Jump to content

Talk:Political status of Taiwan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 72.81.233.159 (talk) at 02:31, 2 February 2011 (→What if Taiwan was attacked by a third party?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please help keep this discussion civil. Assume good faith – for many things, there are perfectly innocent explanations, and there is no need to accuse anyone of lies or deception.

Dubious info

The following statements in my view are dubious. No footnotes are given but one statement appears to assert that Taiwanese people gaining a national identity is true. One statement says in June 2008 the missiles were 1300+. Who said that? PRC or ROC's relevant authorities? And who are the "some scholoars" who made the third statement?

Taiwanese independence supporters may argue that both groups [mainlanders and taiwanese] have begun to lean more towards independence due to growing military threats from China[dubious – discuss], who in 1996 fired missiles into the Taiwan Strait in an attempt to disrupt the presidential elections, and who currently (June 2008) has 1300+ missiles pointed at Taiwan.

Conversely to China's intention, some scholars have posited that China's threat of war has actually caused ideas of a distinct Taiwanese nationality and solidarity to grow stronger.[dubious – discuss]

If, by 9 September 2008, the assertions are not supported by footnotes, I propose to remove the statements as they are in obvious violation of the Wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that no one responded to my comments inviting for citation/reasons for the above assertions of facts which I consider as dubious, I will proceed to remove those assertions.--pyl (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"By Government purchased" passport cover

By Government purchased Cover of Republic of China's passport.

This image has been the subject of a recent edit battle. What exactly is this a picture of? Is it a picture of the passport, or is it a picture of a plastic outer covering that the passport can be placed inside to protect it from dirt and water?

Assuming it is a plastic cover, then where did it come from? The phrase "By Government purchased" is not very clear. Readin (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. That's why I removed it. As far as I know, this is not an official cover. A suspected bogus passport cover serves very little value in this article when that "State of Taiwan" shopping bag is already there.--pyl (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a cover you can put on your passport and it's made by ROC government. The surplus is just like the file about the shopping bag writing 台灣國. Kuaile Long 16:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When did the ROC government make that? Would you be able to find a newspaper article saying it please? Chinese is OK. I am quite curious about this.--pyl (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just got it myself. A friend of mine bought it. This is my pic. Even if it would be sold private, then the meaning is the same one as with that shoppingg bag. 快樂龍 134.61.41.204 (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the same as the shopping bag because the shopping bag is obviously, on first glance, produced by a private entity. The passport cover appears to be the actual passport, and as such it appears to be something issued by the state. If the passport cover was produced by a private entity, then it would be confusing to have it pictured in the article.
If the passport cover was indeed issued by the state, then we need more information about it. We need context. Which ministry issued it? When? Was it standard item that was given out with all passports? Was it something that had to be bought separately?
Although Pyl's request for a newspaper article is overkill, we do need enough information for verification. I say Pyl's request is overkill because we don't have newspaper articles accompanying the photos of the compatriot pass and the Taiwan passport.
On the other hand, we know which government agency produces the passports and passes and enough people have copies of the real items that they can easily be identified as fakes if that is what they are.
The information that provides context is going to go a long way toward providing verification. Readin (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will start doing that. 快樂龍 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, that is just one hurdle. After we learn more about the image, we'll need to decide whether it is from a notable source. Expect Pyl to argue that it is not. Readin (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still I want to give it a shot. Imagine it was a misunderstanding and this was or is sold by private persons. How enthusiastic do they have to be to make a cover by themselves, which just has the size of a real passport and are successful by selling it? And then there are enough Taiwanese using this. I never heard about anything else like this in Europe or the States. 快樂龍 04:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The covers are common. Making them to be exactly the same size and having success selling them isn't a result of enthusiasm. It is a practical matter of keeping your passport in good condition. You put your passport inside the plastic cover and it is protected from rain, rips, dirt, etc.. I have a passport cover (it has a different appearance than the one in the photo) from a travel agency that I've never heard of. I like it because it keeps my passport safe. I certainly don't have any enthusiasm for the travel agency. See My Tattered Passport for a story similar to my own experience. Here are some pictures of similar passport covers. Readin (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the passport covers are privately made, and they're common, how notable are they? I will argue not notable at all, since anyone can make a passport cover that says pretty much anything. Ngchen (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that if the passport covers were privately made, they are not very notable and certainly not notable enough to overcome the problem that many readers will mistakenly think the privately issued cover is actually the government-issued passport. Readin (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my comment asking for a newspaper article is an overkill. 快樂龍 would have understood that if this cover was indeed issued by the government, it would have been a big deal in Taiwan and it would therefore be reported. If Readin has issues with me asking for that, then she does not understand the Taiwanese mentality sufficiently. Regarding the personal allegations of bias which Readin left on my discussion page, they have been replied to.

