Talk:Free area of the Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ROC vs Taiwain, revert explanation[edit]

I'm going to revert this change [1]. It change Taiwan to ROC, which doesn't make sense in this context. The ROC, which legally has never disclaimed sovereignty over the mainland, also presumes to maintain sovereignty over HK and MO - as they would if they were the successors to the Qing instead of the PRC. Thus, the law mentioned here is about people and goods moving between the "Taiwan Area" and the "Hong Kong Area" or "Macau Area" which are all part of the ROC (in the nebulous way the ROC has any land claims). It's not about moving goods and people between the ROC and the Hong Kong area if the Hong Kong Area is presumed part of the ROC. SchmuckyTheCat 21:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It's always much more complicated that many may have thought. The ROC is legally a successor of Qing, and inherited the claim to Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau, and many other territories ceded and leased to other sovereign states. Yet the ROC had never actively protest against Japanese control over Taiwan (including the Pescadores), until the Yalta Conference (or perhaps a bit earlier). They did not actively request to take over Hong Kong and Macao, though they surely could do so. Nevertheless they did resume control of Weihaiwei and Kwang-Chou-Wan. It's never clear if there's any evidence showing the ROC has evered lay a claim over Hong Kong and Macao. — Instantnood 18:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
(I'm agreeing with you but just adding two cents). They were in power when they resumed control of those two places. The acts governing HK and MO from Taiwan are interesting to read. They aren't making a territorial claim, but it's obvious (just by the existance of those acts) that the ROC think they have a right to make one. I never see or hear about old KMT stalwarts who still want to make a claim to the mainland, but the closed-door legislative rangling with some of the very old yuan members must be interesting when making acts like these. SchmuckyTheCat 19:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
True indeed. The laws have to be carefully worded, or else those guys would be in trouble. — Instantnood 21:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Carefully worded to be nebulous and sloppy, on purpose! :) - SchmuckyTheCat 21:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Greater Taiwan[edit]

It should not be merged into this article. Although they mean about the same thing, they are used differently. The pro-independent people would use Greater Taiwan instead of this term, that is why there are two articles.-- 15:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What is "Greater Taiwan" and why does it redirect here? Readin (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Never heard of it. Probably a coined term to match "Greater China"? But I have never heard of it being used even in Taiwan.--pyl (talk) 09:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


User:Jiang proposed merge of Free China (Second Sino-Japanese War):

  • Oppose --- Just because they have the same name, doesn't mean they should be on the same page, seeing as they're two different concepts relating to two different historical periods. That's why we have the whole concept of "disambiguation pages". In general, "Free China" in the eight years' war was equivalent to "territories controlled by the Nationalists (in Chongqing) OR the Communists". Links to Free China (Second Sino-Japanese War) would be, e.g. discussions of people "escaping to Free China", discussion of the "Chongqing government", etc. It would just generate more confusion to cram it onto a page which talks about territory of China controlled by the Nationalists from Taipei and not the Communists. cab 01:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Google test shows almost no reference (604) to the title. --Voidvector (talk) 08:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a Chinese term. If you search in Chinese [2], there is plenty. HkCaGu (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


