China B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taiwan B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

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

The 'differences' are in how that situation came to be. It's a matter of succession vs civil war. -mako 22:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The true difference lies in the question whether Taiwan is politically part of China according to an international law standard. Neither succession nor civil war story would answer this question. The answer resides in the post-war treaties.Mababa 03:43, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please provide a source which says that even one country (other than PRC) has interpreted the One China policy as meaning, "The PRC government is the sole legitimate government of China." It ought to be child's play to come up with such a source. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 19:24, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

From intro:

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

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

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

I've tried to clarify this. --Jiang 02:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Roadrunner 06:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(see Wikipedia:Chinese naming controversy)

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

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

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

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

I agree..it looks a bit absurd.----

It's completely silly. I am going to remove it. CoramVobis 00:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"What kind of impact does the renaming of an airport have?"

ask the peaople crazy enough to rename it! ;)

also to anyone who claim there are communist in china, since when do communist carry iphone and drive BMWs, they are totalitian not communist.. it is like calling DPRK democrat cause that is what their name sez. ;P Akinkhoo (talk) 06:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"即國防、外交、與兩岸關係是直屬總統權責的三塊" [[1]]

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

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

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

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

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

And this:-

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

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

The original main text remains; queries about certain parts of it are placed close to the parts questioned, within "citation requested" or "clarify" templates, not in the main text itself. To me, that seems a much better way of putting the questions than to copy portions of the main text on the Talk page and put the query about each portion here, one after another. Provided, of course, that - as I thought was normal on Wikipedia - someone cooperated by responding to the citation and clarification requests, the bases of which were made clear within the templates.

They are not "personal" queries, but queries about the content of the article.

I think if you have queries over a whole paragraph of the main text, it would be best if you discuss your queries before you mark the whole paragraph with tags, nearly on a sentence by sentence basis. It makes the whole article look really unprofessional.--pyl (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not want to respond to the citation and clarification requests in the way that I thought was normal, by all means let us discuss them here. Thank you for at least responding to my query about "which policy?". This query followed the statement that, on the one hand, all countries that have diplomatic relations with Taipei must accept that government as the sole government of China, and on the other hand, that the ROC had declared that a country that had diplomatic relations with it could have simultaneous diplomatic relations also with Beijing. So I asked for clarification of which of these two seemingly contradictory policies was the one of which several examples existed. The so-called examples that followed seemed irrelevant to either. I am grateful to you for having specified which policy you meant.

The ROC made the declaration during the DPP years (2000-May 2008) when the government mainly considered itself as the government of Taiwan (not of China). In practice, no country has ever taken up the offer and all countries recognising the ROC still recognise it as the sole legitimate government of China. One may speculate that Beijing would not accept duo recognition as it would be contrary to the "One China Policy".

Beijing is adamant about the "One China Policy", as the policy is one of the tools that Beijing uses to prevent Taiwan from being independent on a de jure basis: the policy makes sure that Taiwan is part of Chinese territory, regardless of which Chinese government the foreign country recognises.

The circumstances that gave rise to the "Two China situation" aren't identical to the Koreas or the Germanys. The most prominent example is that there is only one UN seat for China but there are two for Korea (and used to be two for Germany). The One China Policy was the main factor, as it has been the Policy insisted by the two Chinas (again except for the DPP years).--pyl (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the second example you give - well, what does the absence of diplomatic relations with the PRC prove about the Vatican's view on the One-China policy? The article suggests that some conclusion can be drawn, apparently that the Vatican recognizes the ROC claim to be the sole government of China. That is not an obvious conclusion. The United States does have diplomatic relations with the PRC, but, as the article says, has not declared its acceptance of the PRC position, but only declared that it does not challenge it. The Vatican, doubtless, does not challenge the ROC position, but its diplomatic relations with Mongolia (which Taipei officially considers to be part of China) shows that it has not in fact accepted the ROC position. So, again, what does the absence of diplomatic relations with the PRC prove about the Vatican's view on the One-China policy? If the comment about the absence of diplomatic relations has no real relevance to the subject, it has no place in the article.

