Talk:Government-in-exile/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

West Papua?

Is the Republic of West Papua considered a government in exile? It may be a small organiztion in Britain. I know that West Papua has had separatist republics proclaimed in the past, but that was in the region itself. 173.48.109.143 (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Tamil Eelam??

was wondering about the Provisional Transnational Goverment of Tamil Eelam (PTGTE)?? should'nt it be added too? Lotadutt (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, from the looks of it, it could be added to the 'Separatist governments' list. Liu Tao (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is in the List of historical unrecognized countries. I am not sure if it is currently active (eg. to be put also in the List of active autonomist and secessionist movements). Alinor (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Republic of China list of countries

Is it really necessary to list every country with an overlapping claim with the ROC, no matter how small that claim is? The ROC is in exile because of the PRC. The rest are just border disputes. Listing so many countries merely confuses things. Readin (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically by the definition given by the article, the RoC is not a government-in-exile but a rump state. Even if you consider Taiwan and Penghu as 'foreign territory' to the RoC, the RoC still has Kinmen and Matsu which I think everyone will agree is a part of its 'original territory' no matter which angle you look at it. Based on the definition given by the article, the fact that Kinmen and Matsu are still under RoC jurisdiction is enough to say that the RoC is not a government-in-exile but a rump state. The article's definition states that 'a rump state still controls at least part of its previous territory' and that 'a government in exile, conversely, has lost all its territory.' Was Kinmen and Matsu part of its previous territory? Yes. Has the RoC lost all of its prewar territory? No. Therefore no matter how you look at whether or not if Taiwan is part of the RoC, the fact that Kinmen and Matsu are still under RoC jurisdiction signifies that the RoC has not lost all of its 'previous territory'. Liu Tao (talk) 05:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW, ROC controlled Taiwan & Penghu since 1945, not after 1949. so its central goverment moved to Taipei in 1949 was also an action of moving inside its 'original territory'(a part, but not whole)or to the rest part of its 'original territory'.SH9002 (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There's is also the POV that Taiwan and Penghu does not belong to the ROC. Therefore, whether the ROC is a rump state or Government in exile is disputed. That's why it's on both lists. T-1000 (talk) 00:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

what you called POV are not NPOV, don't forget, ROC still had legal relationships with UN till 1971 & US till 1979． That means that between 1949-1971 or 79 UN & US didn't treat ROC as government in exile but a formal state with real legal control over Taiwan and Penghu etc., please read at United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 on 25 October 1971. SH9002 (talk) 00:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

When there is multiple POVs, we can only describe the conflict, not take a side. T-1000 (talk) 00:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Since near 30% of the congress voted AGAINST Civil Rights Act of 1964, are you saying that racism is still legal and we should allow racists to discriminate because it represented only POV of those who supported it? Please. The UN members all agreed to abide by UN resolution, I am sorry democratic principle is not your cup of tea, but c'est la vie.Mafia godfather (talk) 01:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

By maintaining relations with the ROC, those states are not abiding by the UN resolution, hence, the dispute still exists. T-1000 (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No. I see disappointment, because dispute cannot exist when there is a final settlement. That is what "resolution" means. Like a party who lost US Supreme court case. But that does not negate the fact that it is final until new decision revert it.Mafia godfather (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Final settlement according to the UN's POV, not according to the 23 countries. T-1000 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The 23 states agreed to abide by UN's final resolution per the charter of UN. If you are uninformed about it, I suggest you can stop beating the dead horse.Mafia godfather (talk) 01:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, if they abide by the UN resolution, they would have terminated relations with the ROC. They didn't. T-1000 (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Not true. I can see you are a bit vague on how international laws work. UN Resolution settles the issue on which China is the rightful China, and PRC is it. If the disputing states choose to recognize ROC as legitimate China, that is an internal decision and does not change the fact that ROC is still illegitimate and PRC is legit. And UN cannot interfere with a state's own decision and actions on behalf of its self. However, if there is a treaty signed by the state and ROC as China, the treaty is not honored by international community, that is why nobody has formal and valid treaties with ROC today. Not even the 23 states. Because any valid international treaties must be deposited with UN secretariat and published by UN, and UN would not accept such a treaty. Mafia godfather (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Kind of like buying a stolen car at a dirt low price. Sure, you take the premium of a deal, but is it really a deal? If someone is to take back the car, you can't say no. You can't have warranties on it, and you have little legit ownership on it. You understood the risks and you took it. The 23 states understood the risks when they chose to recognize ROC and took ROC's money, but they knew they are not recognizing the real China.Mafia godfather (talk) 02:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so those 23 states are free to to have their own POV which the UN cannot interfere with, since their POV disagrees with the UN's POV, that's the dispute right there. T-1000 (talk) 02:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want to say you hate Obama and you diod not vote for him, that does not make his presidency disputable. Mafia godfather (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)There is not another person claiming to be the President of the US, therefore, Obama's Presidency is not disputed. T-1000 (talk) 05:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