I am going to move this article to Taiwan Area, which has 339,000 ghits compared to 908 ghits of the current name. The Chinese Wikipedia also uses the term Taiwan Area.--Jerrch 01:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It was moved back. This article needs references. Google hits are not references. But, [3] is a unassailable reference, and explicitly uses "Taiwan Area"'. That's definitive. Be sure to change the first sentence of the lead with that reference. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move. Húsönd 17:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Free Area of the Republic of ChinaTaiwan Area — The current article name is a politically POV term used by independence groups of Taiwan. The article interwikis to 타이완 지구, 台灣地區, and 臺灣地區, which mean "Taiwan region" in Korean, Cantonese, and Chinese respectively. The article is linked-in by number of articles as if it is an article about Taiwan (for example Ministry of Education (Republic of China), Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau). The current name is POV because one can easily find a term describing the opposing points of view (i.e. liberate Taiwan, unliberated province of China). The proposed name "Taiwan Area" comes from the article itself, which states 'In ordinary legislation, the term "Taiwan Area" is usually used'. "Taiwan Area" is a politically neutral term because it only mentions geography and it agrees with the current interwikis. — Voidvector (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support - Taiwan belongs to PRC and embracing secessionist terminology is pernicious for an encyclopedia. Bogorm (talk) 20:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
While opinions are being respected, NPOV comments should not be tolerated. Aquarius • talk 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is contrary to Wikipedia's naming convention for ROC/Taiwan. Also Free Area of the ROC includes the non-Taiwanese areas of Fukien province under ROC control. (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I was made aware of this naming convention earlier today. Likewise, the person who brought it to my attention simply used it in a catch-all manner and did not cite any specific line in the guideline. I am striving to make the article title more NPOV which from my understanding is the essence of most Naming Conventions.
  • Support There is no NPOV problem with either issue. The term is defined in ROC law, not by Wikipedia polls and naming conventions. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Weakly Oppose I say "weakly" because I don't know about either term outside of what the article says. However, based on the article, both "Free Area of the Republic of China" and "Taiwan Area" are legal terms. This article is about the legal terms, not about the actual current area (we have a Taiwan article for that). As legal terms rather than as names or descriptions for places being described, I think both terms fit NPOV. This is akin to the Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China article whose name is ok because is the actual name of a legal fiction, even though describing real place Taiwan as "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China" would violate the heck out of NPOV. So both terms are ok. The reason I prefer the "Free Area of the Republic of China" term is because the article covers the time period before the term "Free Area of the Republic of China" became synonymous with "Taiwan Area". That is "Taiwan Area" only works for an article that starts with 1945, while "Free Area of the Republic of China" covers both pre and post 1945. Readin (talk) 03:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The title is not meant to be NPOV; we have already assigned a source for the term. in fact, the entire article delves on the term and is not meant to wholly describe the geographical area. --Jiang (talk) 06:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is weird my reasons are exactly the same as SchmuckyTheCat but we came to different conclusions: this term is a legal term, not a POV issue. Wikipedia polls and naming conventions are irrelvant to the term's legal status.--pyl (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:Readin's arguments. NPOV is not an issue here. The article covers the "Free Area of the Republic of China" even when Taiwan wasn't involved (pre-1945). "Taiwan Area" is a subset of the "Free Area of the Republic of China" in this case. The topic of the Chinese-language article covers only that subset so its title is not really relevant here. But User:'s argument is incorrect that "Taiwan Area" is wrong because "the ROC includes the non-Taiwanese areas of Fukien province under ROC control." To the contrary, that is exactly why this euphemism is used. — AjaxSmack 03:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Readin's commets above. --Narson ~ Talk 11:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Taiwan Area[edit]

"Taiwan Area" redirects here, but it is not immediately obvious from the article why this is so. Given that "Taiwan Area" is a term frequently used it should be mentioned in the opening paragraph or perhaps even in the opening sentence. Maybe "The "Free Area of the Republic of China" (traditional Chinese: 中華民國自由地區) (sometimes the "Taiwan Area" in modern usage), is a...". Readin (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this should be clarified, and I have done something about it in the article. Please check and see if it is ok.--pyl (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


1. Separate the Free Area of the Republic of China article into two parts, one for the modern area only, and one for either the entire history or for specifically the pre-1949 history. 2. Name the article for the modern area, "Taiwan". 3. Rename the current Taiwan article "Taiwan (island)". Limit this article to talking only about things that apply only to the Taiwanese mainland. 4. Move parts of the current Taiwan article to the new Taiwan article.

Pyl has been recently using "Taiwan Area" in places were we traditionally used the current Taiwan article. However this traditional usage has always been a problem because the current Taiwan article says Taiwan is an island, while in most of the references more than just the big island is being referred to. Readin (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The other problematic usage of the "Taiwan" article is when we remark the ROC as Taiwan. For example:-
Republic of China (commonly known as 'Taiwan') or Republic of China (Taiwan)
In this case, we really aren't talking about Taiwan as a purely geographic location. We are talking about Taiwan as a common name for the Republic of China. It is unlikely to be informative to the readers if they click on the 'Taiwan' link in this case. This issue should also be addressed. Should we just address this issue by not having a link to Taiwan and do:-
Republic of China (commonly known as 'Taiwan') or Republic of China (Taiwan)
Alternatively, can we also do something about the Taiwan or Free Area of the Republic of China article?
Regarding Readin's proposal, I will think about it and revert if I have a response.--pyl (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Kinmen Matsu[edit]