Would you please also answer my only other query (either here or by a clarification within the article): What does the alphabetical seating arrangement of Chen Shui-bian, President of the Republic of China (not "President of China"), at the funeral of Pope John Paul II indicate about the Vatican's attitude on the one-China policy? I would now add: Why does the article state that he was seated "in his capacity as the head of state of China", rather than as head of state of the Republic of China? If perhaps some uncited report of the event mentioned only the word "China" in his regard (something that the article does not state), I suppose the same report had "Brazil", rather than "Federative Republic of Brazil". Lima (talk) 13:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't give the examples so I will leave others to answer.--pyl (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take it we may therefore leave in the article the two "clarify" tags that I put in, together with the "citation needed" tag that someone else (perhaps you?) put in about Panama. I hope someone will respond. Of course, if they don't, your statement that "There are several recent examples of this policy of recognizing the ROC as the only legitimate government of China: for example, ..." will have to be queried explicitly.

By the way, one country did "take up the offer" - Kiribati itself. But the PRC, after spending some days trying in vain to make Kiribati change its mind, decided in line with its policy - which is not the subject of this section of the article - to sever its diplomatic ties with Kiribati. It seems therefore that it is only the PRC, not the ROC, that is quite inflexible about the one-China policy. Lima (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I should have been more careful with my wording. I apologise. I meant to say that "In practice, no country has ever got to accept the offer and all countries recognising the ROC still recognise it as the sole legitimate government of China".

You will note the One China policy is a policy of the current ROC government so I believe the declaration during the DPP years is no longer relevant. The current ROC government has also requested that the two Chinas should cease fire on the diplomatic front. There are signs that Beijing has accepted this request, so I don't expect to see a large number of countries switching recognitions.

I have no view on the examples, but I did put up the "citation needed" tag as I don't consider it approproate to state facts without footnotes.--pyl (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

POV blaming because foreign relations is a very touchy subject in the ROC politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talk • contribs) 14:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I just do not see how seating the President of the Republic of China in the alphabetical order of "Chine (République de)" was "practical implementation of the one-China policy", as LedRush says. Would he please explain? Lima (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty self-explanatory, but sure. Evidence that the Vatican treats the gov't of the ROC as the president of China and that the Vatican doesn't recognize the PRC would be an example of the practictal implications of recognizing the ROC as the legitimate gov't of China. In the eyes of the Vatican the ROC is the legitimate gov't of China, and the ROC officials are treated accordingly.LedRush (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really so straightforward. The Vatican recognized Chen as the President of the Republic of China, not, as you wrongly stated, as the President of China. It didn't thereby endorse Chen's territorial claims, whatever they were. Who says that the Vatican does not "recognize" the PRC? Absence of diplomatic relations does not mean absence of recognition. The Holy See does not have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, but it recognizes Saudi Arabia: the Pope recently met with the king of that country. There have reportedly even been direct contacts between officials of the Holy See and of Beijing. The Kiribati case shows that, for the ROC, a government may recognize the Taipei government as that of the ROC and the Beijing government as that of PRC. Kiribati was prepared to do just that. It was the PRC that refused to accept that situation, not Kiribati. Your assertion that in the eyes of the Vatican the Taipei government is the legitimate government of China is gratuitous. On the contrary, while for the Taipei government Mongolia is part of China, the Holy See has diplomatic relations with the government of Mongolia. That should be enough to show that the matter is not at all self-explanatory. Lima (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that these relations are complicated, but I think that you are unnecessarily muddying up something that isn't that difficult. The Vatican recognizes the ROC and not the PRC. This is not seriously contested by anyone. And your contention that talking to people from a gov't means that you can't not recognize them is unrealistic. Leaders would be fools to ignore countries with whom they have bad (or no) relations. By your logic, does the US recognize Taiwan as there is so much contact between the two parties?

I wonder, what is the real problem with the sentence...are you claiming it's inaccurate or that it's wrong or that it's unclear? I don't like the way this conversation seems to be slipping off track.LedRush (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Vatican has diplomatic ties with the ROC and not the PRC. That is a fact, not contested by anybody. It does not follow that the Vatican does not recognize the PRC. Many countries have diplomatic relations with both ROK and DPRK, but the Holy See has diplomatic ties only with the ROK and not with the DPRK, which doesn't want relations with the Vatican. It does not follow that the Holy See does not recognize North Korea. In the ROC-PRC case, it is the PRC that refuses to have diplomatic relations with governments that have such links with Taipei, but it continues to recognize them. It doesn't claim that, either in fact or in law, those governments don't exist.