you sure about that? Walked home from bar the other day and some dudes claim they are and they should be in white house.Mafia godfather (talk) 06:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Is that guy from the bar notable? :) T-1000 (talk) 07:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User:T-1000, It's no use to talk with User:Mafia godfather about the article, he is totally mad[1],[2] and just want to win the war. SH9002 (talk) 03:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Didnt you say no personal attacks?Mafia godfather (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry sir, you misunderstood, I just want to User:T-1000 that I don't want to fight with any one. I give up[3], ok? SH9002 (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

sorry, its not about question of POVs, but a rump state is not government in exile. so ROC can not be listed in this article. List of ROC here is a wrong classification. BTW except ROC, there were also no other countries had even sovereignty power over Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu since 1945. SH9002 (talk) 01:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

ROC is NOT a rump state, it is a GiE, and that is why it is in this article. ROC does not OWN Taiwan, and that is why it is a GiE operating on foreign soil. Just because ROC controls Taiwan does not make it an owner. Did US own Iraq and Afghanistan when the US occupied them? No. By UN Charter principle, Taiwan belongs to Taiwanese and it is currently stateless. Mafia godfather (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

It's your OR and POV. Just like USA controls some territory on north Americanduring its West expansion, seeAmerican Indian Wars & on Hawaii and make it owner, so ROC did on Taiwan. Japan did the same thing on Okinawa. These were the history during those time. UN is just a organization & has no legal right & power to decide any sovereignty issue. SH9002 (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not the time of American Indian war anymore. Please use relevant and up-to-date international laws. If you do not understand or have questions, read the two links I sent you from previous discussions. Do not argue about things you dont know. Mafia godfather (talk) 02:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The fact about Taiwan under　rule of ROC since 1945, see Treaty of Taipei & Wikisource of that Treaty[4]or[5]. Some references like book 「去日本化」「再中國化」：戰後台灣文化重建（1945-1947） or any thing referred about 台湾省行政公署组织大纲, they show the fact that ROC established Taiwan Province already in 1945. BTW, UN came into existence on 24 October 1945, ROC was the original member. Have you any evidences which can show that UN or U.S. or international wide had questioned about territorial sovereignty of ROC over Taiwan during the time between 1945 to 1949? If not that means Taiwan was already one part of ROC legally since 1945. SH9002 (talk) 09:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPOV first, before you want to tell the world that you hold the so called only truth. I and User:T-1000 talked with you about article. but you just want to claim your only truth to hold you NPOVs, I am very sorry about what you did here. SH9002 (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV provides that you need evidence from credible source to back your "ROC is rump state" theory up? where is it, we are waiting. Or this is just going to be another fringe original research.Mafia godfather (talk) 02:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The articles about Republic of China, Chinese Civil War & Political status of Taiwan etc. have already shown lots of references about the fact that the ROC controlled Taiwan & mainland china during 1945 to 1949, and finally lost the mainland china, the government of ROC moved to Taiwan. this act fits the def of rump state.　SH9002 (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The list of rump states article has a big flag at the top saying "This article may contain original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding references. Statements consisting only of original research may be removed. More details may be available on the talk page. (September 2007)" and the definition section has no references at all. Other articles are generally considered to be a poor source (though if the article has reliable references you can use those reliable references). I would say that is a particularly poor given that other editors have criticized its lack of reliable references and the particular section has no references at all. Worse, you are attempting to use the take the definition for "government in exile" from an article on a different topic in order to use that definition in the "government in exile" article when this article already has a reliable source for the definition it provides. Readin (talk) 20:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the definition I used for government-in-exile and rump state is the definition provided in this article, and I sure don't see a 'big flag at the top' saying about anything. Liu Tao (talk) 04:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The international community does not recognize that the ROC has ownership of Taiwan. Many of the comments given above by various posters which stress "ROC ownership" are based on the mistaken idea that there was a transfer of Taiwan's territorial sovereignty to the ROC in 1945. That is totally incorrect. As late as the Fall of 1950 the U.S. State Dept. confirmed two important facts: (1) The decision to send the Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait was made with the full recognition that Formosa is an international problem, it is not China's internal problem. (2) To date, no Formal Act restoring Formosa & the Pescadores to China has occurred. For website references, see http://www.taiwanbasic.com/state/frus/taiwan/frus1950as.htm and http://www.taiwanbasic.com/state/frus/taiwan/frus1950aq.htm Hence, the ROC in Taiwan is a government in exile. Hmortar (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