Readin said:-

Expect Pyl to argue that it is not.

Leave these smart arse comments to yourself, as they are not appreciated nor taken to be humourous. Trying to gather support by drawing an "enemy line" is unnecessary when consensus is required in editing Wikipedia articles. Yes, you also need support from your "enemies".

快樂龍 said:-

....I never heard about anything else like this in Europe or the States.

They are common in areas where independence or sovereignty theory is advocated. Embassies are set up. Passports are also produced. See Australian Aboriginal Sovereignty and Principality of Sealand.--pyl (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Customs Form

The United States Customs forms said: Print the name of the country(ies) that you visited on your trip prior to arriving to the United States.

If you were coming from Taiwan to the United States would you leave it blank, write China, or write Taiwan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.99.14 (talk) 03:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What if Taiwan was attacked by a third party?

If Taiwan was invaded or bombed by a country other than the PRC (North Korea, for example), would the PRC government go to war against the aggressor on the grounds that an attack on Taiwan was an attack on Chinese territory? --GCarty (talk) 13:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably yes. Ngchen (talk) 14:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's not really an appropriate question because 1. China is the only country threatening to kill Taiwanese and 2. This forum is for discussing article content, not speculating what would happen in a hypothetical situation. Readin (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The PRC will likely go to war against this third country. Article 3 of the Anti-Secession Law says:-
Article 3 The Taiwan question is one that is left over from China's civil war of the late 1940s.
Solving the Taiwan question and achieving national reunification is China's internal affair, which subjects to no interference by any outside forces.
The PRC will consider an attack by a third party on Taiwan, as an attack on China. Normally, that would be a ground for a declaration of war.--pyl (talk) 06:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on who exactly that third party is. If it's an ally of the PRC, then most likely that the PRC would be acting through that ally as a way to attack the ROC, but also being able to deny any involvement. Though, who would actually attack Taiwan that's not already allied with the PRC against Taiwan and/or the Western world (including Japan, South Korea, Singapore, and other technically Eastern nations but are more Westernized)? Answer: no one. Taiwan's only real enemy is the PRC (and by extension its allies, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) but only directly threatened by the PRC. 68.18.25.136 (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with ply, although the PRC seems to be the only threat currently to the island of Taiwan, if another party attacked it (which although unlikely is still a possibility), the PRC (since they consider Taiwan their territory) would react in the same fashion as if Beijing itself were attacked, with a retaliation force, regardless of what nation attacked Taiwan. This is the reaction that the vast majority of states would have if their territory is attacked and this seems no different. Bennyj600 (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the only foreign country threatening to invade Taiwan is China, an invasion of Taiwan by another party would almost certainly be at the request of China. China's reaction, to avoid fighting their ally, would be to 'diplomatically intervene' to persuade their ally to leave Taiwan so that China could 'liberate' the dramatically weakened nation.
If for some unimaginable reason it were a country not allied with China, China would most likely wait for that other country to wear down Taiwanese resistence, and then step in militarily after both sides were exhausted so that China could conquer Taiwan with minimal resistence. Readin (talk) 04:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
China would not invite another nation to invade Taiwan for her, and would not let any foreign nation (ie. US) interfer with sovereign Chinese internal affair.72.81.233.159 (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this question just proves how totally peaceful the Pacific has become under American control. Hcobb (talk) 05:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pacific is not under American control. Not for long at least.

It would be pretty ironic if that occurred, as it would unite both nations again. Assuming China doesn't, you know, just take them back over right after, haha. 203.206.11.70 (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Sutter Cane[reply]

Title

Good morning,

I have a problem with the Title "political status".

The article explains the controversy whether Taiwan, including Penghu, should remain effectively independent ... A political status is in my opinion not correct. In the case that Taiwan is independent than it has the legal status as a state, if not than it has the legal status as a province etc. The article discusses in my opinion more the "Taiwan-conflict" or the "future of Taiwan".

Regards Taiwanhiker (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Although there is some discussion in the article of what could be called "political status," what is really at issue is the sovereignty question -- i.e. Taiwan's LEGAL status under international law. (I'm not sure how to add a note like this. I'm fjdksla8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.80.125 (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Political_status_of_Taiwan&oldid=411500889"