:::::::::We see that 82.8% of the Taiwanese people believe that ROC/Taiwan and PRC are two separate countries. Since 82.8% of the Taiwanese believe the ROC is a country, your contribution are disputed by the majority of the Taiwanese people. Your contributions are therefore not facts, but a "extremely small minority" opinion and that should not belong on Wikipedia. So any survey that shows majority Taiwanese people believing that ROC/Taiwan is a country will disputes your "facts". [[User:T-1000|T-1000]] ([[User talk:T-1000|talk]]) 07:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
:::::::::We see that 82.8% of the Taiwanese people believe that ROC/Taiwan and PRC are two separate countries. Since 82.8% of the Taiwanese believe the ROC is a country, your contribution are disputed by the majority of the Taiwanese people. Your contributions are therefore not facts, but a "extremely small minority" opinion and that should not belong on Wikipedia. So any survey that shows majority Taiwanese people believing that ROC/Taiwan is a country will disputes your "facts". [[User:T-1000|T-1000]] ([[User talk:T-1000|talk]]) 07:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
::::::::::It is a fact that neither the ROC nor Taiwan is a country. The poll you have contributed is merely a poll conducted by a media in Taiwan and published by the ROC government, that alone is already a presentation of an "opinion"(not a fact, but a perspective) and from a non 3rd party source since it is from ROC government thus neutrality is compromised. I am curious, have you learned about quality of evidence in your past education? It would be a good place to start. You need to learnb to compare apple with apples, I have presented a "fact", you cannot present an "opinion" and try to dispute it. It does not work that way. It may be a fact that you have lost your home to a bank because you do not make your payments on time and the banks are taking over your home, you can say it is your home and you are still squatting there with your plasma TV and workout equipments, but that does not dispute the fact that your house is no longer yours. 90% of people in China believe Taiwan is not a country and a part of China, does that make it a "fact" that Taiwan is a part of China? No. Your argument simply does not held water, I'm sorry. [[User:Mafia godfather|Mafia godfather]] ([[User talk:Mafia godfather|talk]]) 04:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
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, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
I have added a section regarding Actions which a government in exile may undertake. Hopefully other persons can add to this listing. Hmortar14:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are the functions that they can do, But other than Tibet and the SADR how many perfom any other action besides seeking support to gain power? CK6569 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I have noted, the claim is a fringe one. Now, how do we determine whether a claim is fringe or not? Per WP:FRINGE, a reasonable method of separating fringe from non-fringe theories is to see whether the theory has any prominent adherents. Your turn please. BTW, I don't know if you're personally involved in the Taiwan Nation Party and their lawsuit vs the US Government, but if you are, please consider the possible conflict of interest. Thanks.Ngchen15:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this criteria, it is clear that Ngchen regards Copernicus' views on the earth revolving the sun as a fringe theory. Certainly, the only person advocating the Copernican doctrine in 1514 and thereafter was Copernicus himself. Obviously, no one in the government, or in the church, agreed with Copernicus' "unsupported" theories.
But, moving along to a more constructive argument, a much more reasonable method of separating fringe from non-fringe theories is to see what the theory can explain. For example, no one can explain the contradiction that "If Taiwan is a sovereign nation, when what is the purpose of the Shanghai Communique" ?? Or "Why does the PRC refuse to allow the usage of the terminology of REPUBLIC OF CHINA in the international community, but at the same time when the government in Taiwan expresses the desire to change this name, the PRC expresses very vocal opposition" ?? Or even better, "Why is it that despite all the democratic changes which have taken place in Taiwan in the last 15 or 20 years, the island is still treated as the orphan of the international community and ignored by the United Nations" ?
The answer would appear to be that this (which Ngchen calls a "fringe theory") is actually 100% correct, in other words, the legal position of the ROC on Taiwan is (1) a subordinate occupying power, beginning Oct. 25, 1945, and (2) a government in exile, beginning mid-December 1949. Today, Taiwan remains as occupied territory, and the principal occupying power is the United States of America. THESE FACTS (which Ngchen chooses to ignore) are in full conformity to the post-war San Francisco Peace Treaty, which is the highest ranking document of international law regarding the legal status of Taiwan in the post-WWII era. By the way, I don't know if Ngchen is personally involved in the Taiwan independence movement, and their application to join various international bodies under the name of "Taiwan," but if he is, please consider the possible conflict of interest.
Please sign your posts. Anyway, in terms of politics, there is no objective way to prove something right or wrong, and even if there were, it would be original research. See WP:OR, as another editor had noted. W/r/t the whole "sovereign nation" mess, well if one believes in the validity of the Taiwan retrocession back in 1945 (I know most TI supporters do not) then everything makes sense. Also see WP:WEIGHT and WP:SOAP. Thanks. I stand by my claim that the proposal is fringe, due to the lack of prominent adherents. And yes, you're correct that the heliocentric theory was fringe in its day; the proper course of action then is not to promote it in Wikipedia, but rather to publish it in peer-reviewed journals where OR is welcomed. Once it gets prominent adherents, it would then merit being included here. Ngchen14:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ROC's government is not in exile: it operates from within its claimed territory (Taipei). The fact that Taipei only is a provisional capital (the official capital, Nanking, being occupied by Mao Tse-Tungs followers) is irrelevant here. (130.237.227.200 (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
The point is that the ROC's "claimed territory" of Formosa and the Pescadores does not belong to the ROC. There are no official legal documents which can prove that the territorial sovereignty of these areas have been ceded to the ROC. Hmortar (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Argument of ROC government is not a governmnet in exile can only be validated if Taiwan was indeed retroceded to China after world war 2. However, that is not a fact. ROC government currently asserts de facto control of Taiwan and it is recognized by the world, but the ROC's ownership of Taiwan is not recognized by anyone but the ROC its self. In fact, the ROC even acknowledged its lack of ownership of Taiwan when the ROC legislative yuan questioned YEH KUNG-CHAO for not having Japanese agreed to include Taiwanese territorial sovereignty transfer in the Treaty of Taipei. Yeh testified to the congress that it was simply not Japan's position to give away something it no longer owns. If retrocession has been done, then it would have been mentioned clearly on the final legally binding treaty and the ROC legislators would not have asked those question. Retrocssion by definition also means "To cede or give back (a territory, for example)", no such actions were done by Japan to return Taiwan to China or ROC. For an important matter such as settlement of territorial disposition normally requires a signed and ratified treaty, especially for the biggest war of the history of mankind. In fact, the original draft of SF Peace Treaty indeed clearly stated Japan's action of returning Taiwan, the draft stated "Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the islands of Taiwan and adjacent minor islands[.]" Intention of retrocession of Taiwan is VERY CLEAR. The record of this draft may be obtained from memorandum from Hugh Borton to Charles E Bohlen: Draft Treaty of Peace of Japan, State Department Decimal File No. 740.0011 PW(PEACE)/8-647 CS/W, State Department Records, Record Group 59 (August 6, 1947) Memorandum, Background of Draft of Japanese Peace Treaty, State Department Records, Record Group 59 (Jan 30, 1948). The language was removed from the treaty due to the fact there was no one single legitimate China at the time of SFPT signing, and it was the decision of the world to leave Taiwan status unsettled. No retrocession happened and that is an undisputed fact. If that is the case, ROC government is operating on a foreign land it has no ownership of, and that makes ROC a government in exile.Mafia godfather (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you are saying sounds like an extraordinary claim, and original research. Such claims need to be backed up by reliable sources. The ROC clearly had de facto control over the Island of Formosa after World War II. What you are saying is that Japan has De jure sovereignty over Formosa during and since the end of World War II, a position that the Japanese Government doesn't even take. Until consensus is reached, and as past consensus was that ROC is not a government in exile, as it remains within its own claimed territory, the entry will be removed. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an original research, it is simply a political fact and reality. De facto control does not constitute ownership as we can clearly see from US military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and that does not mean the US then have de jure sovereignty over Iraq and Afghanistan. I have already addressed the "de facto argument" and the objective to use de facto contol as a way to justify ROC's ownership claim over Taiwan is its self unverifiable and invalid. There is no reliable sources out there that can justify ROC's claim of ownership over Taiwan's territorial sovereignty. there is also no reliable sources out there that can prove ROC government is NOT a government in exile. What I am saying, and you would understand if you actually read what I have written, is that Taiwan belongs to no one. That applies to ROC government as well. If ROC government is on a land it does not own, then it is a government in exile by prevailing definition. From what I can see, a new concensus needs to be reache because none of the participants in the past have sufficient knowledge in the matter to make educated decision. You are welcomed to review the discussion in the page about Second Sinoi-Japanese War, where the concensus is reached about "retrocession" did not happen. If retrocession did not happen, then ROC could not be a governing authority of a land it owns, then it is a government in exile. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Second_Sino-Japanese_War#territorial_changesMafia godfather (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ngchen, can you provide any reliable or verifiable evidence that can prove ROC indeed is the de jure owner of Taiwan? Or ROC government is not a government in exile? So far, the evidences I have provided to support my case in another discussion are all reliable and verifiable.Mafia godfather (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the dispute exists is amply documented at legal status of Taiwan. The classic violation of the neutral point of view policy takes place when editors take one side of a real-world dispute, and present that side as the "truth." Alternatively, violations also occur when a minority position is presented as if it were a majority one, per the undue weight rule. Ngchen (talk) 22:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stating facts is not a violation of NPOV, especially the facts can be proven from various sources without needing to use reasoning as a medium. Controversy over legal status of Taiwan does not negate the fact that the ROC government does not have de jure sovereignty of Taiwan. Also, it does not eliminate the controversy of ROC government's claim over Taiwan. If every POV presented is controversial, then the position of ROC government is NOT a government in exile is also controversial. Not to mention, ROC government is not even recognized by the world to be an independent sovereign country with capacity as one. As we can see the ROC government as a government in exile is not a minor view especiually when the world endorses One China policy per UN resolution 2758, you are basically questioning my motive for editing as to promote Taiwanese independence, but I am not. I am simply saying ROC government is a governing authority on a land it does not own, and that clearly fits into the definition of GiE. Your view that ROC government is NOT a government in exile may perhaps be the minority view after all, can you name one reliable source that can prove its validity? Let me show you an excerpt from John Dulles during his meeting with Premier of Burma in the 1950's.