who is you called international community and which communities are they? The site you listed is just a political group which advocates the political theory about 'ROC as GiE', it is just one POV & disputed because it dismissed another facts. What you called fact (1) was because of Korean War that made U.S. to prevent communist expansion in Asia further, just like U.S. joined in Vietnam war some years later either. Japan relinquished territorial sovereignty over Taiwan & Penghu through SFPT & TOT in 1950s would make both islands as Terra nullius, so ROC got territorial sovereignty over both islands at moment of Japanese renouncement in 1952. --SH9002 (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Point #1: The site listed is just a reference with a LINK to the official documents on the U.S. government site. Hence, what needs to be addressed in this discussion on Wiki is the content of the U.S. government site. And the content of that site is as I have stated. Point #2: Your understanding of terra nullius is in error. Populated territory (such as Taiwan at any time in the 1940s or 1950s) is not considered terra nullius. Point #3: The ROC never obtained sovereignty over Taiwan in the 1940s, 1950s, or 1960s. Please refer to the Starr Memorandum of the U.S. State Dept., July 13, 1971. http://www.taiwanbasic.com/state/usg/starr-mem.htm Hmortar (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

(1): As said before, it's common sense that, even On 05 January 1950 united states announced that America will not involve in the dispute of Taiwan Strait, if the Chinese communists were to attack Taiwan[6], and as Korean war broke out on 25. June 1950, 2 days later u.s. changed its position and then send the Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to prevent the communist military expansion in all East Asia. This is the historical fact. don't misleading others using your OR. Btw, please check a book "Truman's Two-China Policy: 1948-1950", this book shows at that period, U.S. thought that the dispute of Taiwan Strait was a conflict between the ROC and PRC, an inter-chinese issue.
(2): Sorry, your interpretation about Latin word 'terra nullius' is totally wrong. If guys check another latin words like nullius filius：literally "nobody's son", A child of unknown parentage; an orphan.[7]; res nullius: (law) Something that has no owner (see: Res nullius), it's clearly terra nullius is about land not legally belonging to anyone. It doesn't matter if it is populated or not. It's about legal ownership[8], like Antarctica, its status as terra nullius is enforced by the Antarctic Treaty System, even if Antarctica is already populated by scientists from different countries, however, many uninhabited deserts are not terra nullius. so, if any territory abandoned by its former sovereign owner, it status changes to terra nullius until next one occupies it effectively & declares his ownership explicitly/implicitly. That is the case ROC got de jure sovereignty over Taiwan & Penghu, & USSR got de jure sovereignty over Sakhalin etc. as Japan renounced all right to those territories in 1952. --SH9002 (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The US State Dept. does not agree with your view. On Oct. 25, 2004, Sec. of State Colin Powell said: "Our policy is clear. There is only one China. Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy." Hmortar (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmortar, the 23 countries that recognize the ROC are also a part of the International community. Hence, it is disputed. T-1000 (talk) 05:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What exactly do they recognize?? Please point me to the relevant online documentation which shows that they recognize the ROC as whatever .... or what??? A government in exile I imagine . . . . . Hmortar (talk) 12:55, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

They said ROC/Taiwan is a country, which means that ROC cannot be GIE in their POV. T-1000 (talk) 17:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

And these countries have explicitly stated that the territory of ROC (as defined in the ROC Constitution) includes all of mainland China?? In other words, they recognize the ROC for what itself claims to be??? I sincerely doubt that that is true. PLEASE PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION. Hmortar (talk) 11:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, back when Pope John Paul II died, Chen Shui-bian attended his funeral. At the funeral, he was seated as the representative of China. Such has to mean something. In addition, the Vatican has a nuncio in Taipei. Anyway, what exactly is the dispute, since the talk page is not a forum. Ngchen (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The historical nomadic states

Can any nomadic empires or countries like Turkic states or empires in history be regarded as government in exile? (well, actually the situation of ROC today is similar to those nomadic states, which changed their territories dynamically.) --SH9002 (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• Can't see any point to show from those individually from the past unless sources point for their inclusion to be here.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

the dispute tag positioning for ROC as Government in Exile

Am I the only one thinking it looks awakward? Mafia godfather (talk) 19:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There are other less intrusive tages such as the dubious tag, and the POV-statement tag that might work better as temporary measures. Ngchen (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The discussion and the dispute have become quite ridiculous. Wikipedia is not a forum, and it is not a place for original ideas or interpretations. We should not be spending thousands of words arguing over what treaties, agreements and international customs say about a particular issue.