What is the real problem with the sentence? It begs the question it claims to prove. It claims that Chen's reception as President of the Republic of China proves that the Holy See recognizes him as President of the whole of China (perhaps including Mongolia). The only basis it gives - that you give - for this argument is to state that receiving someone as President of the Republic of China is equivalent to acknowledging him as President of the whole of China. No clearer case of begging the question can be imagined.

And what made anyone imagine that receiving Chen as President of the ROC on a single occasion was in any way more significant than a papal nunciature at Taipei having relations day after day with the government of the ROC, President included? Lima (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand you correctly, your issue is that you don't believe that the Vatican believes that the ROC is the legitimate government of the mainland. I have always understood this to be the case, and a quick google search seems to confirm that sentiment, one of my first hits backs this up: http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/09/opinion/oe-faison09

Has something changed recently to indicate that the Vatican has backed off this long-stated position? If so, you are indeed correct that we should amend the section so that it is clear that the Vatican only officially recognizes the ROC, but it doesn't recognize their claims over the mainland.LedRush (talk) 17:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archbishop Riberi, you will notice, did not withdraw to Taiwan, like other ambassadors accredited to the Nationalist government, when the Communists took over in 1949. He stayed on, treating the change of government as ambassadors generally do when a coup takes place, intending to carry on relations with the new government as they did with the old, instead of refusing to recognize the new government and following the old government, if necessary into exile, as some diplomats did who were accredited to, for instance, the 1939 Polish government. This plan came to nothing, because the Communist government expelled him in 1951. On the failure of Plan A, he then received instructions to go to Taipei; but the Nationalist government declared him persona non grata for being prepared to have relations with the Communist government. He was allowed to visit Taiwan only once, for the consecration of a Chinese bishop, and that not as a diplomat but only on a tourist visa. However, his successor was accepted by the Taipei government. When the United Nations assigned the China seat to the Beijing government, the Holy See took account of this change: the nuncio of the time was on annual leave and never returned. Since then the nunciature is headed only by a chargé d'affaires, not by someone of ambassadorial status. All this does not seem to support the view that Seth Faison expressed in his opinion column, i.e. that, when the Communists gained power (1949, two years before Riberi was expelled!), "Rome lived in denial, stubbornly insisting that Taiwan was the true government of the mainland." (I admit that, in a long article on Riberi's work in China, I read that he was personally convinced that the Nationalist forces were going to make a come-back. Be that as it may, on instructions from Rome he did stay on under the Communist government, rather than join the government that he thought was bound to recover the mainland.)