The top paragraph pretty much states Taiwan was ceded to no one and Japan merely renounced its rights. It is not just an argument, it was intended to be that way from the get-go. Therefore, ROC government has never acquired the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan. Mafia godfather (talk) 22:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, just a side note, Legal Status of Taiwan is one of the worst wiki pages ever. I did say I might go and clean it up some day, but it is pretty much a collection of rants of people from all sides who really do not know much about the relevant history or valid logical reasoning, and I am working on a project now so I really do not have much time to have edit war there. And just to be clear, it is not my objective to endorse any of the sides presented in legal status of Taiwan when I edit this page. So, please stop questioning my motive or classify me as one of those groups. ThanksMafia godfather (talk) 22:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you don't seem to understand that it is precisely the de jure sovereignty that is disputed. It's probably true that Dulles intended it to be a certain way; however, there's no reason to treat his views as determinative. We cannot take any single position on Taiwan's de jure sovereignty without violating NPOV. Ngchen (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would my knowledge or lack thereof about Dulles have any relevance? Your statement could be construed as a personal attack, by the way. I have not claimed that you're editing in any way due to your personal POV. Now, do you agree or disagree with my statement that "We cannot take any single position on Taiwan's de jure sovereignty without violating NPOV."? Ngchen (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see how my harmless question would be anywhere remotely close as a personal attack. I simply asked that question because according to the reliable and verifiable source I just provided you, John Dulles was speaking in capacity as a US Secreatry of State. He was in a meeting with foreign senior official explaining the US policy on Taiwan. If you knew that, you would not have said "there's no reason to treat his views as determinative" because he was speaking on behalf of the US. Note how he did not say "I", but "We"? Also, Dulles was the one who not only helped drafted the SF Peace Treaty its self and also a signatory on the treaty. He is speaking both on behalf of te US AND primary source. If anything, Dulles has more say about the truth about Taiwan's status than anyone. The whole legal status of Taiwan originally becomes controversial and disputed because the ROC government decides to go against all international laws and claim Taiwan as its own, the fact ROC does not own Taiwan was not disputed before ROC done that. Ok? Also, the wiki page of legal status of Taiwan is more of a page spawned from debates by wiki users like you and me, it is not really a page about the ongoing debates started way before creation of wikipedia. I personally do not see bunch of wiki users fighting with their keybowards on legal status of Taiwan as a reliable way to determine the legal status of Taiwan is in fact in dispute. It is more of China's claim on Taiwan is in dispute. Mafia godfather (talk) 23:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your question could be read as an insinuation of ignorance, which is why it could be read as a personal attack. Now, why should Dulles's views (and maybe by extension the US view) dominate? Again, do you agree or disagree with my statement "We cannot take any single position on Taiwan's de jure sovereignty without violating NPOV."? Ngchen (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My question was crucial to my understanding of why you would discredit Dulles. Because I was expecting something even more significant from you to prove your point, I simply did not see why Dulles as scretary of state for the US and the co-author of SFPT(the very legal instrument that defined and determined the status of Taiwan after world war 2) would not have any weight when it comes to making a statement on Taiwan's status? You have the guy who wrote the treaty, tell you why he did it and what it does. What sort of reasoning prompt you to not trust him? You sources? Finally, I do not think that stating the fact that status of Taiwan is as of today undetermined is violating NPOV because it is simply a political reality and fact. Just like some people might still believe earth is flat, do you think taking the side of earth is round violates NPOV?Mafia godfather (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think we'll have to take this issue to the NPOV noticeboard then. The idea that the ROC or some variant of "China" (hehe maybe the PRC) has sovereignty over Taiwan is far more mainstream than the flat earth theory. The notion that the SFPT is determinative, when no Chinese government signed it, is only one of several mainstream views; after all treaties cannot bind third parties. Anyway, I'll be posting a note on the dispute at the NPOV noticeboard to obtain outside input. Ngchen (talk) 23:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. You know what is mainstream? One China. There is only one China, and that is not ROC. ROC is also not an internationally recognized country because that will violate UN resolution 2758. Chinese governments did not sign SFPT, but Article 21 of the treaty clearly addressed the interest of China that time in terms of its benefit as an allied power. Treaty of Taipei signed by ROC and Japan clearly endorsed SFPT, so your argument of "no China signed it" is very weak, and hardly a mainstream view... unless you want to go by number of people who may support it, then China would certainly win it because it has the largest population, bummer. China has to abide by the SFPT because it is a final peace treaty that settles the remaining questions of world war 2 between Japan and Allied Powers. China/ROC occupied Taiwan on behalf of Allied powers, of course they had to abide by it. I hate to ask you dumb questions again, but have you read the treaty before?Mafia godfather (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those interested the discussion on the noticeboard can be found here.
Keeping with WP:NEU, a compromise that may not violate WP:UNDUE is that it can be mentioned, outside of the table, with links to the relevant pages. That there is an opinion, one of many, that the RoC on the island of Formosa is a Government in Exile.
Taking multiple points of referenced material, and extrapolating new material with out references itself, does constitute WP:OR.
I am not doubting that the opinion is out there, and can be referenced (which was not done when the content was added); however, because it is not a mainstream view of the state of the RoC, then it shouldn't be presented as such. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RightCowLeftCoast, I think what needs to be listed here is a fact as defined by prevailing definition. It is not really a "viewpoint" or perception. If we refer back to the source of error for validity of a fact, we may never get the fact right. It's like asking a convicted criminal if he or she is guilty, he or she would most definitely say no. Would you have asked HItler to see if he was a war criminal and take his word for it? If there are no reliable sources or evidences to prove ROC is NOT a government in exile, which I can see none of you can provide here... then we must look at this from other angles. Does ROC government fit the definition?