We started with a source indicating the ROC is a government in exile. We found a notable POV making the same statement. We also know that there are differing notable POVs and we have sources for those as well. We need to state both POVs as demanded by the NPOV policy.

As for the argument, it means nothing regardless of who "wins". If someone wants to win the argument, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Take your arguments to scholarly journals, international courts of law (if such a thing can be said to exist), government leaders, journalists, book publishers, textbook writers, etc.. Those are the sources we use with various levels of authority from each. Occassionally we may accept a plain uncontroversial reading of an original source, but given the arguments that have been going on for weeks, the original sources are neither obvious nor uncontroversial.

This needs to be fixed, preferably with a return to status-quo ante and then some minor modifications to include the recent statements by the chairwoman of the DPP.

If we can't fix, we need to drag an administrator in here. Readin (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Readin. Ngchen (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem of this kind of article is that we try to categorize stuff that can't be unambiguously categorized. It's the same dispute in list of passport, list of sovereign states, etc. We know the various POVS but if we put the country in one category in particular, we are already giving undue weight to one POV over the others and breaking NPOV. So perhaps a solution would be to create a new section titled "Disputed status", put the Republic of China there, and then just describe the various POVs in detail? We can also have a link to that section in the "Deposed governments of current states" table. What do you think? Laurent (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

We came up with a solution earlier that involved graying the ROC row and stating in the first line that it is "not unambiguously a governmen in exile" but then someone came along and started applying original research based on original sources. Readin (talk) 03:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what WikiLaurent said, 'if we put the country in one category in particular, we are already giving undue weight to one POV over the others and breaking NPOV'. btw, graying the ROC row is also not enough to show that 'ROC classified as GiE' is disputed heavily, don't forget some guys are insensitive to color or don't understand its meaning. Readin, these 2 pages[9][10] shows how some guys manipulate Wikipedia as a validating source for their political purpose, any coloring of the ROC row is useless, and some guys could also interpret or regard the coloring as an indication or emphasizing "ROC is a GiE". It's really a problem that WP:FRNG try to avoid. --SH9002 (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

"graying the ROC row is also not enough to show that 'ROC classified as GiE' is disputed heavily" It is enough to show that it is different from the others and that a little extra effort is needed to know why. And because it is not enough, we also had the 'very first line' that said the ROC " is not unabiguously a government in exile ". "don't forget some guys are insensitive to color". Gray is not a "color" in that sense. That is, color-blind people have no difficulty recognizing different shades of gray. The difficulty comes in distinguishing or recognizing certain colors of the rainbow like red or green.

I'm not sure who would interpret the shading as emphasizing the ROC as a GIE. At most it could draw attention to it, but even if it did that the result would be to push the reader to read the details and immediately discover the reasons that some people don't consider it a GIE.

The problem with saying 'if we put the country in one category in particular, we are already giving undue weight to one POV over the others and breaking NPOV' is that by excluding the country from a category also gives undue weight to one POV over the others and breaks NPOV. It is impossible to both include and exclude the ROC from the list so we have a problem either way. However, the NPOV policy says that when there is a dispute, both POVs should be stated. If we leave the ROC off the list, the dispute is left unspoken and we thus violate NPOV both by the exclusion and by not mentioning the dispute. By including the ROC and explaining the dispute, we do have the problem of inclusion, but we mitigate it by the shading, and we are then able to follow the NPOV rule of describing the dispute. Readin (talk) 19:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