Though I think Seth Faison's opinion is unfounded, it would surely be better to quote it in the article instead of keeping its present statements with their curious logic. Lima (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I sound obtuse, but are you saying that you have a reliable source that says that the Vatican didn't see the ROC as the legitimate gov't over the mainland after the war? If so, I'd like to see it.LedRush (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not claim to be able to quote a reliable source that says explicitly that the Holy See did not or does not see the Nationalist government as that of the whole of China. Only explicit statements are quotable on Wikipedia, not implicit indications as in the article on Riberi. That is why I suggested to you that you quote Faison's explicit statement, if you find it credible. Of course, when I get back to base in a couple of week's time and search for the number of the scholarly journal that contains the article on Riberi, I would then quote parts of it that cast doubt on the reliability of Faison's opinion. But in the meantime you are quite free to quote his opinion, and thus improve on the unsourced statements at present in the article, according to which the seating arrangement in St Peter's Square in 2005 and the absence of diplomatic relations between the Holy See and PRC somehow show that the Holy See does see the Taipei government as the government of the whole of China (perhaps including Mongolia). Lima (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I quite understand your position, but I agree we should cite statements when applicable.LedRush (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps after all I do have something explicit. The esteemed Italian newspaper La Repubblica, quoted on this blog gave a chronology that included "1951 La Repubblica popolare cinese rompe le relazioni diplomatiche con la Santa Sede ed espelle il nunzio apostolico Antonio Riberi" (1951. The PRC breaks diplomatic relations with the Holy See and expelled the Apostolic Nuncio Antonio Riberi). It explicitly states that there were diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Communist government in China until 1951. A less reliable but concordant source is this, which says: "Le relazioni diplomatiche della Santa Sede e del Governo cinese si sono rotte quando nel 1951, due anni dopo l’arrivo al potere di Mao Tse-Tung, è stato espulso il nunzio apostolico, l’Arcivescovo Antonio Riberi" (The diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Chinese government were broken when in 1951, two years after Mao Tse-Tung's coming to power, the Apostolic Nuncio Archbishop Antonio Riberi was expelled). More reliable is the report of the ZENIT agency, quoted on I Segni dei Tempi of June 2005: "Pechino ha interrutto le sue relazioni con la Santa Sede nel 1951, quando ha espulso il Nunzio apostolico nel Paese, l’arcivescovo Antonio Riberi" (Beijing broke off its relations with the Holy See in 1951, when it expelled the Apostolic Nuncio to the country, Archbishop Antonio Riberi). Will these be sufficient to meet your desire for "a reliable source that says that the Vatican didn't see the ROC as the legitimate gov't over the mainland after the war"? I presume that by "the war" you mean that between the Communist and the Nationalist forces. Well, these sources show that there were diplomatic relations between the Holy See and the Communist government from immediately after the war until 1951, and so the Vatican cannot be said to have seen the ROC as the legitimate government over the mainland after the war. Lima (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you prefer Spanish to Italian, what about this, "Pekín y Roma rompieron sus lazos en 1951, cuando el Gobierno de Mao Zedong expulsó al nuncio apostólico, el arzobispo Antonio Riberi", found here? Lima (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources don't do what you think they do. Please give evidence that the vatican has changed it's long standing policy of recognizing the ROC as the sole legitimate gov't of China. And when you do this, please remember that having priests in a country isn't the same as recognition.LedRush (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LedRush, the alleged policy is not so long-standing, since diplomatic relations have existed between the Holy See and PRC. You might as well say that the Holy See's policy was to recognize the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China! Having priests in a country is, of course, not enough for diplomatic ties. Having an accredited diplomatic representative is. Enough for now. Lima (talk) 21:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are defining a two year time in which the Vatican supposedly had relations with the PRC as long standing? Really? But the policy of recognizing the ROc, which has been going on for a little under a century, that's what you have a problem believing? I really don't understand your points on this.LedRush (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Your suggestion to delete references to seating orders and alphabets is indeed welcome. I will do it for you. I leave it to you to "list a couple of countries" that hold the view that "the ROC is the legitimate gov't of all of China". You realize, of course, that you must source your assertions that these particular countries hold that view. It is not enough to challenge others to produce evidence that they do not hold that view. That is what you have been doing. You have done it again just above: "show me any reference that the Vatican has backed off from this belief". "Backed off" - as if it had been proved that it once held that belief! It for you, first, to show some valid reference that the Vatican has held that belief. Your Faison reference has been shown to be invalid.

Please credit me with a minimum of intelligence. Of course I do not consider a two-year period to be long-standing. The two-year period of diplomatic relations between PRC and Holy See makes clear how absolutely unfounded is the assertion that the Holy See has always recognized ROC as the government of the whole of China.

And please stop confusing the three distinct notions of

• recognizing a country
• having diplomatic ties with a country
• accepting or supporting a country's territorial claims. Lima (talk) 07:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clarified your contribution in the main text by saying that the diplomatic relations that the Vatican has with the ROC is official but the relations with the PRC is unofficial. It is similar to the US position on China. The US relations with the PRC is official and the relations with the ROC is unofficial.

I believe the countries having diplomatic relations with the ROC recognising the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China (I didn't say all of China). It is the effect of the One China policy. It is easy and hard at the same time to prove this assertion: it is easy for the curious party to call the ROC Department of Foreign Affairs and ask them, but it is hard to list reliable sources for all 23 countries.

In general, I don't think this assertion is challenged because of the prominence of the One China policy.