Wiki provides that...."A government in exile is a political group that claims to be a country's legitimate government, but for various reasons is unable to exercise its legal power, and instead resides in a foreign country. Governments in exile usually operate under the assumption that they will one day return to their native country and regain power." Princeton's WordNet provides that "(a temporary government moved to or formed in a foreign land by exiles who hope to rule when their country is liberated"http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=government-in-exile . The KEY elements are: government MOVED from its own land to a FOREIGN LAND. Other supporting elements may be the government "operate under the assumption that they will one day return to their native country and regain power."(sounds very old ROC propaganda of "recover mainland", don't you think?) What must happen is we need to have a government that moved... ROC did move its government from Nanjing to Taipei. The last piece of puzzle is whether or not Taiwan is a foreign land when ROC moved its government. From 1945 to 1952, Taiwan was an occupied territory of Allied Powers and belonged to Japanese Empire because per Hague II of 1899 Laws of War, a military occupation does not constitute territorial sovereignty transfer. Which is why the Japanese had the capacity to formally renounce the territorial sovereignty in San Francisco Peace Treaty(a treaty that is still in force today and endorsed by ROC with Treaty of Taipei). So, when ROC moved from China to Taiwan in 1949, Taiwan was a part of Japan. In 1951, Japan renounced the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan and the treaty came into force in 1952. Taiwan's sovereignty status was not ceded to anyone and thus resulted in a limbo cession status, the ROC government was still a government in exile operating on a foreign land! According to Secretary of state John Foster Dulles from the evidence I provided earlier, the disposition of Taiwan is undetermined even as of 1956. Nothing has changed since then about Taiwanese territorial sovereignty status. ROC government is a GiE from every angle you see it except ROC's own POV, and we dont ask a convicted whether he is guilty or not, right? Hope that makes sense. Mafia godfather (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RightCowLeftCoast, you are a Republican man, maybe you would appreciate a little research article from Heritage Foundation. "There are also reports that Chiang's advisors convinced him that if the ROC mission stayed to represent Taiwan, Chiang would be under pressure to demonstrate in some constitutional way that his Chinese GOVERNMENT-IN-EXILE represented the people of Taiwan rather than the vast population of China" http://www.heritage.org/Research/asiaandthepacific/bg2146.cfm The bibliography would provide you the reference. Mafia godfather (talk) 14:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Legal status of Taiwan exists for the precise reason that disputes exist over who has sovereignty over Taiwan. While it may be true that Mafia godfather does not like that article, recall that not liking something is no reason for excluding something. That article, despite its problems, has existed for several years now and has been reviewed by quite a few editors of various political persuasions. And yes, I endorse RightCowLeftCoast's pointing out that taking one set of published arguments, and then concluding that said arguments are "the truth" and presenting them as such is original research and a synthesis. Not presenting the views of the PRC, ROC, Russia, and a host of other nations/governments clearly violates WP:NPOV. Finally, it's inapropriate how Mafia godfather tries to pull in US politics by appealing to RightCowLeftCoast as a Republican, in that it creates an appearance of partisan motives. Ngchen (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ngchen, as I said earlier, the article of the legal status of Taiwan has no bearing in why or what I edit in this article. Questioning my motive and arbitrarily lump me in with one of the groups mentioned in that article will not help your argument at all. And the reason why I say using this wiki page as a basis to discredit the editing I have done on the GiE page is invalid because the controversy over legal status of Taiwan is really revolving around ROC's arbitrary claim over Taiwan's territorial sovereignty, not Taiwan its self. Taiwan's legal status is settled and uncertain, settled being it is officially a limbo cession under ROC government's care and uncrtain because Taiwanse people have yet to decide to replace ROC government with natively established government or not. It is like if Iraq being controlled by Coalition Provisional Authority for decades. The ROC government established a provincial government on Taiwan before the SFPT comes into force and claimed Taiwan has been "retroceded", that was premature and invalid. All the talks aside, would you show us any sources or information that can prove the fact i have presented is wrong? Or prove yours is right? Seems to me you are trying to go for discredit a fact with technicalities.
Let me ask you something, on the article Legal Status of Taiwan, it states "The legal status of Taiwan is a controversial issue which stems from the complex post-Second World War history of Taiwan. Various claims have been made by the People's Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of China (ROC), and supporters of Taiwan independence over this question, with a variety of arguments advanced by all sides. The question has significant bearing on the political status of Taiwan and touches upon many aspects of international law. In practice, sovereignty over Taiwan is exercised by the Republic of China (commonly known as "Taiwan")." Where is the reference for this? Which reliable and verifiable source states that is the issue in the nut shell? I seriously doubt its validity. Mafia godfather (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much all other editors have objected to your approach as violating the neutrality policy to date. Let me try to answer some of your questions. First, there is what is known as "common knowledge." We do not have to cite that the sky is blue. If you're interested in citations from scholars supportive of the other theories, I direct you to the citations in Legal status of Taiwan. Anyone who knows anything about Taiwan at present knows that, regardless of the legalities or lack thereof, the ROC is exercising sovereignty over the island. Everyone knows that the active dispute over what entity has de jure sovereignty is controversial, and a source of potential conflict. A big differences between the Taiwan example and Iraq are as follows. No state has proclaimed itself sovereign over Iraq's territory, except for whatever Iraqi governments, while only the PRC and ROC claim Taiwan without any contest from third parties. You claim that the proclamation of retrocession was invalid; the PRC and ROC (plus Russia and a bunch of other countries) seem to disagree with you; therefore controversy exists as amply documented at the legal status article. I'm not trying to convince you that the opposing view is correct; rather just that genuine controversy exists. Because of that, neutrality precludes us from taking any side and presenting that side alone as "truth." Ngchen (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I am a Republican, my political affiliation does not, nor should not, have a bearing on how I edit wikipedia per WP:NEU. This should be the way it is for anyone who edits Wikipedia. I know we are human, and thus are fallible, and aren't always neutral in our editing; but that doesn't mean that we as an editing community shouldn't strive to be.
I do understand that there is the opinion out there that the Republic of China is a government in exile. I don't believe anyone here is contesting that opinion. However, it is not the only opinion out there, and thus the reason for the article Legal status of Taiwan. To present the opinion that the Republic of China is a government in exile as fact would be giving that opinion undue weight and would be violating WP:NEU. Furthermore, I concur with Ngchen that stating that opinion given the information provided thus far would fall under WP:OR and WP:SYN; however, using the heritage.org article you maybe able to use it as a reference supporting that the opinion exist in another article, or here, if we are able to come to a compromise.
Basically, the opinion shouldn't be stated in this article as fact.
I have proposed a compromise earlier, that appears to have been ignored. The opinion that the Republic of China is a government in exile, may have a place in this article, in a brief manner, but in no way should be used as a content fork to the parent article on the differing opinions regarding the legal status of the island of Formosa. Therefore, as stated earlier I propose that rather then having the content in the main table of the section, a subsection should be created that gives a brief mention that there is an opinion that the Republic of China is a GIE, with reference to a reliable source supporting the mention, followed by an equally brief mention that it is a contested opinion with a reliable source reference supporting that mention, and that other opinions exist, with a link to the Legal status of Taiwan wrapping it up. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RightCowLeftCoast, I mentioned Heritage Foundation for fun, not to take advantage of your Republican affiliation. Notice I never mentioned that article because to me it is not a reliable source for its notable political inclination. I would much rather cite the articles and references the article made reference to(I hope you read the article). And I understands very well it should not be used as facts because it is an opinion. I just find it interesting that people who are in charge of editing this article would think the fact I presented was an "original research" for it has been a political fact for a long time with the US and Japan both have indicated that. It's an inconvenient truth, I know, but this is far less controversial than global warming. I have presented enough evidence to prove that Taiwan does not belong to ROC and hence ROC is a government in exile by the definition of a temporary government(moved provisional capital to Taipei from Nanjing) operating on foreign land(Taiwan) and attempting to liberate the old country. I really am not trying to exclude Legal status of Taiwan as an article, I just think Ngchen completely misunderstands Legal Status of Taiwan as an issue. It is really about legal validity of China's claim on Taiwan and not its legal status.Mafia godfather (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, guys, but so far all I have been asking is show me something from reliable and verifiable source that states ROC government is NOT a government in exile. RightCowLeftCoast, I saw your proposal and I am not trying to ignore it, but I strongly believe that if any compromise is to be made a valid evidence with equal if not more strength needs to be provided as a basis for the other side. You can't have one side that has evidence settle with another side that has none. In legal world, the one without any credible evidence would have lost, hands down. I hope you guys get what I am getting at. Anyway, if you want to create a subsection for it to illustrate the controversy, I will give it with my blessing, you can go ahead and draft one up for us, RightCowLeftCoast.Mafia godfather (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently the article lists the ROC, and then says "The Republic of China government, retreated to Taiwan, a Japanese territory occupied by Allied Powers, in 1949 after being defeated by People's Republic of China and currently administering Taiwan per San Francisco Peace Treaty Article 21. The ROC government claims Taiwan to be a part of its territorial sovereignty." I think this is the right approach. List it but provide information to clarify. I think we do need to move the current text further toward highlighting the uncertainty. I propose we do to things
Change the color of the ROC row in the table - perhaps to something grey - to de-emphasize it and to highlight the difference.