I have a question considering the definitions of 'Free Area of the ROC' and 'Taiwan Area'. I recently bought a map of 臺灣地區 (Taiwan Area), and I was surprised that it did not include Kinmen and Matsu. It only included the Taiwan Province, Taipei Municipality, and Khaosiung Municipality. I am wondering if the definition of 'Taiwan Area' has diverted from the definition of 'Free Are of the Republic of China'. Liu Tao (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It maybe needs to clarify your question to "who's definition" to these "Areas"?? On the ROC government point of view, it's totally equivalent. Nowadays, these two terms are parallel used in the laws and acts of the ROC. But roughly speaking, "Free Area of the Republic of China" is mainly used in the "internal acts and regulations", like the s:Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (憲法增修條文). The term "Taiwan Area" is mainly used in the laws and acts about Cross Strait Relations, like Regulations Governing the Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the People of the Mainland China Area (臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例). In some regulations also can see both terms are used as synonyms. And there's also another term 臺閩地區(Taimin Area, or Taiwan-Minan Area) is also treated as synonym to the other two. And, of course some non-governmental groups or companies may have their opinion on these terms. Energiya (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Aye, and what I'm saying is that if different 'main' povs exists, we should be making note of it. Liu Tao (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

lower case "free area"[edit]

Someone please clarify the following remark, assuming it is meaningful, true, and verifiable:

The lower case "free area" rather than the upper case "Free Area" are used.

I assume the ROC constitution is not written in English, and if Chinese has upper and lower case, I have not heard of it. --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Technically it should be upper per naming convention for titles, but some wikipedians tend an issue with that. I'll fix it. Liu Tao (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a proper name and should be capitalized. I'm moving it back.--Jiang (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's lowercase in all the ROC official documents I could find. Of course the constitution is written in Chinese but the English translation they provide is official and they systematically write "free area". There are other documents where the terms is also lowercase - [4], [5]. Also I'm not sure the ROC sees this term as a proper name, at least not at the time the constitution was written. It's more like a description of the area - a way for them to say "the area under our control is free, while the rest of China still must be freed from the communists". Laurent (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
The rules of English lean heavily towards capitalization. I think the translation is wrong. While the translation can be persuasive, it should not be authoritative. Would there be any other reasons, other than the government issuing publications in this format, to have free area in lower case? --Jiang (talk) 12:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
I also think there is some inconsistency, with the a in area capitalized for the Act Governing Relations between People of the Taiwan Area and Mainland Area.--Jiang (talk) 12:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Besides the government publications, it's also always lowercase in all the books on Google Books: [6]. Laurent (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Reason for the lowercase there is because 'free area' is not used as a proper noun. In the article however, it is using 'free area' as just a normal subject, so it is not a proper noun hence the non-capitalisation. Our capitalisation here is correct, as we are capitalising in as the title, not as normal text of an article. Everywhere else in the article however 'free area' is lower case as it should be. Liu Tao (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
No, actually, if free area is not part of a proper noun, then the first letter of area should not be capitalized in the article title. The first letter of free is capitalized, but only because we treat our article titles as though they were appearing at the start of a sentence (that's a good rule of thumb; it's probably not the way it actually appears in the MoS, but it will almost always agree with the MoS). So in that case the article should be moved to Free area of the Republic of China. --Trovatore (talk) 00:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Huh, they actually changed the NC for capitalisation. It used to be capitalise all 'significant' words, but now it's only as you say, treat like sentence. You're actually right lol. Liu Tao (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:NCON has never suggested capitalization of significant words. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Then it's either that or I remembered it wrong. Liu Tao (talk)
It seems that there's a consensus for "free area". Should we rename the article? Laurent (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Aye, consensus is lower case, except 'Free' which should be upper because it's the first word of the article. So the result would be Free area of the Republic of China. Liu Tao (talk) 05:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Different terminology regarding the same concept[edit]

There are a variety of different terms which refer to the Free Area of the ROC; the Chinese Wikipedia lists a few. I suggest creating a new, brief section just before "Background" that appears something similar to the following:

Section heading: Nomenclature

  • Taiwan Area (Chinese: 臺灣地區; pinyin: abcde)
  • Taiwan-Penghu-Kinmen-Matsu Area (Chinese: 臺澎金馬地區; pinyin: abcde)
  • Tai-Peng-Kin-Ma (abbreviation formed from the first character of the four locations; Chinese: 臺澎金馬; pinyin: abcde)
  • Taiwan-Min region or Taiwan-Fukien region (Chinese: 臺閩地區; pinyin: abcde)
  • Free Area (Chinese: 自由地區; pinyin: abcde)

Anyone have any particular opinions? -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 13:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Anthem of the Republic of China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free area of the Republic of China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)