongolia included on all maps of the ROC until the 1990s and a version of that map has been digitised and uploaded onto Wikipedia here.

→Since 2005, it is also going to be more difficult to change the Constitution due to the PRC's Anti-Secession Law [4]. Any attempts to change the constitutional boundaries of the ROC (especially to include only its current area of jurisdiction) may be construed as a declaration of independence and violation of the understanding reached in the 1992 Consensus. The Anti-Secession Law is by no means legally binding in Taipei, but will no doubt be a consideration for legislators, voters, and international lawyers.

I know it may be easy to brush this off as "interpretations made by wp editors" but we are not the ones who are interpreting (or necessarily agreeing with the Constitution). We are merely trying to point out this quirky situation within the ROC Constitution. The alliance (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I am sure you are not a judge in some supreme court, so I think your interpretation of the ROC constitution really is not more than OR.
In fact some people more important than random wp editors are on the record for saying that Mongolia was not claimed by the ROC when the constitution was created in the first place, and that therefore no national assemly needs to be involved. [5][6].
The German constitution says there must be a referendum in the affected areas if the area of Germany is going to be altered, and Germany did claim areas east of the Oder-Neisse line in the past. Later it gave up these claims, without any referendums in the affected areas and without changes in relevant articles of the constitution. Does this mean that Germany still constitutionally claims these areas? Yaan (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand why most Wikipedia discussions end up in personal attacks, but I do not think that they are very constructive. Second, I cannot speak about the German case because I did not study Germany. However, I did extensively study the political economy of East Asia including China, Taiwan, and Mongolia. The articles you quoted above have obvious political biases, as do most articles, so for the sake of neutrality, I think it would be more productive to stick with (in this case) the Constitution and historical precedent. Yes, during the previous administration, the ROC government has set up offices in Mongolia. However, like mentioned before, the Constitution of the ROC has not been changed to reflect the current situation. If, however, your point of concern is with the validity of the Constitution of the ROC, then I do not think Wikipedia is the best medium to address that issue. What the sentence about Mongolia in this article is reflecting is that as archaic as it may be, the ROC still includes mainland China (including Tibet), Hong Kong, Macau, Taiwan, and Mongolia as its constitutional territory. The alliance (talk) 01:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Um, I certainly did not mean to attack you or comment on your qualification. And I actually think the term "random wp editors" includes me.
My concern is with what the ROC constitution actually says. It says something about borders that must not be changed without vote from the National assembly or (now) without vote from parliament and a referendum. As far as I see it does not say "Mongolia is part of the ROC". So, the sentence "Taiwan constitutionally claims Mongolia" looks, without a better source, just like some wp editors interpretation. An interpretation, moreover, that has been contradicted by statements from ROC government officials.
Obviously an interview is going to be somewhat one-sided. But if one wants to claim that these MTAC's director's statements represent just one POV among several (notable) ones, there will have to be better sources than just your interpretation of the ROC constitution. Yaan (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The Constitution of the ROC also does not mention Taiwan, but that does not mean that the ROC does not constitutionally claim Taiwan. If a source from the DPP really is necessary, then this article quotes former Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (current DPP Chairwoman) saying that the ROC territorial map has remained the same. The article also says that the ROC’s Constitution has continued to include Mongolia in its definition of China. The alliance (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, whether the ROC "constitutionally" claims Taiwan or not is not the issue here. That Chinese Taibei thinks that Taiwan is part of its territory is, I think, self-evident. Alternatively, one could also have a look at the website of their Government Information Office.
Re. that article, I did not say a source from a certain party is necessary, I said a source of a certain quality is necessary. An article that says that "Mongolia declared independence from China in 1945, and became the Mongolian People’s Republic" is pretty useless IMHO. What the DPP woman said months before the foreign ministry's remarks about Mongolia's independence seemed quite compatible with what the MTAC guy said in the interview cited above (this one). Yaan (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
The Taipei Times article you keep mentioning fails to mention the fact that in 1953, the ROC government declared the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance voided, because the Soviets violated their side of the treaty and thus the ROC retroactively re-instated their claim to Mongolia as part of its territory. (The treaty stipulated that Mongolia was not a part of the ROC) The alliance (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
What does this have to do with the problem that there are still zero useful sources for the POV that the ROC constitution raises territorial claims on Mongolia, vs. two useful sources for the existence of a contrarian POV, one by the MTAC chairman, one by an, albeit unnamed, MOI spokesperson?
Btw. IIRC the treaty itself was not the document in which the ROC agreed to recognize Mongolia's souvereignity. But as said, I don't see what this has to do with the present discussion. Yaan (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Modern China says that "After its defeat and retreat to Taiwan, the GMD unilaterally abrogated the treaty" that I referred to above. The 1946 recognition was based in this treaty, which the ROC revoked in 1953. The alliance (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually the recognition of Mongolia (should the Mongolian people vote for it) was declared in a separate note. If you have access to jstor, try here or here. Re. your google books link, once again: neither did Mongolia declare independence in 1945, nor did it become the Mongolian People's Republic in or after 1945.
But what I am really looking for is some useful source for the POV that the ROC constitution still claims Mongolia. Yaan (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
I've provided evidence from the treaty your links go to, yet you do not accept that. I've provided evidence from a scholarly source, yet you do not accept that. I even provided a source from the DPP, which you use as the basis for your argument, yet you do not accept that. I am beginning to think that the sources and evidence is not the problem. The alliance (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think the problem is that we are discussing the statement "The ROC constitutionally claims Mongolia", not the Sino-Soviet friendship treaty of 1945. The link to Modern China did not say that "the ROC constitutionally claims Mongolia" (plus it contains a few errors), the maps on wp that you linked to did not say that "the ROC constitutionally claims Mongolia", the only source that said that "the ROC constitutionally claims Mongolia" was a newspaper article that contains a few very obvious errors. That this article cites the Mainland affairs chairwoman on a somewhat related matter does not mean her words support "the ROC constitutionally claims Mongolia". In fact, she did not say whether "the ROC constitutionally claims Mongolia" or not.