At the same time, I also believe that it would also be absurd to challenge the PRC side of the assertion and ask for people to provide footnotes for the 150 or so countries.

The assertion is valuable for the sake of knowledge so I think that it is in the public interest for this assertion to be made despite the lack of footnotes.

The foreign relations of the Republic of China article lists the following:-

Vatican City (The Holy See)* (1942)

1942 apparently was the time when the official relations started. If you don't think it is correct, you are welcome to make changes, but please start with the discussion page.

I don't think we need to go into territorial claims in this article. And you are right, these 3 concepts are different and they shouldn't be mixed up.--pyl (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, 1942 was the time when official relations began with the then government of China. The relations continued but with the new government in 1949, just as relations continue with a country when the government changes either by election or (generally) by coup (for instance in Latin American countries in the past) or victory of rebel forces (as in Ethiopia with the overthrow of the Derg). The relations were broken off (by the PRC government) in 1951. In 1952 relations were resumed with the Nationalist government, now in Taipei. Lima (talk) 13:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The U.S. has many agencies. Their maps may or may not reflect U.S. policy. If we do talk about the map, should we also mention that the CIA Fact Book lists Taiwan as a "country"? Should we mention that the CIA Fact Book says that Taiwan is governed by the ROC (not the PRC)? The CIA is not in charge of U.S. diplomacy or foreign policy. Readin (talk) 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - I will add in an extra sentence adding in how Taiwan is also listed on the CIA Factbook. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you forgot to mention that none of the CIA statistics relating to the PRC includes those in Taiwan.--pyl (talk) 15:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the full change I have made as it stands now - referring to the map and the fact that "Taiwan" (as the CIA calls it) is listed on the CIA World Factbook:

Nevertheless, on the CIA World Factbook, while Taiwan has a separate entry, it is not listed under "T" but at the bottom of the list. Moreover, the map of the PRC on the CIA World Factbook shows Taiwan included on the map of the PRC.^[5]

Even this amended statement has been deleted - why? It is fully sourced, highly relevant and from an important US authority - the CIA. What is wrong with it? (I have put it back in). Regards Redking7 (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is the entire paragraph as it stands after my additional sentences dealing with the CIA World Factbook etc:

When President Jimmy Carter in 1979 broke off relations with the ROC in order to establish relations with the PRC, Congress responded by passing the Taiwan Relations Act, which while maintaining relations, stopped short of full recognition of the ROC. In 1982 President Ronald Reagan also saw that the Six Assurances were adopted, the sixth being that the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan. Still, United States policy has remained ambiguous. During the House International Relations Committee on April 21 of 2004, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, James A. Kelly, was asked by Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) whether America’s commitment to Taiwan’s democracy conflicted with the so-called One-China Policy. He admitted the difficulty on defining the U.S.'s position: "I didn’t really define it, and I’m not sure I very easily could define it." He added, "I can tell you what it is not. It is not the One-China principle that Beijing suggests." [2] Nevertheless, on the CIA World Factbook, while Taiwan has a separate entry, it is not listed under "T" but at the bottom of the list. Moreover, the map of the PRC on the CIA World Factbook shows Taiwan included on the map of the PRC.^[6]

My additional sentences give balance - The paragraph as it stood stated "the United States would not formally recognize Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan"...but balance requires that we also add that the US includes Taiwan/RoC on the map of the PRC. If its not possible to have a balanced presentation of US policy on Taiwan/RoC, then all of the para should be taken out. Otherwise, the amendment is needed.

As to relevance, how could one say that the fact that the US World Factbook includes Taiwan/RoC on the map of the PRC is not relevant to a discussion of the US interpretation of the One China Policy.

As to the omission "of the statistics relating to the PRC includes those in Taiwan". I do not know what this Editor means or is referring to but if the Editor wishes to cover off statistics, a further change would be welcomed.

Ultimately, this is about balance in the article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a detailed look at the statistics and figures in the China entry of the World Factbook. Despite the map you mentioned, the figures don't include Taiwan's figures. It essentially doesn't mention Taiwan except to say that "China considers Taiwan as its 23rd province".

So does the map mean much when the figures don't back up the map?

