Talk:History of the Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of the Republic of China article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] Dynasty???

Is the RoC really deservant of its own episode? for a few decades?

The time frame for this should be part of the Qing Dynasty, as it is just a fallout of yet another dead empire. --JinFX

Ok, first of all, the history of the Republic of China is what connects the Qing Dynasty and the People's Republic, and not part of either, therefore it would be incorrect to insert its entire contents to the Qing Dynasty article. You should note the Qing Dynasty ended in 1912 with Puyi's abdication. Furthermore, on Taiwan the "history of the Republic of China" can be interpreted as history from 1911 to the present. Colipon+(T) 05:35, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ROC is not what connects the Manchurian Dynasty to the Communist, but rather the government of China since the fall of the Manchurians but now with their territory limited to Taiwan. Right now the People's Republic of China and ROC is like North and South Korea, just that for China right now the territory is porportionally unbalanced.

Go read some more. The Republic of China was founded by Sun Yat-sen in 1911, not by Chiang Kai-shek in 1949. The history of the Republic of China is therefore 1911-1949 on the mainland and 1911-present on Taiwan. Colipon+(T) 06:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split this article in two?

===>This is 35 kbytes Maybe we should split this into two articles: one on the ROC in the mainland, and one on the ROC on Taiwan. Also, the PRC article spreads over four pages, so an ROC one that is half that isn't unreasonable. Justin (koavf) 14:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I tend to dislike splitting articles into multiple parts; it causes a reader to lose context. Plus, it's not so large as to be unmanagable as one part. --Nlu 21:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

using wikipedia:summary style would be more helpful than splitting. --Ji ang 22:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the sleep in two article. The problematic of each one is really not the same :

In China (1911-1949) that was a clear war time, with battles as the main events, and with the aim to make a reunification
In Taiwan (1945-today), really more peacefull, with politic as the main events, with the aim to put un strong chinese gouvernement, build a strong economy, then the democratisation.

I think the french version already did this split Yug (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

35 kb is not very long comparing to many other well-written articles. Sections with main articles can be trimmed to reduce the size of the article (and main articles can be created to those without). — Insta ntnood 14:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is now way too long. It's 51 kb!! I'm splitting it in two with links and introductory info to connect the two. In principle you could move info to main articles, but I think that'll have to wait until there's even more information. Right now, it's just right for a two article split. Lest anyone get all political, what wikipedia does for purposes of ease of access of information has no impact on what the ROC gov't decides to do with regard to independence/reunification =).--218.175.182.6 17:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

simply splitting articles halfway is not how we deal with long pages. We use summary style - see Wikipedia:How to break up a page. Besides, an article on the "Republic of China on Taiwan" will be overly redundant with the latter half of History of Taiwan, while the two articles could possibly share subarticles. --Jiang 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You just basically said that the Republic of China on Taiwan = Taiwan. That would be a case separate from the immediate issue at hand, which is that the article is too long. If there's overlap, it overlaps regardless if there's one article or two articles. And looking at the Taiwan and ROC articles, there's overlap there too. You do not say what should be done about that, so even as a side issue, I don't understand what you're saying.

Regarding your point on summary style--summary style is just that--a style that is commonly used in Wikipedia but not policy and not always used. Breaking this article in two is exactly what's been done in other language wikipedias.

You also made a foolish straw-man argument. It isn't "simply splitting halfway" and you know it. In this case, there's a very natural break, in the history and in the way people talk about these terms. Republican China is an accepted academic term of the English language, and if someone wrote that article first, we would have two articles now instead of one. Now that there is so much content, it makes sense to separate the two articles.--218.175.178.18 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The Republic of China on Taiwan is an era in Taiwanese history, is it not?

What conventions other languages follow does not matter here. Other languages have decided to make the China, which is linked by hundreds of articles, into a disambiguation page. Do you want to do that too? What matters here is consensus. Now please explain to me how summary style is not suitable here.

The natural break exists only to separate sections, each of which should contain their own subarticles. This is because it is beneficial to have an article entitled "History of the Republic of China". Disambiguation pages exists when two separate meanings exist. People dont "History of the Republic of China" to have two separate meanings if they use the phrase at all--Jiang 18:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the article covers enough about the history of the ROC. History after the Constitutional Protection War is cursory at best, with American involvement in China as a glaring eyesore. Economic development in Taiwan is way too short and uninformative. BlueShirts 00:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree and want to recognize your many contributions to the history of the ROC. And this is all the more reason to split into manageable articles. If there's so much content, there needs to be more articles, not clumsily keeping in one unreadable mess. Think about it here, you spend all that time adding content, only for readers to skim right through because it's become totally unpresentable. Big waste eh?--218.175.178.18 10:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I'd like to make it as long as needed and then worry about presentation. BlueShirts 03:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Length