She said "the new measure did not involve any changes to ROC territory as defined in the constitution", which is quite similar to what the government guys in october 2002 said about the recognition of Mongolia. Because according to them, Mongolia was not part of "ROC territory as defined in the constitution" in the first place. Two different issues, you see.

On the other hand we have so far two sources from the government (in case they are not misrepresented, anyway) for "the ROC does not constitutionally claim Mongolia".

Hope you can better understand the problem now. Yaan (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

This website is from 2005. After that, the GIO does not indicate any claims to mainland China, despite the Constitution remaining unchanged. The alliance (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

84.203.53.211 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)== Dubious ==

I think the map of alleged territorial claims of the Taiwanese government has only historical value, if any value at all. As mentioned above, the Taiwanese government has in 2002 declared that it recognizes Mongolia's independence (at least according to this article). The 2008 ROC yearbook apparently calls Ulaanbaatar (that's where the Taiwan trade&culture office for Mongolia is located) "abroad" and Mongolia a "country" (here, "Embassies and Missions abroad").

The Taiwanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs seems to even agree with the internationally agreed boundaries of Mongolia, or at least the area they give to Mongolia is the almost same as the 2007 Mongolian Statistical Yearbook does (here, p.37). In fact, according to the Taiwanese MOFA Mongolia should be slightly bigger!