State directly in the first sentence of the description that "The Republic of China is not unambiguously 'in exile' because although it was forced out of all of its original territory (except for a few tiny islands) and has stated an ambition to return to that original territory, the ROC also claims to be the legitimate soveriegn of and has full control of the territory it now occupies." Readin (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mafia grandfather/IP editor, I believe that the IP edit was a mistake, and not an act of sockpuppeting. Thank you for correcting that. That being said, we are not the ones who need to provide references. Rather, as the editor adding content, the burden of providing verifiable reliable source references to support the content in dispute is the editor who added the content. In this case the editor is you. So far there has not been a reliable source references given that says that indisputably that the island of Formosa is not a de jure part of China and that the Republic of China is a Government in exile. Rather, there is OR and SYNTH based on reliable source reference material. As stated I respect your opinion, and your opinion that you believe that said opinion is fact, however; to present opinion as fact is not keeping in the spirit of Wikipedia and violates WP:NEU.
Very well, I will provide reference from education materials used by Stanford SPICE(Stanford Program on International and Cross Cultural Education) and take on this "burden of proof". It is interesting that most of the other listed GiEs hardly have any reliable sources that says that "indisputably" they are government-in-exile. Normally, these kind of list is a form of identification and you simply list facts base on definition. A fact like ROC government is a government in exile is more like saying American people are also humans, self explanatory. Anyway, I have provided my reference, please feel free to provide anything to challenge my evidence. Mafia godfather (talk) 19:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, since you guys done such a great job in trying to make sure ROC addition is legit with ample of evidence. You guys mind check out other links with little or no reference? Monarchy of Lao has a citation from a blog that no longer works? The page for MOL is also referenced by medias I have not heard of and a broken link. The only links that state Crown Council of Ethiopia is broken, and the rest is from the Crown Council of Ethiopia web site. Hardly a reliable source. I might as well start a web site and say I am UN secretariat in exile. Most other GiEs were also backed up by nothing but political sites. If you want those kind of sources, I am more than willing to provide dozens of links from political groups that can show you ROC government is a government in exile.Mafia godfather (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone provide source for the statement " The Republic of China government acquired Taiwan from Japan in 1945 at the end of World War II "? As far as I know, ROC government accepted surrender of Japanese in 1945 on behalf of the Allied Powers per General Order Number One...
"The Imperial General Headquarters by direction of the Emperor, and pursuant to the surrender to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers of all Japanese armed forces by the Emperor, hereby orders all of its commanders in Japan and abroad to cause the Japanese armed forces and Japanese-controlled forces under their command to cease hostilities at once, to lay down their arms, to remain in their present locations and to surrender unconditionally to commanders acting on behalf of the United States, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom and the British Empire, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as indicated hereafter or as may be further directed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers. Immediate contact will be made with the indicated commanders, or their designated representatives, subject to any changes in detail prescribed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, and their instructions will be completely and immediately carried out."
... and Japan has never given Taiwan to ROC, therefore the ROC could not have acquired Taiwan from Japan in 1945 or at end of world war 2. Please provide citation from credible and verifiable sources before adding this statement. Also, if ROC government indeed acquired Taiwan from Japan, then ROC government would not be a government-in-exile for it is operating on its own territory and not foreign territory as defined by the definitions of a GiE. Mafia godfather (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The method of transfer can be disputed. Was is a legitimate transfer agreed to by Japan? Was it a war booty? Was it theft from Japan? Theft from the people of Taiwan? But one can hardly deny that the ROC is today in possession of Taiwan and that it got Taiwan from Japan at the end of WWII. Simply saying "acquired" doesn't say anything about how the acquisition occurred or whether the acquisition was legitimate.
The alternate wording being proposed, that the ROC aquired "the right to administer Taiwan from accepting the surrender of Japan" goes much further in taking the POV that the transfer was was a "right" that was acquired. That wording needs more support than the previous wording. Readin (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the reference I provided Dulles clearly stated that Taiwan was NOT ceded to anyone(including the ROC) and Taiwan issue was not a Chinese internal issue so that means Taiwan was NOT a part of China or ROC. In that sense, the ROC has NOT acquired Taiwan and it is now a government in exile operating on a foreign land. Pleas do not start a revert war unless you can find sources to justify your rhetoric or it is merely an original research. It is more accurate to say ROC government has acquired the RIGHT to administer as it was stated in SF Peace Treaty Article 21. Mafia godfather (talk) 05:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have previously pointed you to legal status of Taiwan for references as to the highly disputed status of Taiwan. Your interpretation, making a particular interpretation of the SFPT supreme, is only one of many, and it would violate neutrality to present it as the "truth." It would also violate original research to conclude that said interpretation is "correct." The phrasing "right to administer per the UN" gives undue weight to said view. Therefore, I have reverted the page to the version by Readin. Ngchen (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both the KMT and DDP politicians have said that ROC = Taiwan. Therefore, ROC is foreign to Taiwan is a fringe Deep Green theory that does not belong on Wikipedia per WP:OR:
"If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research."
I have repeteadly asked for sources to prove this theory of ROC acquisition of Taiwan and yet nobody here is able to respond to that or even abide by the wiki editing policy in place. I have been lenient on the editors here who disagreed with me and simply shovel it as controversial along with series of misinterpretation on wikipedia editing policies. I have a bit more time now so I will do my best to really crack down on this, because this really is getting a bit ludicrous.
First of all, "Neutral point of view" is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies, along with "Verifiability" and "No original research." Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. They should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should therefore familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based CANNOT be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic AS EVIDENCED BY reliable sources. That means even though NPOV means we should include conflicting perspectives on a topic, those perspectives NEED TO BE EVIDENCED BY RELIABLE SOURCES. The contribution I provided meet this criteria nicely, the theory of Taiwan is a part of ROC is not. That is why I repeatedly demand citation from reliable sources for this perspective. Just because a couple editors agree that it is does not make it so as wikipedia clearly states that these principles CANNOT, and I wouldd like to stress again, CANNOT be superseded by editors' consensus.
NPOV also focuses on facts being used to support a perspective. Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible.WP:NPOV I have provided "facts" with credible sources to back these facts, and if there are any credible disputes to this fact, these disputes should be made with reliable sources as well, standards apply to any "perspective" as far as wikipedisa's concern should be applied to these "disputes". I have seen none of such credible disputes other than editors' rants.
NPOV touches on "undue weight", and my contributions are fully evidenced and meet the criteria of a well referenced FACT and even being referenced in official government documents, official site of a UN agency and textbooks of top education institutions. However, since some editors disagree and call it a "minority view" and should not be given undue weight. Let's take a look at the "Taiwan is a part of ROC" view and see if it is acceptable as a majority view?
"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" No such references have been provided, there is no way to reliably verify such a viewpoint as a "majority view", this perspective shouldn't even be in this article per wikipedia policy.
Second, verifiability. With all the references I have provided from Stanford University, UNHCR, official record of meeting for former Secretary Dulles, and research report to the congress... I see none of them fail the test of verifiability. As for the opposing view of "Taiwan is a part of ROC", I have not seen even one ounce of evidence or citation , so there was no way to see if it is verifiable.