US position on Taiwan is ambiguous. That's common knowledge. Maybe you want to find another example to show that instead of quoting a Factbook map that conflicts with the figures within the same article--pyl (talk) 13:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this ambiguity on the U.S. position can be noted. After all, it is interesting. In a broader context, perhaps the reader can be informed about how due to the controversial political status of Taiwan, even little things like how a map is drawn can fire up people on all sides. Ngchen (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So why don't we find another example of the ambiguity of the US position on this. I think we can all agree that there is some gray area and that the US has issues in navigating those areas. I just think it's ridiculous to talk about maps as if they're meaningful in the context of what the US policy actually is (i.e., using maps as proof that the US says one thing about the policy but the maps are evidence that it's not true). However, Ngchen is probably right in that a sentence about how important the Chinese (and Taiwanese) view the maps could color another sentence on how the ambiguities need to be addressed by the US. Isn't there a better example of these problems than maps on a CIA website?LedRush (talk) 21:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA is not a diplomatic agency. It is not a policy making agency. The CIA map-makers are definitely not policy makers and they definitely are not diplomats! Whether or not the policy makers and diplomats pay close attention to CIA maps is unknown. The map on the CIA website could represent little more than the personal opinion of one guy in the department, or perhaps the personal opinion of his boss. Or it might represent a mistaken interpretation of US policy by one of those people (even much higer-ranking diplomats have mis-stated U.S. the U.S. position on this issue.)

The CIA factbook counts as a reliable source of "facts", or at least that what it claims for itself. If it were called the CIA U.S. policy book we could consider it a reliable source of U.S. policy.

On an issue as contentious as Taiwan, we must recognize that as a "reliable source" of "facts", even the CIA must be treated as only one source and not the ultimate source. We have to look at many sources. We're not going to list how every source maps Taiwan, so we shouldn't mention how the CIA does it. Readin (talk) 22:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Editor that there is ambiguity to the US approach. I think few would argue with that. I never took out any of the text suggesting the US policy was not the same as the PRC One China Policy...but the text as it stood was not balanced. I went on to note that the US includes Taiwan/RoC on map of PRC. Indeed, that highlights the vert well. Nevertheless, I will take up the suggestion and go ahead and add extra words explicitly mentioning the ambiguity.

As to statistics, if Editor wishes to add another sentence dealing with them, go ahead - sounds like Editor is familiar with them.

As to [w]hether or not the policy makers and diplomats pay close attention to CIA maps is unknown, does any genuine and serious Editor seriously think the CIA included Taiwan/RoC on PRC map 'by accident'! Similarly....we must recognize that as a "reliable source" of "facts", even the CIA must be treated as only one source. No one is suggesting the CIA is the only source worthy of mention. However, there is no valid argument to excluding it as a source in a discussion of the US approach to the One-China Policy.

Once again, this change I have made, just brings much needed balance to the article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the amended paragraph as it stands now:

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

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

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

The map comment needs to be deleted. Better examples of the America's lack of recognition of Taiwan can be found such as Clinton's statements about no support for Taiwan independence and no support for Taiwan's membership in international organizations requiring statehood as a condition for membership.

The current example of James Kelly's reply is much better than the map thing because Kelly was an "Assistant Secretary of State" - someone who is actually involved in diplomacy and policy-making. No one said the map was an "accident". It was obviously deliberate. But it can still be wrong. One can very deliberately do something without realizing it is a mistake to do so. The guy who drew the map, or his boss, simply may not be aware of the subtleties of U.S. policy.. Readin (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pyl, I'm glad to hear that you consider the CIA fact book a reliable source of facts on the Taiwan issue. The fact book clearly lists Taiwan as a "Country" so you can stop trying to remove every instance you find where Taiwan is described as such.

Please do not repeat Redking7's strawman about the map being an "accident". No one is claiming that it is so the argument is disingenuous.

As for your question, the U.S.'s agreement with China was worded very carefully to avoid agreeing with the PRC's claim of sovereignty over Taiwan. That policy of not recognizing PRC sovereignty over Taiwan has not changed. Readin (talk) 06:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to "[the CIA Map] is just not notable" - How can one say that the fact that the CIA includes Taiwan/RoC is not "notable"? Can any Editor seriously claim that that is not very notable in the context of a discussion of the US and the One-China Policy?