In any case, I don't think it is correct to give the impression that the Taiwanese government still claims Mongolia or that this has anything to do wtith One-China-Policy. Yaan (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

If the official position of Taiwan is that Mongolia as it now exists is an independent country, we should probably note this issue only in a "history of the one-china policy" situation.LedRush (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be the other way 'round: we need a source for giving the impression that the ROC still regards Mongolia as part of he ROC's own territory? Yaan (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

BBC News and Taiwan Review The alliance (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

From the 2003 article: "Late last year, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Taiwan would post a representative to Ulaanbaatar and accept an accredited minister from Mongolia. With this simple gesture, Taiwan, ninety-one years after Mongolia first proclaimed independence, recognized Mongolia as a nation independent of China."
I guess this is government enough to remove the map from this article. The map might still be useful for something, but not for describing today's one-China policy. Yaan (talk) 11:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the map may not be necessary for this topic. Should the intro also be changed to say that while Mongolia is constitutionally part of the ROC, this claim has not been asserted since the ROC established unofficial ties with the Mongolian government in Ulaan Batar in 2002? The alliance (talk) 17:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
As explained above, I think there are different opinions about whether Mongolia is constitutionally part of the ROC or not. I think stating that the government recognized Mongolia's independence is clear enough for the lede.
Actually, I still wonder if the opinion that Mongolia is constitutionally part of the ROC is very prominent nowadays. It seems quite a few people, incl. some important people, thought so before 2002, but afterwards? I'd still like to get rid of those [citation needed] tags. Yaan (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
No mainstream politician would claim the constitutional boundaries of the ROC to be in effect today, whether it is Mainland China, Tibet, Mongolia, or any of the minor territories the PRC has negotiated away in the past 60 years. However, like the lead mentions, there is still occasional political rhetoric that claims ROC to be the only China. It is rare to find maps here in Taiwan that still shows the constitutional boundaries, but it is interesting that the area coloured for Mainland China includes Tibet and the minor territories and the border for Mongolia is that of the boundaries of the Mongolia Area as defined when the ROC government controlled the Mainland and not the current boundaries of the country Mongolia.The alliance (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
User: Yaan, above, referred to a 2003 Taiwan Review article which noted that "Taiwan...recognized Mongolia as a nation independent of China." and suggested this was adequate grounds to remove the Map from the article. I disagree. The 2003 Taiwan Review article ended with these words "The recognition of Mongolia, in short, leaves unanswered questions, but it allows to be made where before there was none.". What the Taiwan Review was actually referring to by "unanswered questions" was that it was questionable, how could the RoC recognise Mongolia and yet its Constitution still claims that territory. An ROC government policy concerning Mongolia has changed but the Constitutional claim remains. The Map is legally as relevant as it was before the RoC recognised Mongolia. Nothing has changed.84.203.53.211 (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The the ROC constitution "still claims that territory" is just your interpretation: there is no article that explicitely says "Mongolia is part of the ROC". I have placed several links above that give different interpretations, i.e. that the ROC constitution does not say that Mongolia is part of the ROC (here and here). Unless you are the constitutional court of the ROC, I think you are not the one to decide whose interpretation is right and whose is wrong. Yaan (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I have to say Yaan, you are talking pure nonsense. Ignorance is no excuse really. It's well documented that the ROC constitutional position is that Mongolia is still ROC Chinese territory. The battle by Mongolia to get admission to the UN is a good example of the ROC's legal position....Remember, they initially used their then veto on the UN Security Council to block Mongolia's admission. It was the only time the ROC ever used its veto. Why did they do that? You should know very well that it was because they considered that Mongolia was Chinese territory...and therefore not a separate country eligible for UN membership....This is all welll documented and well known. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, User: 84.203.53.211 - You are spot on. The policy of de facto (not legal) recognition by the ROC of Mongolia while its Constitution still claims the territory is exactly as you have described. It is directly comparable to the approach taken by Ireland to the British administered territory of Northern Ireland prior to Ireland amending its constitution in 1999. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"Three regions"[edit]

"One interpretation of one China is that there exists only three geographical regions of China, which was split into two Chinese governments by the Chinese Civil War."