Please do not make destructive edits. If you wish to split the articles in a different way other than the most obvious way, then state your reasons and do so. But a revert puts the articles in an even worse state that is really difficult to read. If you have something better in mind, everyone would benefit from it, and you should implement it, instead of just reverting to something even worse.--218.175.178.18 10:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do anything until you have the consensus to do so. What dont you understand about wikipedia:summary style? Is there something I need to explain? The "most obvious way" is not the best way, or the way promoted by existing wikipedia convention or the style guide. --Jiang 18:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] external links?

it would be great to have some external lists regarding the history of the republic of china, just for reference.

[edit] Multiple eras

I think it's best to divide the ROC article into eras like PRC because it really is confusing to tie ROC with Taiwan. Here is just my suggestion of how to divide ROC into eras (since the history is way too long to be on one page). Hope someone else with better knowledge of Chinese history can divide the eras along better dates.

(ROC on China)

1912 - 1925:

ROC history on mainland China as the revolution against the Qing Empire and establishment of a republic. Maybe ending with Sun Yat-sen's death as he was the founder of modern China (both PRC and ROC recognize him as such)

1925 - 1949:

Chiang Kai-shek, WWII and the loss of mainland China.

(ROC on Taiwan)

1949 - 1971:

Authoritarian rule over the island of Taiwan, beginning of martial law (1948-1987) and establishment of PRC (1949) on the mainland raising the problem over two Chinas.

1971 - 1987:

USA switches diplomacy to Beijing which results in the ROC losing the UNSC seat to PRC. Lifting of martial law on Taiwan.

1987 - present:

Lee Teng-hui era, reforms and Taiwan independence movement vs. reunification question.

Note: ROC 1912-2006 (almost half century longer than PRC) vs. PRC 1949-2006. The point is ROC has a much longer history than PRC, so like PRC it should have more than one article page to cover the history. Next point is ROC is not Taiwan but administers the island, it's confusing to write ROC (Taiwan) as it implies they are one and the same (Taipei City actually is not part of Taiwan according to ROC rule)— Nrtm81 09:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is "The United States Military ..." section doing here?

This section is way out of place, and clearly should be deleted, or moved somewhere else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klortho (talk • contribs) 03:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Thats exactly what i was thinking.The US military presence in China didnt change in any way chinese republic history and its of more interest to the US than to this article.Besides Uk and japanese presence was much MUCh larger that the US.If the section isnt moved ill delete the content.--Andres rojas22 20:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No mention of the Long March?

I find this hard to understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klortho (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Wild Swans as reference?

I was suprised to see this book listed under references. In fact, its the only book listed, which is also a problem. Jung Chang is not a historian, so this is not a good reference source. Unless someone give a good argument why we should keep it, I'll remove it. I hope others can find better references from qualified historians. Also, its unclear what it is exactly referencing.Giovanni33 01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References?

Did this guy steal from Wiki or did Wiki steal from this guy? [specificallly regarding the new culture movement, it's almost word for word]

http://www-chaos.umd.edu/history/republican.html

It's a uni, so I'm hoping they didn't take from Wiki, but they seem to be a bit more complete... any thoughts?

Retailmonica 01:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succession box

Someone added a succession box that has changed a few times, apparently as editors attempted to get an NPOV. However, I don't think we've reached NPOV. In fact I'm not sure there is an NPOV for this. It depends of course, on what "succession" means in this context. For a country where the national boundaries have remained nearly constant, and the successive governments have governed little else, or at least began and ended with the same territory, succession is easy to understand. The succession of government in Japan has little dispute. But the ROC started in one place, and now governs a different place. The territory common to the 1912 ROC and the 2007 ROC is only a tiny portion of either. If we say the PRC is the successor to the ROC, then aren't we saying that ROC is limited to mainland China? Shouldn't ROC be ended in 1949? On the other hand, if we grant that ROC now includes Taiwan, shouldn't we then say that ROC is the successor not just of the Qing, but also of Japan? Should the Japan page have ROC as a successor (concurrent)? For guidance, I went looking for uses of succession boxes in other places that might be similar. It seems these boxes are not the norm. Do we need to have one on this page? Given the history of the ROC, "succession" doesn't really apply, so perhaps we should get rid of the box.Readin 18:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