so, this is exactly the problem I have showed it before[11]. Some taiwan independence supporter using the english version to support their fringe theory instead of using chinese version of GiE, is just because not all reader on their blogs understand english, they just want using this listing, and it's enough. the extended information in english is not important for them. This picture on that blog shows any coloring is just an indication or emphasizing, that wikipedia would support their fringe theory. So that is exactly why the related Disputed-section and POV-section tags are really necessary here. --SH9002 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I made cosmetic changes to deal with the disputed status, and removed the dispute tags as whatever dispute seems to either be resolved or has gone stale. I eliminted the gray which might lead to erroneous impressions, and simply added the parenthetical "disputed" to the list. Ngchen (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Ngchen, You made "cosmetic change" may be looked fine, but could also lead to erroneous impression and could not solved the key problem of listing the ROC in this category . Because this sentence, Republic of China (disputed), could also means Wikipedia think that "the ROC is a disputed state" etc., which is the article Legal status of Taiwan for. I think these Disputed-section and POV-section tags are still necessary in that part of text. Disputed-section tag is for the related fringe theory, which heavily discussed in this talk page; and POV-section tag is for the problem of the actual undue weight to one POV over the others in the situation of listing some unambiguous things in a category. --SH9002 (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what the Dispute Tags are used for: They are for when their is a dispute between Wikipedia editors. If the actual situation (such as the ROC) is disputed, then we describe the dispute in the article. I don't think there is a dispute between the editors now, as everybody agrees that the ROC's status is disputed. T-1000 (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So how would you propose dealing with this controversy? It's logically impossible to both include and exclude the ROC from this list of governments-in-exile. Ngchen (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

So these tags are necessary and the best solution to balance such controversy, if some guys try to use wikipedia's rule to advocate their fringe theory in the case of categorizing some stuffs. --SH9002 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, the claim that the ROC is a GiE is not really fringe, because notable people hold that claim. For instance, the recent controversy surrounding Tsai Ing-Wen and her claiming such. So I would oppose removing the ROC from the list altogether. Ngchen (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

so what, every body knows, there is no international law to forbid "any notable person" to invent some fringe theories, right? :) Tsai has lots of POVs, before 10 years she was also a co-creator of Special state-to-state relations theory to describe the relation between ROC and PRC, and later she changed her POVs contiguously, and this time she said ROC is not a state but a GiE. Taiwan have lots such notable peoples, who have tradition to constantly change their POVs and theories, like Chen Shui-bian, Lee Teng-hui, and there is also a such notable guy, Roger C.S.Lin.[12]. He sometimes said Taiwan belongs to Japan[13], and at same time he could also say Taiwan belongs to U.S.[14][15], and some time later again said Taiwan is not 51. state of U.S.[16], etc. Btw, I am sure Mr. Roger C.S.Lin. is also one/some of our editors[17][18], yeah he could also have used various accounts to actively join in some of such editings to advocate their fringe theory in wikipedia for long long time. Shortly, the key problem here is not about cosmetic design of the tags, It's about some guys try to manipulate Wikipedia as a primary source to support their fringe theory[19][20], that violates WP:FRNG. I respect your position to retain such POV in this article, so related tags are not dismissible in the related category. --SH9002 (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

But the tags are not for when the subject is disputed, they are for when there is a editorial dispute. We all agree that the ROC is disputed, so where is the editorial dispute? T-1000 (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is disputed how to edit the related section in a neutral way to conform to the WP:FRNG & WP:NPOV etc. The cosmetic change can not clearly balance the undue weighted stuff in that first column. And I haven shown many times above the problems of that unneutral editing. I said it already, this article is not about if ROC is disputed or not, for that issue there are articles Legal status of Taiwan or Political status of Taiwan. People disputed heavily here is about how to edit the fringe POV about "ROC as GiE" in the category in a neutral way. Again, here is disputed about editing of the stuff in the first column in that table, clear? It is about how to prevent the content in the first column being abused or misled, which is just because of undue weighted editing in the case of categorizing something. It's a editorial issue, not the problem of POVs. The tags are right for this case. To this section began with Mafia's silly comment "Am I the only one thinking it looks awakward?", Don't waste time here to talk about the cosmetic problem of Tags, if any one not happy with those design, please just go to change the design of the related templates. --SH9002 (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

IIRC, the definition of a fringe theory is one that does not have any notable adherents. So if we have a few notable people such as Tsai Ing-Wen (as well as say a large number of TI supporters in general) believe that the ROC is a government-in-exile, then it's not really a fringe theory. It's disputed, sure, but it's inclusion does not mean it's right, wrong, or whatever. The fact that the claim is disputed was clearly marked, and the right column clearly spells out the dispute at the outset. Considering how it's logically impossible to both include and exclude the ROC, I believe it should stay. If this friendly dispute continues, perhaps an RFC should be filed? Ngchen (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