What the hell are these "three" regions? Not even I have a clue on what is being said here, and that clarification tag has been there since Feb 2009. How can there be three regions if what is being discussed here is Mainland China and Taiwan? Am I forgetting something? -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 07:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It probably refers to Mainland China, Taiwan, and the SARs. I know that usually when people refer to Mainland China, it does not include the SARs. The alliance (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

map[edit]

I think the map or at least the legend is wrong. Beige might be for countries that have informal relations with Taiwan, but certainly not for countries that officially recognize both the PRC and the ROC. For a source re. the official German position, see for example this article ("Westerwelle bekannte sich eindeutig zur 'Ein-China-Politik' der Bundesregierung. Damit ist gemeint, dass Deutschland Tibet und Taiwan als Teil der Volksrepublik China betrachtet." = "Westerwelle unequivocally comitted himself to the [German] federal government's 'One-China policy'. This means that Germany regards Taiwan and Tibet as part of the People's Republic of China."). Yaan (talk) 11:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Believing in a One China policy does not necessarily mean what you think it means (see the US belief in one China, for example). Do you have any other examples for your opinion?LedRush (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it is necessary to find examples for my opinion, especially since there are so far zero sources or counterexamples (according to the article, the US does not recognize the ROC as anything). I guess a case could be made that Russia does not think the ROC is a legitimate government, however. If the claim that most of the world recognizes the ROC as legitimate government of Taiwan was true, you'd have to ask yourself what One-China policy is supposed to mean at all? And why the ROC can get no UN seat?
As far as I understand it, to both the ROC and the PRC one-China policy means, roughly, "there can only be one". If a country officially recognizes Beijing and again and again re-iterates its commitment to the one-China policy and has no official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, the default conclusion should be that said country does not officially recognize the ROC as "legitimate government" of anything. Any claim to the contrary would require a good source. Yaan (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I took a look at the map, and I would concur. Many states are deliberately silent on who they consider to be the "legitimate" government over Taiwan; deliberate silence should not be interpreted as somehow "recognizing" the ROC. Ngchen (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The One-China policies of various countries are more complex, like Yaan mentions. I think we should get rid of the map altogether. The alliance (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I think the map should be replaced by one which marks which countries have official relations with the PRC and "inofficial" relations with Taiwan. Incidentically, such a map would look quite similar to the one visible now (except for the United Arab Emirates?), just the legend would need to be changed. And maybe the markings for all those British overseas territories could be omitted, unless some overseas territories follow a different interpretation of the one-China policy than others. Yaan (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Why should we even have a map? The article does a sufficient job explaining the OCP and a map does not aide in understanding this concept. The alliance (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure I know exactly what this discussion is about. At present only 23 states recognise the ROC. All other States recognise the PRC as the sole legal government of China. I see no harm in a map illustration where the world stands vis a vis recognitions. Sounds like a worthwhile map to me - especially given the abundence of maps on WP. Many of the 23 countries that recognise ROC are so small that they probably would not be visable on most maps (places like Tuvalu etc)....That could be a practical problem. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy vs. Principle[edit]

There has been recent edits about the One-China Policy versus the One-China Principle (also referred to as One China, different interpretations). The One-China Policy is a specific policy by the PRC, because the ROC no longer requires its diplomatic allies (current and potential) to severe ties with the PRC. The One-China Principle is a non-state-to-state understanding between the governments of the ROC and PRC and is solely meant to facilitate non-state-to-state interactions between the two. There are states like the United States, which likes to adopt this more ambiguous position, but the PRC gets upset when the United States acts upon the Principle rather than the Policy.