As to "[change] unfairly and inaccurately lends weight to a CIA map." - whats unfair about the paragraph?

As to "I am not opposed to actual (i.e. NOT this map issue) examples of the ambiguity of the US policy for balance" - just what is wrong with this map example. Its an extremely clear example indeed. No plausible reasons have been given for its exclusion - so one can only conclude objections stem from a POV. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

I did notice that Hong Kong and Macau are also in the fact book. I haven't been looking for every instance where those entities are referred to as countries and changing them.

Look in the fact book's Taiwan article under "Government". It says

Country name:

conventional long form: none

conventional short form: Taiwan

local long form: none

local short form: T'ai-wan

former: Formosa

Earlier you said "I would accept that the CIA Factbook is a reliable source of fact." with a full period stop. After I told you the fact book calls Taiwan a "country", you backpedaled and are now saying you only consider it "a reliable source of facts from the US perspective" and you say it has a POV that must be balanced. I expected as much.

If you want the U.S. official perspective on Taiwan, use sources from the agencies and leaders who decide what that perspective is. Get information from the State Department, the White House, etc. Don't consider an agency that has nothing to do with such decisions authoritative on U.S. perspective because they are not the authors of that perspective. You might as well trust the maps from the Department of Motor Vehicles.

At least your are correct in saying that it is a POV that must be balanced. Shall we pull out every map we can find and note how Taiwan and China are displayed in each one?

I would also point out that the fact book uses language that clearly implies Taiwan is not part of China, as in "The dominant political issues continue to be the relationship between Taiwan and China", giving Taiwan's location as "Eastern Asia, islands bordering the East China Sea, Philippine Sea, South China Sea, and Taiwan Strait, north of the Philippines, off the southeastern coast of China", and "China has overtaken the US to become Taiwan's largest export market".

Perhaps the article should say more forcefully that the U.S. considers Taiwan to be completely separate from China. Readin (talk) 14:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read Hong Kong and Macau. Now Hong Kong and Macau are "clearly" countries as well.

I think what you are doing is similar to the media taking 3 secs of people's statements out of context and broadcast it over and over against someone. Other than the full stop that you seemed to pay so much attention to, did you read the full paragraph?

I don't think the CIA is publishing a Motor Vehicles fact book, so I don't think the analogy is sound. CIA is about world intelligence gathering, right?

If you want to, go for it. I don't have any problems with that.

Common names perhaps? Are political entities always countries? Now with that PRC map including Taiwan, do you think CIA is really "clearly" showing that Taiwan is a country?

If you can back up that statement, sure. But I think the current evidence available shows an ambiguity.

It is unacceptable to have one person argue the same point over and over again and unilaterally change the article. The comment about the map is infuriatingly absurd and does not indicate that the US believes the PRC is the sole legitimate gov't of China (including Taiwan), as has been stated. The US policy is confusing, but it clearly doesn't mean that. The article should remain the same until a consensus arises to change it. If anything, a consensus has been reached to delete the map statement.

Consensus? Was there? Ngchen said:-

"Maybe this ambiguity on the U.S. position can be noted. After all, it is interesting. In a broader context, perhaps the reader can be informed about how due to the controversial political status of Taiwan, even little things like how a map is drawn can fire up people on all sides."

I don't think that's saying we should delete the map. Please let me know if I am mistaken.

I said, "if anything" the consensus was to delete. I read Ngchen's statement to say that we should delete the use of the map as evidence, put in real evidence, and perhaps talk about the delicate nature of the topic by including a sentence about how maps piss people off.

And please don't call people who want a more accurate and less trivial description of US policy as "Taiwan independence supporters" who are making personal arguments. Quite honestly, I wonder why one person fights so hard to include a piece of information that doesn't remotely say what he wants it to say.

I wasn't talking about anyone in particular or calling anyone who disagrees with putting the map as "Taiwan independence supporters". They may well be, but I said "...are likely to object to something instinctively if the inclusion doesn't fit their political objective". I think there is a misinterpretation with my statement. There is nothing personal about that statement.

You may not think it's personal, but it isn't supported by the discussion and it insults the integrity of the majority of views here.