Finally, no original research. "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." WP:OR My contribution has been affirmed by various verifiable sources as FACT and they are not unpublished, arguments, speculation and ideas. If anything, the theory of "Taiwan is a part of ROC" would be more of an OR since we have not yet seen any verifiable sources backing this perspective. It is therefore an unpublished argument speculated by some wiki editors who have noticeably limited knowledge on the target subject.
For the reasons I listed above, I will revert this back again, and I urge you all who disagree with me either comply to wikipedia editing policies and provide necessary citations to make your perspectives "evidenced" or request an administrator to oversee this issue. Thanks for your time.
By the way, Ngchen, if you want to quote me, at least quote it right. I did not say ""right to administer per the UN", I said "The Republic of China government acquired the right to administer Taiwan from accepting the surrender of Japan in 1945" and I have provided evidence for it from UNHCR. Perhaps you should make sure you read thoroughly first before making any changes on any contributions of other editors on any wikipedia articles. I do not know why you bring up "DPP and KMT", they are both political parties within the administered territories of the Republic of China government and whatever they say represent their political bias and should NOT be considered as verifiable facts as "such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. ". "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I have never cited from any of their sites or publications, I hope you take some time and read through "verifiability" WP:VAND.Mafia godfather (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's common knowledge that both the KMT and DPP accepts ROC = Taiwan. Ma Ying Jeou and Chen Shui Bian have both said ROC = Taiwan in their speeches. Most Taiwanese are either KMT or DPP supporters. Your POV is not accepted by either of the two major parties in Taiwan, and as a fringe view should not belong on Wikipedia. The WP:OR guideline clearly say "whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia." What you need to prove is that the majority of Taiwanese views the ROC as foreign. Also, please do not edit war until this issue is resolved. Thanks. T-1000 (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are three problems with the contention that KMT and DPP both accepting ROC=Taiwan. First, it's not true. The KMT still considers itself the legitimate government of China. The KMT still prefers to call the country "China". It still prefers to name national organizations with "China" or "Chinese".
Second, even if it were true, they would mean different things with the same language. The DPP is saying the "ROC" is really Taiwan, while the KMT would be saying that "Taiwan" is the Republic of China.
Third, the KMT and DPP do together represent all opinions on the topic. Another country, China, also claims to own Taiwan. That country has enough money and influence that many other countries parrot its claims.
This third reason also presents a problem for Mafia's argument. Another problem for Mafia's argument is Article 1 of the UN charter, signed by the ROC, that says the ROC should respect the self-determination of peoples, meaning the ROC had no right to rule Taiwan without Taiwanese consent - which was never freely given. (The UN Charter counts as a source?) There are plenty of other arguments for different views. Ngchen is right that Mafia should spend some time looking at the many arguments on the Legal status of Taiwan and Political status of Taiwan pages.
The reason we can say the ROC acquired Taiwan is the simple fact that the ROC took control of Taiwan and maintained control for the next 65 years. The ROC got possession. That doesn't make it right, wrong, legitimate, illigitimate, legal, illegal, or anything else except a plain and simple fact of life. Readin (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Readin, I am not arguing anything actually, I am simply providing the fact that ROC does not own Taiwan and that is a fact. If I am arguing about anything, it would be the understabnding of wiki editing policy of the editors here, because they are basically taking things out of context without reading the entire article. Historically, ROC came to Taiwan to accept Japanese surrender on behalf of Allied Powers and at that point no sovereignty transfer has taken place for Hague II of 1899 Laws of War AND Hague IV of 1907 Laws of War clearly suggest military occupation does not equal sovereignty transfer... "Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct. "(Article 55). Which is why sovereignty disposition of Taiwan was not done until Japanese formally done so in 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty. That is not even an argument, it is an undisputable fact. In 1951, Japan formally renounced all sovereignty rights of Taiwan in the peace treaty, and according to former secretary John Foster Dulles who co-authored the treaty, it was intentionally done so that Taiwan's legal disposition would be undecided. Dulles also statd that Taiwan's position was not an internal issue and that would mean Taiwan was not a part of China, ROC or PRC. That should be very clear. If that is the case, the ROC fits the definition of GiE perfectly and which is why the references I provided from authoritative 3rd party sources all affirm that fact.
Readin, i do not know why you would say that my argument is "Article 1 of the UN charter, signed by the ROC, that says the ROC should respect the self-determination of peoples, meaning the ROC had no right to rule Taiwan without Taiwanese consent - which was never freely given." I searched through the ENTIRE discussion page and I could not find where I said this. This is complete falsehood and a serious misrepresentation. Can you please THOROUGHLY review what you have written to be verifiable before you click "save page"? My contribution is NOT about Taiwanese self determination or independence, it is about ROC is a government in exile because it is a foreign government operating on a foreign land. My fact deals with Taiwan's disposition is not yet determined and certainly NOT acquired by the ROC. All I need to provide is reference and evidence that this fact is valid. I am not trying to prove anything, I am simply stating a fact that readers of wikipedia would find valuable. I have never challenged ROC's right to administer Taiwan, it was well within their right to do so per international laws, but the fact remains that Taiwan does NOT belong to ROC and they merely administer Taiwan like how US administers Iraq and Afghanistan. As to your statement on "The reason we can say the ROC acquired Taiwan is the simple fact that the ROC took control of Taiwan and maintained control for the next 65 years. The ROC got possession. That doesn't make it right, wrong, legitimate, illigitimate, legal, illegal, or anything else except a plain and simple fact of life" What you are suggesting is that ROC government should impose a double standard that while agree with Stimson Doctrine on Manchuria but yet agree that military annexation of Taiwan is acceptable? I suggest you provide proof to back your perspective for that is against every prevailing international laws today. Mafia godfather (talk) 08:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that both the KMT and the DPP both consider the ROC to have sovereignty of Taiwan, which renders Mafia's viewpoint fringe even within Taiwan itself. Therefore, whether his arguments are right or wrong doesn't even matter. T-1000 (talk) 05:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T-1000, first of all, you cannot use the argument of KMT and DPP both accepting ROC=Taiwan for both of them are essentially political advocates inside ROC administrative jurisdiction. It is highly likely the groups are biased, extreme, and promotional" in nature. For reliable sources, it is best to use 3rd party published work like what I have been using. Especially I am contributing a FACT, not a perspective. Taiwan is a part of ROC is only a position held by those inside ROC and not outside of it, and Taiwan is a part of China is a position of PRC and ROC government. If you want to dispute my "fact", you must follow ikipedia guideline and present a well evidenced fact to be included per NPOV policy. The problem I am havibng is I hear you all say "Taiwan is a part of ROC" is a "majority view" but yet no citation or evidence are given for such view. When Readin made the revision of the text he also failed to provide reference to the change. If it is such a prevailing view and a commonly accepted fact, there should be plenty of 3rd party published sources that can be used to back it up. However, so far only mine is able to upheld the challenge.
Since you mentioned Chen Shuibian has said ROC = Taiwan in his speech, allow me to refer you to his recent statement about Taiwan as a "territory still under military occupation of the United States, which Obama and Gates have failed to enforce." http://www.asianewsnet.net/news.php?sec=1&id=7896 Ludicrous? Yes. But that signed affidavit also enough to debunk your argument. At any rate, their positions can only be identified as "perspctives" and not enough to be called a fact.