As someone who has extensively studied political science and diplomacy, I see these two phrases used interchangeably in the media, which is incorrect. The alliance (talk) 18:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any scholarly sources to back your claim? Doesn't the very essence of the 1992 Consensus contravene the definition of the One-china policy you have set forth on the first sentence? -Jiang (talk) 19:18, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The One China Policy specifically states that the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China, therefore, the ROC cannot possibly also agree with this Policy. You can try searching for Lowell Dittmer, whom I have taken a course from. The alliance (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

The One-China Policies that most western countries follow states something more like "there is only one China, but we're not gonna try and figure out which political entity rules what".—Preceding unsigned comment added by LedRush (talkcontribs)
Well, I took a class from Lowell Dittmer too (Go Bears!), but that doesn't mean much if we keep making claims without citing sources. It's up to the person making the claim to come up with the references, not to tell others to look it up.
That is the very definition of the "One China Policy" that I am trying to question. The "One China Policy" is not specific to the People's Republic of China as the word China is not always directed specifically at the PRC.--Jiang (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The One China Policy specifically refers to the actual foreign policy that countries with normal relations with PRC are expected to have. The ROC does not insist on this policy, therefore the "China" in the One China Policy cannot logically refer to the ROC. On the other hand, the One China Principle can be interpreted to mean the ROC. The alliance (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Huh? Are you saying that the US and PRC interpret the One China Policy to mean the same thing?LedRush (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
The US has an ambiguous position regarding "China" which is why the PRC is always trying to test US presidents to make sure that they are not changing the US position as stated in the 3 Communiques. That is besides the point of the issue this thread is trying to address, namely, that the One China interpretation by the ROC is not the One China Policy expected of foreign states. The alliance (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, where are your references? We need to explain the plain and simple meaning of the term, not what we want it to mean.--Jiang (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Trust me when I say that I want One China to mean ROC, but that is sadly not the case. If you can find a reference to say that One China Policy refers to ROC, then you would have my respect. The alliance (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Again, our personal views on this subject are immaterial to whether this article is well-referenced and reflects the prevailing view on the subject. What sources to you have to support your view of the policy-principle distinction and your specific definition of the One-China policy, which I have no tagged as being unreferenced? I don't dispute what you have to say, but I think the text as is needs to be reworded and clarified (with a long-term historical view in mind), and this is better done with references.--Jiang (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It may have been preemptive of me, but I removed the fact tag from the opening sentence. I did not think this claim is dubious or problematic. —Zujine|talk 08:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Without any references supporting the view currently expressed in the article, I think the old version, with some edits, should be restored.--Jiang (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

On the topic of policy vs. principle, I find that the article's use of the two terms is currently ambiguous. Whenever the One China Principle is brought up, more clarification is needed so readers don't think that the One China Policy is still under discussion. There also seem to be places mentioning "Principle" where "Policy" is actually meant! Lusanaherandraton (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Until 1971, the United States government's official policy was that the Republic of China was the legal Chinese government and the People's Republic of China a spurious government. In 1971 the US normalized diplomatic relations with the PRC. Part of this normalization of relations was an /agreement in principle/ that there was only one Chinese government and that Taiwan was part of China. The reason for all the argument is that the "agreement in principle" was essentially what Wikipedia would call "weasel words" that allowed Washington to spin the agreement one way and Beijing another. Beijing's spin was that Washington was accepting all claims of PRC sovereignty over Taiwan. The official Washington spin in 1971 was that there was one China, one Chinese government, the PRC was the legitimate government of "China", and that the people of Taiwan had a right to self-determination which the United States recognized and that recognition of Taipei would happen when the ROC was dissolved, a declaration of independence issued, and a new national constitution established.

Neither spin was strictly honest. The US has essentially followed a policy that treats China and Taiwan as separate nation-states, but the US has used diplomatic pressure to delay or prevent formal procedures to establish a nation-state of "Taiwan." Beijing has essentially treated Taiwan as a de facto US protectorate, while frequently rattling sabers. It doesn't help that independence versus reunification is a tremendous political wedge in Taiwan with the main political coalitions revolving around the issue. The fact that some of the reunification parties are Nationalists who want to see one ROC-governed China, others advocate diplomatic engagement with China in coming to an agreement that brings about formal reunification while preserving Taiwan's autonomy, and others outright support joining the PRC further complicates the issue. Aggressive advocacy of de jure independence and Taiwanese identity coupled with the plain fact that an actual declaration of independence could mean war with the PRC is the primary reason that the Democratic Progressive Party was defeated in 2008 and the Kuomintang came back to power.