A fringe theory is an idea or a collection of ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Notable or not was/is never the criterion of such thing. Every one can make himself notable by inventing or advocating some fringe theory. Again, the key problem here is about editing the article in a neutral way, not about fringe theory or any personal cosmetic style. It's very simple, if no body can both "include and exclude" related stuff, then this is an unsolvable editorial issue, and tags are necessary here to indicate the problem when guys want to retain those stuff in article. and that is the end of story. --SH9002 (talk) 16:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've filed an RFC. Now, anyone can come up with a fringe theory, but coming up with one does not make the person notable. A person becomes notable when the person is covered in secondary sources; the theory becomes nonfringe when IT gets covered in secondary sources. All I'm arguing is that the number of TI supporters that hold to the argument is significant, and therefore the claim is non-fringe. Ngchen (talk) 19:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

- I respect your POV, but sorry, I don't understand what you want here. This section is about the positions of dispute tags. No one in this section talking about removing ROC from that category, except you Ngchen. I just put the appropriate tags to indicate the problem in that section. That is the final solution and finished.
- If some guys want to be independent, so please just to do it, occupying a territory, then declaring independence and readying to fight for it, that is the right way to go. They don't need any kind of silly arguments for the independence. There were also no any state in the history became independent through any theories. That didn't and will not work.
- The arguments of those TI supporter are fringe theories is just because they are very few in the world, even in ROC today, and the mainstream view of whole world are totally not interested or care about what they say, couldn't even more try to adopt their theory. If non guys try to be independent right now from the old state, but chirped all the time, they are no more than cheap nasty cowards.
- Finally, it is a totally ridiculous farce. If any state with effective administration, legislature, judiciary, military, customs authority etc. can be treated as GiE. why can U.S., Israel etc. not be? --SH9002 (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You might be surprised that I'm personally opposed to TI, and find their arguments totally unconvincing. You stated that you "put the appropriate tags to indicate the problem in that section. That is the final solution and finished." But tags are supposed to be temporary measures that get resolved in a fair way after a while. And due to the impossibility of including and excluding the ROC on the list, some permanent solution needs to be found that does not give the TI view undue weight, but at the same time without ignoring it altogether (unless the TI view is actually fringe.) Let's see what the rest of the community thinks, per the RFC. Ngchen (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry sir, i was just nervous by endless repeating the discussion such stupid issues with them. I personally don't care about what they want to do. But they didn't dare to do that, just brawling, brawling... --SH9002 (talk) 00:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

State of Palestine

The SoP, proclaimed by the Palestine Liberation Organization in 1988, is recognized by many countries, but it does not have control over its territory. Of course, the Palestinian National Authority, founded by the PLO after the Oslo agreements with Israel, has some limited control - but only as much as Israel "gives it" (besides the Hamas issue). So, the PNA functions under Israel occupation. So, I think that the PLO/SoP covers the criteria for government-in-exile (the not-entierly in-exile, PNA unit, should be mentioned in the note of course, but as it functions only in the limits imposed on it by Israel it is not entierly independent). See also here. Alinor (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, what is the current status of the PLO and SoP in relation to the current Palestinian territory itself? Liu Tao (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, the PLO has established (trough agreement with Israel) interim administration with limited (by Israel) control - the PNA. Israel is still occupying power and has ultimate control over the whole territory. SoP status is more difficult to state, as some countries recognize SoP, but others don't (regardless if they do or don't, every state supports the view that Israel currently has the ultimate responsibility/control for/over these territories - regardless if called "occupied" or with some other adjective, regardless if they support "Palestine-cause" or "Israeli-cause", etc. Nobody claims that SoP is having the territories under total control). Anyway, I haven't seen source claiming that a state doesn't recognize the PLO as "representative of the palestinian people". This is the question - does all this mean that PLO is de facto (if not even de jure) a governemnt-in-exile. Alinor (talk) 07:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The government can't be a Government-in-exile if it's not in exile. That would rule out the PNA as a GiE. That leaves the PLO, is it allowed to 'legally' exist within Palestine? Also, just wondering, how much sovereignty and control does the PNA have over Palestine? Liu Tao (talk) 07:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

PLO is the internationally recognized entity. PLO has proclaimed the State of Palestine. Countries that recognize SoP deal with PLO as a government-if-exile (similar to WW-II and Cold War cases). PLO "has made" the PNA trough agreement with Israel. The PNA itself does not claim any sovereignty. PNA does not have missions around the world and UN representatives (PLO does). PNA could be seen as local branch/administration of the PLO in WB/Gaza. It is in-exile as far as it doesn't have control over the territory (having been delegated some duties by Israel is not the same as "government having control over its territory"). See related discussion [21].