If one person refuses to play nice, perhaps it's time for an arbitration...or we could invite comment on another forum. However, it is NOT ok under Wikipidedia policy to continually edit an article with controversial and minority views while a discussion is ongoing.LedRush (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This bit I agree. I don't think anyone should edit the article on this subject until the discussion is complete. Edit wars are not constructive.

LedRush said:-

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

Redking7's proposed statement said:-

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

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

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

"United States policy has remained ambiguous."

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

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

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

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

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

Except that the CIA doesn't speak for the US. And that a map being one color doesn't mean that the PRC governs Taiwan. Can't we get better examples of the US ambiguity than a map published not by a policy arm of the US that doesn't really say whether ROC or the PRC governs a land, or even that two governments don't govern a common area.LedRush (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The color of the map is obvious, but the reason for the coloring is not obvious. It is not clear that this shows ambiguity in U.S. policy. More likely it shows that the policy is not always well understood. Readin (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tell you all what, now that the OR ish nature of this stuff has come to light, let's see if secondary sources can be found w/r/t the ambiguity. If so, let's reference them and have what they say in the article. If not, then the material has to go, at least w/r/t any inferences that aren't blatantly obvious. FWIW, I think it's debatable as to whether the fact that Taiwan is colored the same as the PRC implies that at least the CIA factbook considers it part of the PRC is blatantly obvious or not. After all, it is a well-known convention vis-a-vis the reading of any colored political map, that the same color is used for the same entity, and neighboring entities are given a different color. But if we can sidestep the issue with secondary sources, let's do that. Ngchen (talk) 03:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Readin and Ngchen on the colouring and map reading bit. I think common people (Wikipedia's audience) who read the map will reach the conclusion that Ngchen reached. It is obvious. To argue otherwise is like saying "You can't always walk across the road when there is a green light because the green light doesn't say you can walk. It is just showing a colour".--pyl (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I see a map that's the same color, I think that it is one entity, but I don't know whether that entity is governed by the ROC or the PRC. Seeing as the US policy is to state that there is one China, but not to say that the PRC governs Taiwan, my reading of the map seems more plausible. Anyway, as I've said for a long time now, why don't we just find a REAL example of US policy ambiguity and cite that?LedRush (talk) 05:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction (remember what I was saying earlier about even high-level diplomats getting it wrong - so no surprise at someone misstating it above), (talking about the Shanghai Communique) "In the Communique, both nations pledged to work toward the full normalization of diplomatic relations. The United States acknowledged the Chinese position that all Chinese on both sides of the Taiwan Strait maintain that there is only one China and that Taiwan is part of China." Official U.S. policy acknowledges that both the ROC and PRC had a "one China policy" that said Taiwan was part of China, but the U.S. does not explicitly agree with that position. Readin (talk) 14:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not whether the coloring and implication of the coloring are obvious, the question is whether a map on the "CIA fact book" (not the "U.S. policy book", not the "diplomatic directives book", not the "State Department book", not the "White House foreign relations book", and not the "foreign affairs book", but the CIA book) should be interpreted as a statement of U.S. foreign policy. This is especially questionable given that the fact book is inconsistent in its maps.

Hong Kong is unquestionably part of the PRC, but the "Hong Kong" map shows "China" as a different color from HK. Despite the PRC map, the Taiwan map shows Taiwan its own color separate from "China". Greenland's relationship to Denmark is similar to HK's relationship to China, yet Denmark's map doesn't show Greenland at all.

If the map were meant to show U.S. foreign policy, at the very least the "Hong Kong" map would not label mainland China as "China" because as a matter of policy we definitely consider Hong Kong part of China. Readin (talk) 14:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The question is whether a map on the "CIA fact book" should be interpreted as a statement of U.S. foreign policy. No it isn't. It's whether or not a map on a largely unofficial reference site is WP:RS that warrants mention next to real reliable sources, such as the policy statements linked above. The answer, of course, is an emphatic no. This isn't some smoke filled room where we're trying to decode hidden messages in American policies. This is an encyclopedia where discussion of primary sources is to be avoided in cases like this and to be extremely cautious to avoid analysis and deep discussion of other primary sources, although quoting the more obvious policy statements is acceptable. MrZaius^talk 02:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]