In short, the problem is epistemological. The words "One China Principle" mean different things to different people. All parties have "agreed in principle" but no one has actually agreed to anything but that it is most expedient to delay the question for another forty or fifty years. The words "One China Policy" refers to the official stated policy of the PRC, which is not always the same as its de facto policy. I do think that the article should be retitled "One China Principle", as it is the /principle/ on which the US and the PRC have agreed, there is no actual agreement on policy toward Taiwan at all. Not even in Taiwan.EclecticGeek (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

April 2010 factual and NPOV dispute[edit]

After a series of revisions by an editor TaiwanDC, it appears that the article has become (1) USA-centric, in that it places a lot of emphasis on certain US perspectives as fact, and (2) it categorically elevates the cause of TI while implicitly denouncing the broader One-China policy. (3) Someone had also revived the map that was discussed earlier, with its dubious factual accuracy. Would appreciate efforts to clean-up the lead, taking care not to ascribe undue weight to any position. Ngchen (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the factual dispute?
I was about to delete a good chunk of the additions but I noticed that the main problem was the wording - the sources looked good and the facts were good but they were just worded in a very POV way. I also moved stuff out of the first section because I thought it was too detailed for the introduction. Readin (talk) 04:06, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ngchen's concerns. The alliance (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Especially what factual disputes? If no one will answer I'll remove the tag. Readin (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
The factual dispute at least involves the disputed map. I'll see what else there is when I get some more time; been busy lately :-). Ngchen (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Fully agree with you Ngchen....There was a previous attempt to resolve the issue around maps : but POV ruled out a solution. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Redundancies[edit]

In trying to fix some recent edits, I noticed some redundancies, particularly in statements about other countries recognizing the ROC as the sole legitimate government of "China" (I'm also wondering if we should put "China" in quotes when we say that because some countries choose not to say what they mean by "China" i.e. whether it includes Taiwan).

Anyone have time to scrub the article for excessive repetitiveness? Readin (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with the notion that China should be put in quotation marks. That is nonsense. Foreign countries do not generally try to defined what territory is governed by other countries. There is nothing exceptional here and no reason why China should be put in quotation marks. This concept smacks of bias/POV. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Chinese character of the Qing[edit]

In this edit, I removed a section (innocuously titled "Academic commentary") from an American historian of the Ming that not-so-subtly implies that because the Qing was ruled by Manchus, that it was not a part of China, and Taiwan (and a bunch of other territories) should therefore not be regarded as a territory of China when it was under Qing rule. While this idea of an alien occupation is a fringe viewpoint among historians of the Qing or China generally, it is a fairly common cliché from Tibetan and Taiwanese independence people on Wikipedia (and elsewhere). Right now I can't find a good source that documents the argument but does not argue it, but should someone find one, that would definitely merit inclusion. We should document strong opinions, not argue them. Quigley (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with your approach Quigley; Wikipedia should be about facts and opinions on facts - not pretending things are as we would want them to be. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Contradiction re: ROC position?[edit]

The Evolution of the policy section states

the ROC no longer portrays itself as the sole legitimate government of China

and yet the previous section (ROC legal positions) states

The ROC's constitution still raises claims of sovereignty over Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau

Is there an actual contradiction, or am I misreading something? Lusanaherandraton (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Governments can pursue different policies than the law. For example, the Jerusalem Embassy Act expresses the U.S. Congress's desire (based on domestic politics) to relocate the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but the government maintains it in Tel Aviv (based on foreign policy). Quigley (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think there is a problem here. The position is indeed that at law the ROC claims all of China. Just as Ireland claimed all of Ireland and Northern Ireland until 1999...but Ireland accepted UK administration of the six counties of Northern Ireland; just as the ROC accepts that the Mainland is governed by the CPC. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