Wiki OR guideline states "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions." WP:OR My contribution has been affirmed by various verifiable sources as FACT and they are not unpublished, arguments, speculation and ideas. If anything, the theory of "Taiwan is a part of ROC" would be more of an OR since we have not yet seen any verifiable sources backing this perspective. It is therefore an unpublished argument speculated by some wiki editors who have noticeably limited knowledges on the target subject. Since my contribution is NOT a perspective but a fact, it cannot be considered as a "an extremely small minority" viewpoint for the fact you do not know the fact should not make it a minority view. In fact, your view is probably more of an extremely small minority for you cannot even provide reference to prove its validity. You can start a revert war all you want, but the fact remains that you are trying to weasel your way out when my contribution fits wikipedia guidelines and yours dont. Anyway, as I said, I have more time to really get to the skinny on this now so you better do better than trying to label my "facts" as "perspectives".Mafia godfather (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through your source; I can't find the text that says the ROC acquired the "right" to rule Taiwan. Would you please quote it. Further, even you seem to agree that the ROC currently has possession of Taiwan (I say "posession", not "title"). Are you seriously trying to argue the ROC is not in physical posession of Taiwan? Are you saying that in reality (reality, not legality - who cares what the lawyers think), when you go to Taiwan you and everyone else there don't have to follow the laws of the ROC? That the taxes you pay there don't go to the ROC? That the ROC can't confiscate for ROC use anything it wants in Taiwan? You're arguments are entirely legal and not based on reality. You ignore the real world in favor of pieces of paper. Wikipedia is supposed to report the facts, not legal fantasies. Readin (talk) 15:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Readin, I hate to mention that you have yet provided any sources that even justifies "ROC acquired Taiwan", if you want a compromise, I think we should remove that statement "The Republic of China government acquired Taiwan from Japan in 1945 at the end of World War II while the ROC was engaged in a civil war with the Chinese Communist Party" altogether. My sources are to prove ROC is a "government in exile", none of the sources said ROC is ambiguously one or not, so I think to be fair we need to remove your wording of "not unambiguously 'in exile'". Also, the reason you provided after because" was really a form of original research and not backed by any evidence. The ROC acquired the right to administer Taiwan is a paraphrase of the ROC took control of. If you want, I can change that to "took control of". I just did not want to change your effort so much that it upsets you because your contribution rally misrepresents historic facts. Readin, if you really want to know basis where ROC got their "right" from, please refere to Hague Convention IV Article 55 and SF Peace Treaty Article 21 which led to Treaty of Taipei. Do you need me to quote them all for you? I am sorry if such obvious linkage isnt clear to you, but perhaps you should research and learn more about the subject matter, or better yet, spend more effort in finding a realiable source to prove "ROC acquired Taiwan". That is what I am very eagerly anticipating for.
In terms of international politics and territorial sovereignty, a country's acquisition of a territory usually means transfer of sovereignty. If not, it is either a lease or an occupation. Again, I am not arguing that the ROC is not in physical posession of Taiwan, I am stating the fact that the ROC government does not own Taiwan even though they do in fact administer it. Please quote me directly and not try to paraphrase, you have demonstrated enough misrepresentaton and I do not appreciate your strawman tactics at all. I have explained to you that a territory can physically be controlled by a country and not be a part of it. Examples I have given would be Iraq and Afghanistan under US control. ROC was in same position and just happened to be marooned on Taiwan since they lost mainland. If you do not know enough about the subject, I strongly recommend you spend more time editing articles of subject matters you do know more about and not presenting arguments that demonstrates your lack of merit to edit this article. The world today happen to care a lot about international legal principles, so I am sorry that you do not like lawyers, but we are not talking about arguments here... we are talking about facts. Just because Taiwanese in Taiwan abide by ROC laws does not make Taiwan a part of ROC in terms of territorial sovereignty. ROC is legal administrator of Taiwan, by that logic, the people inside the territory would be within jurisidiction of the ROC. Just like Afghans and Iraqis back when US was the occupying power. A perfect example would be HK and Guantanamo Bay. New Territories of HK was leased to UK and during the time UK had control over HK's New Territories the HKers there had to abide by British laws and pay British taxes even though territorial sovreignty belonged to China. If British declares HK a part of UK, it would not have been honored and recognized by the world even though UK has physical control of the territory. Guantanamo Bay is a territory formally a part of Cuba and the US has a permanent lease on it; however, individuals within the leased area would abide by US laws as it is administered by US. See the US superme court decision on Boumediene v. Bush. Readin, if you want, we should get an administrator involved and we will settle the issues regarding wikipedia policies. I really do not want to get into these debates on ROC's legal and de facto control with you because you obvious lack relevant knowledge in this and I am getting a bit tired of repeating the same concept, perhaps more time spent in enriching yourself on this would make all these legal concepts crystal clear to you. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think "took control of" works better than "acquired" and it will end the issue, that's fine with me. I think in this case it is a distinction without a difference. Readin (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you yourself said: Facts are "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". The KMT and DPP both have a ton of followers (as nearly every Taiwanese is either a KMT or DPP supporter), which renders their viewpoints a major POV. The NPOVpolicy demands that major POVs be represented. Opinions from the NPOV page is ""a matter which is subject to dispute.". The KMT and DPP both seriously disputes your additions. Therefore, what you added is not a fact, but an opinion. Again the WP:OR guideline is "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research". You can call your stuff facts, but as long as the KMT and DPP disagree with them, they are still a minority POV. T-1000 (talk) 19:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There isnt any serious dispute, T-1000, if so... please quote it and it must be from a 3rd party source. Technically KMT and DPP ar all from ROC's side in that sense so they are not qualified as "3rd party". NPOV policy deals with perspectives or opinions, I stated a fact and nobody here can provide a 3rd party published evidence that can dispute the fact I presented, therefore, it is a fact without serious dispute. You cannot just say it is disputed because you and a few others here do not like it. Show me a 3rd party evidence that states ROC acquired Taiwan is a fact, otherwise, save your time and stop responding until you have some solid proof. So far, your positions have NO cited sources, your position is bona fide extremely small minority and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said that the ROC is a government, and does not have sovereignity of Taiwan, therefore, neither the ROC nor Taiwan is a country (ROC has no land, Taiwan has no gov't). However, in the following source:
We see that 82.8% of the Taiwanese people believe that ROC/Taiwan and PRC are two separate countries. Since 82.8% of the Taiwanese believe the ROC is a country, your contribution are disputed by the majority of the Taiwanese people. Your contributions are therefore not facts, but a "extremely small minority" opinion and that should not belong on Wikipedia. So any survey that shows majority Taiwanese people believing that ROC/Taiwan is a country will disputes your "facts". T-1000 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a fact that neither the ROC nor Taiwan is a country. The poll you have contributed is merely a poll conducted by a media in Taiwan and published by the ROC government, that alone is already a presentation of an "opinion"(not a fact, but a perspective) and from a non 3rd party source since it is from ROC government thus neutrality is compromised. I am curious, have you learned about quality of evidence in your past education? It would be a good place to start. You need to learnb to compare apple with apples, I have presented a "fact", you cannot present an "opinion" and try to dispute it. It does not work that way. It may be a fact that you have lost your home to a bank because you do not make your payments on time and the banks are taking over your home, you can say it is your home and you are still squatting there with your plasma TV and workout equipments, but that does not dispute the fact that your house is no longer yours. 90% of people in China believe Taiwan is not a country and a part of China, does that make it a "fact" that Taiwan is a part of China? No. Your argument simply does not held water, I'm sorry. Mafia godfather (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Estonia
should the estonian one be in this list? the current government is widely recognized as legimate. besides the government in exile is far from exile. it is made up of a bunch of old man (not an insult) living in estonia who try to promote their idea of history.
as they hold no popular support nor are they inexile and even more, the current government is fully recognized as they are not, do they really belong here with other respectable governments in exile? 82.131.52.6119:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must be referring to the pre-World War 2 one it seems. You may be right in that aspect, even though it does still exist. Not sure if it should be taken out altogether or placed somewhere else. That-Vela-Fella14:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i am referring to the one mentioned in the article as the current government in exile. though there still appears to be some oragnisation, officialy the power was handed over by heinrich mark in 1992. as there already is an article about the government in exile in the past governments section, i doubt the neccessity or actually even the relevancy of the entry. there is no actual artcile about it and the legitimacy and relevancy issue is handled on the kalev ots page although with a POV. i propose deleting the mention from this entry as it is confusing and almost irrelevant.