So, PNA has no sovereignty over Palestine (but the PLO claims such, and is recognized by many states) and has only limited control there. Limited to particular activites (depending on location) and limited by Israel. This is in contrast to classic GiE in their period right before "totally in exile" - when the to-be-GiE has total control, but only over limited territory of the country ("The government forces were pushed into one corner of the country/few blocks of the capital, by the agressor forces/the insurgents"). PLO, trough its PNA, currently has total control in no place (this is reserved by Israel). Alinor (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The government of a GiE must be based in a foreign state. If the PLO is based within Palestine, you cannot call it a Government-in-exile if it is not in exile. Liu Tao (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Does it really matter where its members are physically located, when they are not having independent control over any of the claimed territory? Of course PLO/SoP/PNA is not the classic "in exile" case, but I think its situation is almost identical - so we should at least mention it in the text and explain why it is not included. Alinor (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Or alternatively - it could be included and in its note explained why it is not exactly in exile, etc. Alinor (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying it's not in exile just because they're not 'internationally' recognised by everyone or have complete control over all of 'their' territory. Even if it's just one 'little' thing that's off, it makes a lot of difference. The RoC debate, which still is yet to be resolved, has been over whether if the RoC is in exile or not. Palestine is currently listed as a as a state with limited recognition, that would make the GiE argument somewhat weak. I mean go ahead, I won't stop you, but try to do a consensus first to see where people lie in this matter. Liu Tao (talk) 15:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the first and second sentences of your comment (maybe because of the double negative).

The RoC case is different - RoC havs total control over small part of the whole claimed territory. So, I understand both sides in the RoC debate: "RoC is practically in exile as they control a very limited amount of territory" and "RoC is not in exile - they have total control over Taiwan and some other islands". I suppose this brings so much debate because of the clash between the "One China" view (supporting GiE-listing) and "Taiwan" independence view (not supporting GiE listing). The RoC case is similar to Afghanistan official government in 1996-2001 (after Taleban captured most of Afghanistan), to Georgian official regional administrations of Abkhazia (after relocation to "Upper Abkhazia") and South Ossetia (authorities based in Kurta) - total control over small part of the claimed territory.

The PLO/SoP case is the opposite - they have limited restricted-by-Israel control over practically all of the territory, in varying degrees depending on the exact place and area (in some places Israel has relinguished more, in others - less). Alinor (talk) 06:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC - Republic of China

Should the Republic of China be included on this list of governments-in-exile, especially when one considers the controversial political status of Taiwan, even if marked as disputed? Or would its inclusion be giving undue weight to a set of fringe theories? Ngchen (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Is there any evidence that they still maintain their claim to all of China? Even if they did, would they be considered a government in exile since they controlled part of Chinese territory? (Compare with divided countries Ireland, Germany, etc.) Do the Chinese nationalists in the Golden Triangle consider themselves to be a government in exile? TFD (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Answer to Comment I haven't ever heard that any pirate call them self or seen as GiE. The guys in the Golden Triangle were just different paramilitary groups and doing business about Drugs, belonging to no country before, and no one ever called them as GiE. But may be they are now the nationals of the related states since 1990s, e.g. Burma, Laos. Like, people in Kokang, they are Burmese Chinese, nationals of Burma(Myanmar). Kokang is a self-administrative region of Burma, both Burmese & Chinese territory in different perspective, but it is the territory of Union of Myanmar, not the territory of PRC. In the case of Germany before 1990s, there were two German states, GDR and FRG. Northern Ireland is also both Irish and English territory in different perspective, it is the part of United Kingdom, but not a independent sovereignty state, unlike the Republic of Ireland. All of above have nothing to do with the concept of GiE. --SH9002 (talk) 09:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Beg your pardon, but after the Communist takeover of Mainland in 1949, some of the ROC regiments and divisions left on mainland retreated into what is now northern Burma and combined their forces with some earlier divisions stationed there during the WWII to fight the Japs. They were not paramilitary groups, but actual divisions from the ROC Army. A few years later, they were pushed out by the combined forces of the PRC and the Burmese into what is now the Golden Triangle, where they grew old and died. Their General was also appointed as the Governor of Yunnan Province by the ROC Government. They did not view themselves as exiles, but as units based in Thailand/Burma trying to take back Mainland by the RoC government in Taipei. Anyways, back to the point, personally I do not think that the RoC is a GiE and should not be listed here. However, because of the opposing POV that the RoC is, per NPOV policy the ROC should be listed but at the same time be noted and marked and informed of the opposing viewpoint. This debate has been going on for some time, I think the last 'big debate' was something like a month ago. That was the reason why the page was protected and the tag placed there due to the edit warrings that were going on. Liu Tao (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of them were ROC Armies but are not. They have had no contact with ROC and became autonomic paramilitary group for very long time. Btw, not all Chinese tribes in that region(Golden Triangle) came from ROC since 1949, but far long before, e.g. most of the people in Kokang were the descendant of Ming loyalists. And some of Chinese tribes in that region came from PRC to enforce the communist-expansion in Asia in 1960s or 70s and stayed there by themselves. --SH9002 (talk) 09:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

