Talk:One China
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One China Script error: No such module "pagetype".. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find general sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:Censored Script error: No such module "Banner shell".
|
Script error: No such module "Archive list". |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than Template:Th/abp Template:Th/abp may be automatically archived by [[User:Template:Th/abp|Template:Th/abp]]Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "[".. |
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on One-China policy. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211233313/http://www.nwc.navy.mil/apsg/communiques.htm to http://www.nwc.navy.mil/apsg/communiques.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Proposed Change
The first sentence of this article defines the one china policy as "insists both the Taiwan area and mainland China are inalienable parts of a single China". Many countries have it's own one china policy. Some of them, such as the United States's one China policy agrees that there is only one country of China, but leaves deliberate ambiguity about whether Taiwan is part of China. This makes the current definition inaccurate. The current citation also does not support the definition. I propose to change it into:
"One China policy" is a policy saying that there is only one country of China, despite the fact that there are two governments, China (officially the People's Republic of China) and Taiwan (officially the Republic of China), with the official name of China.
and elaborate the stance of different countries in the content.
The sentence of in the lead of "An analogous situation..." is original research and I propose to remove it.
The section 3.2 is about territory of the ROC, and is not directly related to the one china policy, so I propose to remove it. Uaat (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: the OP has unilaterally implemented his version without any consensus made. --117.136.106.112 (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Uaat, the 1992 Consensus states that there is only One China, therefore I may have to re-add back section 3.2 since the ROC's constitution stipulates that they still claim the ownership of the Mainland. Outer Mongolia is no longer part of ROC's territory c. 2012. -135.23.145.49 (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, the 1992 Consensus is disputed in Taiwan and not the policy of the current Taiwanese government, and it is already mentioned in the "Viewpoints within Taiwan" section. Whether the ROC's constitution still claim the ownership of the Mainland is also disputed. See Talk:Taiwan/Archive_26#Remove_ROC_"continues_to_view_itself_as_the_sole_representative_of_China." Furthermore, the ROC constitution does not distinguish between Outer Mongolia and mainland China when mentioning territory, so it is contradictory to say that the ROC's constitution still claim the ownership of the Mainland, and Outer Mongolia is no longer part of ROC's territory.--Uaat (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note that the ROC has officially given up its territorial claim over Outer Mongolia since 2003. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the point is that the territorial claims of the ROC constitution is disputed and should not be stated assertively in the article. Even if we interpret the constitution as claiming all China, another issue is that is it legally valid for the government to give up territorial claim without a constitution amendment? With such complicated disputes, this really shouldn't be in the article.--Uaat (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- According to the ROC's own press release in 2012, before the ROC officially adopted its constitution on 25 December 1947, it already recognized the independence of Outer Mongolia, and therefore Outer Mongolia is not part of the definition of its "mainland". In other words, the ROC's change to its territorial claim over Outer Mongolia does not require a constitution amendment. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the point is that the territorial claims of the ROC constitution is disputed and should not be stated assertively in the article. Even if we interpret the constitution as claiming all China, another issue is that is it legally valid for the government to give up territorial claim without a constitution amendment? With such complicated disputes, this really shouldn't be in the article.--Uaat (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note that the ROC has officially given up its territorial claim over Outer Mongolia since 2003. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, the 1992 Consensus is disputed in Taiwan and not the policy of the current Taiwanese government, and it is already mentioned in the "Viewpoints within Taiwan" section. Whether the ROC's constitution still claim the ownership of the Mainland is also disputed. See Talk:Taiwan/Archive_26#Remove_ROC_"continues_to_view_itself_as_the_sole_representative_of_China." Furthermore, the ROC constitution does not distinguish between Outer Mongolia and mainland China when mentioning territory, so it is contradictory to say that the ROC's constitution still claim the ownership of the Mainland, and Outer Mongolia is no longer part of ROC's territory.--Uaat (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Uaat, the 1992 Consensus states that there is only One China, therefore I may have to re-add back section 3.2 since the ROC's constitution stipulates that they still claim the ownership of the Mainland. Outer Mongolia is no longer part of ROC's territory c. 2012. -135.23.145.49 (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
IPA
The IPA transcriptions for Yīgè Zhōngguó zhèngcè and Yīgè Zhōngguó yuánzé look wrong to to me, particularly the one for zhèngcè giving an alveolar-velar [nk] cluster, but I don't actually speak Chinese. There might be good reasons for some things, like why some of the falling tones are not written (perhaps they're neutral tones in Taiwanese Mandarin).DubleH (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Removed polls
Removed these polls which have nothing to do with one china policy, but US-China relations. DrIdiot (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
The United States public opinion on the One-China Policy is much more ambiguous than the opinions of the American political elites and policy experts. A Pew Research poll from 2012 found that 84% of policy experts believed it to be very important to for the U.S. to build a strong relationship with China, whereas only 55% of the general public agreed with that statement.[1][2] However, U.S. popular attitudes towards the People's Republic of China are negative, where China is viewed as an economic adversary rather than a friendly rival. A 2015 Pew Research poll found that 60% of Americans view the loss of jobs to China as very serious, compared to only 21% who view the tensions between China and Taiwan as very serious.[3][4]
<templatestyles src="Reflist-talk/styles.css"/>
References
<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Lead Section
What is the difference between "One China" and "Cross-Strait relations"? Both phrases use similar language in the opening statements of their lead sections.
- "One China is a phrase describing the international relationship between the People's Republic of China (PRC), situated on the Chinese Mainland, and the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan."
- "Cross-Strait relations (sometimes called Mainland–Taiwan relations, China–Taiwan relations or Taiwan–China relations) are the relations between China (officially the People's Republic of China, PRC) and Taiwan (officially the Republic of China, ROC)."
Chino-Catane (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Cross-Strait relations is about all of the different diplomatic relations between the two Chinas, "One China" is the specific stance on the legitimacy of either government as the de jure nation state of China as a single entity. This also falls under WP:WORDISSUBJECT, as its mostly about the specific phrase appearing in different statements and policies. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Misleading
The lede final sentence makes it appear the ROC constitution has changed after 1991. Except it didn't. The ROC’s current constitution, enacted in 1947 and still in effect with amendments, defines its territory as including all of China based on its "existing national boundaries" at the time - meaning it constitutionally claims to be the legitimate government of the entirety of China, not just Taiwan. This stance hasn’t changed legally. But the wording makes it seem it's not just unofficial but it's just according to one party and also before 1991, implying that the ROC constitution somehow no longer reflects that anymore. 49.195.74.187 (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
- Here is the objective distinction and the improvements needed for the article to reflect;
- The ROC Constitution itself does not reject the "One China" principle. The Constitution, even with its 1990s amendments (eg - the Additional Articles), - still technically claims sovereignty over the entirety of China, reflecting the Kuomintang (KMT) vision of the ROC as the legitimate government of a unified China. The DPP, despite its political dominance, has not legally succeeded in amending their Constitution to formally renounce this claim or redefine Taiwan as a separate nation.
- If they actually amended the constitution or declared formal independence as a nation separate from the mainland then you can insist that the constitution has changed since 1991 to no longer reflect KMT views. But it's misleading to say the constitution has changed since when it doesn't reflect reality nor is there a single source existing to support that misleading notion.49.195.74.187 (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)