82.131.28.15115:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vietnam
The GFV seems like a legitimate G-I-E. If nobody objects I'll put this back:
I have recently added this myself, and another user had removed it. If it claims to be the legitimate should it not be added to the list, or atleast added to a new section of disputed governments in exile. If it continues to operate, and consider itself the legit government, should it not be given some recognition in this article. I shall add it unless someone can provide good reason why it should be removed. --207.114.206.48 (talk) 02:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the article's own definition, the Government of Free Vietnam is a government-in-exile. The definition only requires that a GiE claim legitimacy, it does not require proof of legitimacy. Nor is there a requirement that the GiE is a "true successor state". It should be listed as such. LAWinans (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Government of Free Vietnam has been removed again. I will add them back to where they once were, or find the edit that removed them and undo that edit.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 03:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Biafra
Biafra, which had separated from Nigeria in the 1970s and then reunited after a destructive civil war, has indicated that it will support a government in exile in the United States. The announcement was made at some time last year, 2007, and there are founding documents at http://www.biafraland.com. LAWinans (talk) 23:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entry classes the Ethiopian GiE as a "past" government-in-exile. Inasmuch as the organization continues to exist and continues to claim legal status what was the basis for making it historical? I suggest shifting it to existing GiE. LAWinans (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rather then removing the GiEs from the page entirely could we not add a section for GiE's woes proper existance is in dispute, for they do remain as non-state national "actors".207.114.206.48 (talk) 09:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think all governments in exile are, by definition, disputed. I think we should go with the phrase above the list "Governments in exile often have little or no recognition from other powers. Governments in exile currently include:" If an organisation claims it should control a territory AND calls itself a government in exile, that should be enough. An additional condition could be that the organisation did actually have control of the disputed territory some time in the past. A third condition could be that it currently doesn't control any territory. These criteria could separate governments in exile from sides in a civil war or revolutionary organisations, as well as disputed territories. Whether the Republic of China could be called a government in exile is debateable, given the One China Policy. It does claim to be the legitimate government of all China, but, looking at one of my possible conditions given above, does control some territory of what it calls China, and, technically speaking, would the Peoples Republic of China also be a GiE, given it's claim to Taiwan? It fails the condition of having once controlled the disputed territory, and, practically speaking, is in a different situation to the ROC, controlling, as it does, most of what both sides consider to be China. - Matthew238 (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the government of the Republic of Abkhazia should be listed here: it is not in exile since it sits in Abkhazia. By the way, it is already listed in the list of unrecognised nations. I suggest to remove it from here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.204.16.1 (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it possible that the Order of Malta is a government in exile (of the island of Malta) as they have diplomatic relations with Malta (please see the Wikipedia article about Order of Malta). It sounds impossible. --80.223.146.227 (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, it's an oxymoron! Is there some source saying that the Order is making claims to be the legit government of Malta, even though it has diplomatic relations with the current administration on the Island? If there is none, then it should be removed from the article!That-Vela-Fella (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into the matter some more, I still have not seen any evidence that the Order is claiming Malta, thus in exile from the island. As so far that could be seen today, it's content to continue to run it's affairs from it's residence within Rome. I will remove it from the list right away. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split current governments in exile into two sub-lists
I have split the list of current GiE into two sections Created by deposed governments and Created by political organisations. There are other current and historical GiE which have been created by political organisations that have never been a legitimate authority in their claimed territory. ThinkingTwicecontribs | talk21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was a fair compromise. However, to say that an organization has never had a legitimate authority over claimed territory, smacks of a POV statement, and wisely left out of your most recent edit. For this is for readers to decide on their own regarding the legitimacy of one group over another.
This also has me thinking, would active cessation groups such as the Lakota group also be listed in the political organisation heading? I am not saying I support or do not support their movement, however, would they not claim to be a legitimate government. Or is it int he case of the Lakota group that since they are already on the territory they claim to have authority of that they are thus not in exile.--207.114.206.48 (talk) 06:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term "Free Zone" is used by the Polisario leaders and their supporters. There is no UN official document which mentions the term "Free Zone". This area is called "Buffer zone" and controlled by Minurso to maintain the ceasefire.--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't belive the republic of lakota is in exile but it defeniently does not have control of their claimed territory. Under what criteria would they fall? CK6569 (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They have been listed as a Secession movement, and as such can be found here and the following list. Furthmore they would not be listed as a government in exile, as they still remain on part of the land they claim to have sovereignty over. This is much like the discussion regarding why the Republic of Taiwan is not on this list. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it doesn't have it's own article still, it doesn't seem to be even an active gov-in-exile at this moment (it's own website hasn't even been updated for a while) and the aims it says in relation to Syria being in Lebanon have already come about (troop withdrawal). Will need more current info and I tried to find some, but it's very scarce at best. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's make up our minds please
Browsing the page's history, I found the following edit:
"Created by deposed governments: Removed Republic of Ambozonia as it never was the de jure government of the territory claimed, it would be best under list of seccation movements"
Here is a list of current entities in the list which were never de jure governments in their respective claimed territories: Cabinda, Chechenia, SADR, South Moluccas, Serbian Krajina.
As I understand it, this is a list of self-proclaimed governments functioning in exile, regardless of actual control. Please don't delete further entries documented as being governments in exile. Ladril (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should Secession or Separatist Movements be added to this article? As, IMHO, that is what appears to be happening, slowly. And if that is not the case, what differs a government in Exile from that of a Secessionist organization that claims to be a government not in control of the territory which it claims? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:12, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't been looking at this to closely for a while, but now that I am, I too see it getting toward that same point. Before one knows it, there may even be a call for a merge to take place. This article should be based on 2 main things (as I see it):
1) Those former governments that was in power (like in Iran) that got deposed yet still function & claim to be the legit ruling body, and
2) Those that are presently recognized by other states as the legit government (like the SADR) & may (or may not) have some actual control over the said territory it represents.
Well the problem is that based on the un-cited definition of the article it allows all those separatist/successionist groups to be allowed into this article. I agree with the two criteria that layout, but I would also like to modify the first by saying:
1)Those former governments that were in power that got deposed, or groups that claim to be a continuation of a historical government, or sub-government entity, that got deposed yet still claim to be legit ruling body, and act upon that claim through function, and
2)Those that are presently recognized by at least one widely recognized state as the legit government.
The reason why I deleted the territorial control information was, that if they control any of the territory they claim they are no longer in exile, just not fully in control of said territory. This is the reason why the Republic of China was removed from this list.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems generally fine with me then on the overall wording, but some places are partly in control of the said exiled government (like the SADR), but got the HQ in a neighboring state. I guess those very few examples could just be noted on then, since most are not in that similar example.
I would go ahead then with those given guidelines/parameters put in the opening paragraph, thus making it quite clear as to what should/shouldn't be included. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless someone disagrees, I would propose that we have reached a Consensus, and will give until 12AUG2009 before this is implemented and to give time for comment or objection. Implementation shall include changes on the opening paragraph, which we should discuss, and removal of those self-descibed GiE that do not meet the new criteria.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the definition. To me, the mere fact that a group sets up an entity that calls itself a government (as attested by reliable sources) is enough, regardless of international recognition. This does not automatically overlap with all seccesionist movements so I don't see a problem in there. Ladril (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the objection the change will not be made. However, we still have a problem in so much that there are an increasing number of successionist movements that are being added to this article that I don't feel belongs here. We should come one a consensus on what differs a successionist movement and a government in exile, and using that consensus definition remove those that are successionist movements alone. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two problematic entries come to mind: Palestine and SADR. Neither are really governments in exile (at least if you define exile as leaving the country). And BTW, Juarez's government of Mexico wasn't either, just like Afghanistan's Northern Alliance was never really exiled. I don't have a problem if somebody deletes those.
Aa for your concern, this list is still a lot smaller than List of active autonomist and secessionist movements, so I don't really see a danger for the moment. My view is that every government in exile reported as such by reliable sources must be reported as such, though. Moreover the definitions proposed would trim the list down to very few cases. Ladril (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one for Palestine I can see as not really being in exile also, since they do run within it's said territory (in a matter of speaking). But the SADR, while it's in some control of it's land, are headquartered outside of it (based in Algeria). That being said, they are in exile & should remain in the article until such time if the leaders return back to the capital of the Western Sahara.