A consensus between CCP/(PRC) and KMT and not PRC/ROC?[edit]

Shouldn't it be made clear that it really is a consensus between KMT and CCP? It dont really make sense to talk about ROC as one side only agrees to negotiate with ROC as long as KMT is in power. The current administrations view might be that the consensus took place but after all the president at the time still disagree with that view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.57.117 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with you. The consensus was reached by two quasi GOVERNMENTAL agencies (ARATS (for the Mainland side) and Straits Exchange (for the Taiwan side). It was not a consensus reached between the two parties, CPC and KMT. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Military occupation[edit]

An editor has recently added a note about how Taiwan was placed "under military occupation" at the end of World War II. The statement is primarily sourced from a taiwanbasic.com, which I believe is promoting a borderline fringe theory, and is therefore unreliable. Regardless, the military occupation claim itself is questionable, not least of which was the fact that the governing authorities did not treat the island as occupied territory. I would appreciate comment. Ngchen (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Ngchen. The island is not under military occupation. Such theory is fantasy. 86.42.22.68 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

"the PRC's One-China policy" or (worse) "the One-China policy set by the PRC"[edit]

The KMT and the US long had a "One-China policy" even more foolish than the PRC's current one. It stated that a military dictatorship operating on a tiny island was the only legitimate government of one of the largest countries on Earth. Now obviously both the KMT and the CPC have long and oppressive histories, but many articles which mention this policy incorrect use the phrasing. Am I allowed to go about correcting such phrasing, or will this be viewed as CPC propaganda that I'll have to defend every time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.27.61 (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you might be pushing a POV. You say the PRC's "One China" policy is "foolish". Sounds like you are biased. Insisting on territorial integrity is generally something countries do....hardly "foolish"....86.42.22.68 (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
You're missing the point. I won't go around writing in articles that the "One-China policy" is foolish (and indeed, I didn't say the PRC's "One-China policy" was foolish. Many Taiwanese consider it so (because they don't consider themselves to be part of "China"s territory, which I do, by the way, but it does not matter), what I *was* saying that the ROC was the more foolish of the two parties). My question was nothing about POV but the outright lie that the "One-China policy" was invented by the PRC, when the ROC established this tradition in modern international relations (and it goes back before that as Chinese imperial policy). I'd like to say that if I sound biased, you sound VERY defensive: I fully support Taiwan's reunification with the mainland (and frankly I think Hong Kong and Macau should be fully integrated into Guangdong province, as well as Taiwan into Fujian province). But my DESIRES are not what is under discussion here: What is under discussion is that as reunification as not yet occurred, there is discussion of a "One-China policy" as a principle of maintaining the PRC's claimed territory, and how wikipedia repeatedly blames the PRC for this, when the ROC did the same thing (indeed, the ROC still claims Outer Mongolia).
Thanks for the detailed reply. Still, I think use of the word "foolish" is inappropriate, whatever the POV, in this context. I think you are saying that the ROC was foolish to insist on the One China Principle for so long. Frankly, I see that as as illogical a claim as saying the PRC's One China Policy is foolish. Both were simply upholding territorial integrity: albeit that the ROC could logically have been seen as the underdog by 1950. Talking about "foolish" is inappropriate here. 86.42.24.212 (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Separately, I had never read anywhere a claim that the PRC inveneted the One China Policy....where is that said? If it is said anywhere, it should be taken out and appropriate explanations included. 86.42.24.212 (talk) 20:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Name: One China[edit]

The Chinese language article is simply 一个中国 (one China). I think this is more appropriate, as this article discusses both the One China Policy One China Principle. Thus the name of the article should reflect that by simply being "One China", with Principle and Policy both redirecting. Nirutochi (talk) 22:25, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).