When I get some time, I think I'll make two succession boxes: one for ROC (China) and one for ROC (Taiwan). The ROC (China) box will have Qing->ROC->PRC. The ROC (Taiwan) will have Empire of Japan->ROC. That seems the most accurate way to do things short of deleting the box entirely.Readin —Preceding comment was added at 18:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you bring up good points. The succession IMO should read something like Qing->ROC->PRC (on mainland). Having two boxes (ROC(China) and ROC(Taiwan)) would be POVing the notion that the regimes are somehow not fully Chinese. Just as the Liao dynasty controlled only part of northern China even at its height, and it is listed alongside the other regimes of its day, the PRC/ROC mess should be set up the same way IMHO. To refuse to list the PRC, or alternatively to list the ROC as "ended" in 1949 would be POV-pushing the PRC and hard-line ROC POVs. The notion that the ROC somehow succeeded Japan is typically ignored, because the ROC was never considered a Japanese government, nor any Japanese government ever considered a Chinese one.Ngchen 20:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

To list ROC alongside other regimes as you suggest, without including the Empire of Japan, would also fail the NPOV because it would ignore Taiwan's history even though nearly all of ROC's current territory is Taiwan. It would thus make Taiwan seem like part of China. How would two boxes, one of which shows that ROC took over Taiwan from Japan, imply that the regime is not fully Chinese (to clarify, I would say ROC (mainland China), not ROC(China) to distinguish)?Readin 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, de facto the ROC is part of China for the purposes of Chinese history. I assume you're talking about the Chinese history box? But Japan was and is not. I would have no objection to noting (I'd be surprised if it weren't already noted) the fact that Taiwan was controlled by Japan 1895-1945 in the history of Taiwan and timeline of Taiwan history articles. With regard to Chinese history, the ROC is part of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngchen (talk • contribs) 00:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Chinese History"? Who brought that up? We're talking about a government, the "Republic of China". It surely played a part in Chinese history, but whether it is currently the central actor in Chinese history is disputed. And we certainly are not talking about a "Chinese history box". We're talking box showing succession. In Taiwan, the ROC succeeded the Empire of Japan. For over half of the existence of the Republic of China, it has governed primarily Taiwan and little else. How does the history of Mainland China, where the ROC was preceeded by Qing and succeeded by PRC, more important than the history of Taiwan, where the ROC was preceeded by EOJ and not succeeded?-- Readin (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where should this go?

I yanked this paragraph

Vice president Vincent Siew met on April 12, 2008 Chinese President Hu Jintao. This historic meeting made Siew the highest-ranking elected figure to come face-to-face with a Chinese leader since the two sides split amid the Chinese Civil War in 1949. The Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou, winner of the Republic of China presidential election, 2008, intented to improve economic relations with China and moved toward a resolution of their long-standing political deadlock. Ma wants to sign a peace treaty with China but won't discuss unification during his presidency.[1]

because it doesn't seem to be of enough significance to be included in this article. If all events of similar significance were included for the entire history of the ROC, the article would be very long indeed. But the yanked paragraph is not insignificant either. Perhaps it belongs in an aritcle on relations between the ROC and PRC, or perhaps even better an article on the history of those relations. However, if it does get included somewhere, it needs some corrections as shown below.

Vice president-elect Vincent Siew met on April 12, 2008 Chinese President Hu Jintao. When Siew takes office he will become the highest-ranking elected figure to have come face-to-face with a Chinese leader since the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949. The Taiwanese president-elect Ma Ying-jeou, winner of the Republic of China presidential election, 2008, promised to improve economic relations with China and move toward a resolution of their long-standing political deadlock. Ma wants to sign a peace treaty with China but has promised not to discuss unification during his presidency.[2]

The inaccuracies and POVs that needed correcting included:

Siew was not yet Vice-President when he made the trip, so he was not yet high ranking and he should have been labeled "Vice-President-elect", not "Vice-President".
Ma was not yet President when the trip was made, so he should have been labeled "President-elect", not "President".
It is unclear what is meant by "two sides split amid Civil War". Are the sides PRC and ROC? Mainland China and Taiwan? CPC and KMT?
The writer claimed to be able to see into Ma's mind and treated many of Ma's campaign promises presented either as what Ma "intended" to do rather than what campaign promises by politicians are - simply promises that may or may not be followed up. Worse, some of th promises were presented accomplishments that have already occurred.

Readin (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if the paragraph in question was copied from cnn.com, then it needs to go as a copyright violation. It certainly can be rewritten. Labeling Ma and Siew the president-elect and VP-elect is correct. For the POV mess, I would say that leaving it as "two sides" of the Chinese Civil War would be OK. There is no need to go into the detailed mess here.Ngchen (talk) 02:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

	History of the Republic of China is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.