I should also mention that the proposed criteria earlier mentioned is still sound, but if it could be further improved/clarified upon, then so be it, thus it could then later be put at the start of the article.
That-Vela-Fella (talk) 07:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. expulsion from one's native land by authoritative decree.
2. the fact or state of such expulsion: to live in exile.
3. a person banished from his or her native land.
4. prolonged separation from one's country or home, as by force of circumstances: wartime exile.
5. anyone separated from his or her country or home voluntarily or by force of circumstances.
So that leaves out Palestine, Republic of China and Afghanistan's Northern Alliance (I'm mentioning these just for future reference). It also leaves out Juarez's Government of Mexico, so I'll take it out. Ladril (talk) 15:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must disagree re: the Juarez Government and your criterion of judging whether it constitutes a GIE or not-the fact that the French forces set-up the puppet Maximilian and ran the constitutional president out of Mexico City, i.e. exiling him and his cabinet from power speaks volumes. That one must be entirely exiled from the limits of ones country is also one that, I feel, doesn't hold strictly true-Juarez was always one step ahead of the French, and he was able to find refuge in the north and didn't have to cross the Rio Bravo only because of the actions of a few Chihuahuenses at that altercation in Chihuahua City. Had the invaders exerted their power over the entire country, then Juarez would have had to decamp Mexico completely...then, under this line of reasoning, if he had crossed the river at El Paso del Norte, he then (and only then) would have been considered exiled? Sorry, I subscribe to a broader definition: If one who is in power is in danger of having ones arse shot off and is forced to flee the area with his/her entire cabinet, this constitutes de-facto exile any way one slices it, and I don't think that Don Benito would personally have appreciated the nuances. This coupled with the fact that, in just about every text used in schools here in Mexico, from primaria through university level, his is referred to as a 'government-in-exile', with Maximilian the de-jure head-of-state.--Lyricmac (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This maybe the text in Mexico, (as supported by the current Mexican government) but I doubt that this is the present consensus view of the editors of this article. As you had said, even though the Juarez Govt. was driven from Mexico City, it did remain within the territorial confines of the country that it claimed to govern. This is also why there is a question as to whether SADR should be listed, as it to has control of some of the territory it claims; however, consensus has been for keeping it in.
Note; your comments show a POV against the Second Mexican Empire. Although I understand in political articles there maybe a tendancy to include POV into them, and I don't think any editor is 100% free from doing so in the past, let us attempt to keep such things to a minimum for Wikipedia's sake. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To the contrary, I have no pov against the empire of Maximilian; he was personally a figure for whom I have quite a bit of sympathy, but it is needful to recognise that he was indeed a puppet of Napolean III, I guess a sort of sad, quixotic figure, but a puppet all the same.
If the SADR is to be included, then for consistancy's sake all such regimes should be included; to include one and exclude another for precisely the same reasons makes no sense at all. However, the last thing that Wiki needs is another edit war(which was the furthest thing from my mind). If the consensus is to omit the Juárez regime from the list then I'll go along, but pardon me if I point out the illogic of the rationale, nor does it change the verdict of history.--Lyricmac (talk) 16:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A small point. I too went through the Mexican education system, and I'm pretty sure I never read in a public textbook that Maximilian was "de jure" ruler of Mexico (things may have changed since Fox, but I doubt it). Most of my position on this matter has already been expressed by RightCowLeftCoast. Ladril (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This listing has been added, removed, reverted, and removed again. So far two active editors have given reason as to why this listing does not meet the definitions set forth in this article. Rather than this becoming an editing war, let us reach a consensus as to this listing. Please keep personal attacks to a minimum to non existant level, and lets have a heated but civil debate on this. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. You also delisted these. There are sources for the Palestinian listing calling it a "parliament-in-exile" and "government-in-exile". What criteria are you using for this page, if not the descriptions provided in reliable sources? Tiamuttalk11:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the discussion above in this talk page, the definition we're using is the one at the beginning of the article itself. Just because a group is self-described doesn't make it so. I imagine the Palestinian Authority says it is so because it does not have all of its territory claimed, but was removed after discussion because it is on at least some of its territory that it claims (West Bank/Gaza Strip) and governs from within that territory.
SADR was removed because it has part of its claimed territory, however was readded due to to consensus objecting my removal because it's main organs of government remained outside said claimed territory. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you read more about the State of Palestine, the Palestinian Authority (PNA), and the PLO, you may see some similarities between the Palestine situation and the SADR one in that regard. Much of the PLO remains in exile, many of its members could not attend the latest meetings of Fatah in the West Bank either on principle because the territories remain occupied, or because they would not be granted the travel permits to attend from Israel (who still decides who goes in and out of Palestinian territory). It is the PLO and not the PNA who represents Palestine internationally and the half of the Palestinian population who are refugees who do not get to vote in elections for the PNA. The PNA is an interim administrative body set up by the Oslo Accords to run local government in populated Palestinian centers.
Also, you might check out these links, because the designation "government-in-exile" or "parliament-in-exile" is not a self-description only :
What I am trying to say is that the situation of Palestine is a bit more complicated, due to its transitional nature. But the PLO is widely recognized as a government-in-exile, much of its membership remains in exile, the PNA runs things on the ground but it is a product of the peace process and was designed to be temporary. It was never intended to replace the PLO (the PLO signed the agreement with Israel that created the PNA as a temporary body to govern things until final status negotiations could be concluded. They never started and so things have been frozen in time since. The PNA continues to govern tiny areas of the territories, and the refugees and PLO membershp outside continues to wait to come back. The Palestinian right of return is an issue for final status negotiations.)
Anyway, I hope you'll reconsider, since I believe Palestine (or the PLO, who is anyway the official representative of the State of Palestine) should be listed, as it meets the criteria of which you speak. Tiamuttalk17:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the references sources. However, I don't think the membership's location matters as much as the present seat of the organization. If the PNA does not equal the PLO and the PLO and it's supposed declared government of Palestine (not directly linked to the colonial government of the British Mandate) are not presently operating or claiming to operate within its said claimed territory, then I can see it being much more like the SADR. If this is the case and its organs of government are not within its claimed territory but operate elsewhere in whole, then I will say that the SADR comparison is even more similar. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Palestine is going to be re-listed, it is my opinion that its entry should include the material presented by Tiamut as justification, so as not to confuse the general user. Ladril (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Oh, well then I guess it does not qualify since the PLO has a headquarters in Ramallah (or did, at least when Arafat was alive and under siege at the Mukataa in 2002). It also had a headquarters at Orient House, but that was closed about a decade ago by Israel. I'm not sure if there is, or where, the overall international headquarters is located. If I find something definitive about the issue that states the PLO continues to operate primarily from outside, I'll let you know. If not, thanks for taking the time to discuss and review the sources and explain you position with civility and intelligence. Cheers. Tiamuttalk15:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And Ladril, no worries. I'm not going to ask for its listing unless I'm sure it fits the current definition. Thanks for the vote of confidence in my sources though. Happy editing. Tiamuttalk15:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manchukuo
According to the wikipage on the international recognition of kosovo, Manchukuo's government in exile has recognized kosovo. There is a link there to the exile-government's webpage. It stated that it was founded in 2004 and apparently they sell trinkets to fund the cause. Can't find the organization linked/listed anywhere else on Wikipedia, either here or on the Manchukuo page.84.176.165.37 (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is there at least two secondary reliable sources to back its claim of existence? Are they actually operating as a government with at least some governing organs in existence with reliable sources for those as well? Are they attempting to regain a former territory? Are they attempting to secession of present territory to create a new territory?
I see they also link to a Qing Dynasty Restoration group. Are they a sister organization or a sub organization of this group?
The fun part of this is Myself is an ethic Manchu, and this Manchukuo is just seems a big fat joke, but not funny. I checked their website yesterday, it seems like a comic website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.251.92.1 (talk) 08:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tibet
Tibet needs to be added as a legit "governement in exile". The Dali Lama is their leader, and I think his governemnt is located in northern India. Tibet.com is their official site and specifically states "govt in exile". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.164.166.211 (talk) 13:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Government of Free Vietnam is led by General Nguyen Khanh, former chief of state of South Vietnam.