They were all from the ROC Army. When the Central Government was moved to Taipei in 1949, they left a lot of troops behind on mainland. They did have contact with the ROC government and received supplies and the ROC government even send a commander to organise and lead the army, actually, to be more correct, they were organised into 5 armies. They were by no means 'cut off' from the ROC. During the Korean War, the CIA needed intel on the PRC, and it was the Generals leading the armies there who were the ones that sent soldiers over the border to gather intel. And I'm not talking about the people in Kokang, the ROC armies were pushed out of Burma in 1961 after 12 years of fighting with the Burmese and the Communists into Thailand where they set up new bases and assisted the Thai Government in fighting the Thai Communist Party for another decade. They were never cut off from the RoC and had always received support from the RoC. I'm talking about the soldiers, not the civilians. Liu Tao (talk) 16:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A much better neutral title of such RFC should be "Can any sovereign state be listed in the category of GiE?".
my opinion is, ROC is a sovereign state (despite the change of its actual territory), and still recognized by 23 sovereign states until now. It has many officially informal diplomatic relationships with the rest sovereign states[22] (that means not de jure recognized), even with PRC. That is the real situation.
** GiE is just a temporary political organization and resides in a foreign country which has its effective sovereign power; none of any sovereign state can/should be listed in category of GiE.
If any one does it, then there are some questions about the NPOV and factual accuracy of related section, so the related tags are necessary to indicate such problem.
--SH9002 (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, the RFC is an attempt to get outside input. Now, I object to the unqualified characterization of the ROC as a sovereign state, since the PRC considers it defunct. And the term "sovereign" implies sovereignty in a legal sense. Interestingly, sometimes a GiE actually is a sovereign state despite being in exile. For instance, there was a Polish government in exile, as well as a French government in exile during WWII. Ngchen (talk) 21:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

- OK, you can ignore　what I have said and will say in this section. But, let me correct what you said first. The polish GiE and french GiE you announced above are 2 temporary governments went to or established and resided temporary in UK in WW2. UK was at that period still under effective control of its own full functional state government, not administrated by the french GiE or polish GiE. At the same time there was official Vichy government with sovereignty in France which cooperated with Nazi Germany, but the Poland was not an independent state any more at that time, occupied by Nazi Germany and sometime by Soviet Union, that means Poland as a whole lost its own sovereignty power during WW2.
- As we mostly know, GiE is only a temporary government[23] which moves to or formed and resides temporarily in another foreign state, GiE itself doesn't have any territory under its effective administration during the period of exile. Except of the government body, GiE doesn't have other special institutions like its own customs authority or its own legislative or juristic department to exercise　their exclusive functions, all such issues are under control of the state government of that GiE residing foreign country).
- yes, "sovereign" implies sovereignty in a legal sense, but in which? In sight of ROC, PRC is illegal, and vice versa.
- LOL, of course, every one has its right to object to qualify some country as sovereign state as he like. As I know, before 1979 U.S. qualified ROC as a sovereign state, may be not now, no problem. Vice versa, that could also means U.S. is not qualified as a sovereign state by ROC now.:)　However, still about 23 states qualify ROC as a sovereign state and vice versa. --SH9002 (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, since the RFC has expired with sadly no input from the rest of the community, what do we do now? Does anyone believe a request should be filed with the mediation cabal? Ngchen (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I understand, ROC is not a government in exile since they still control a small part of the territory that they are claiming. --zorxd (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding SH9002's tag

The section below shows how tags are to be used:

Adding a page

To mark a dispute on a page, type {{POV}}, which expands into:

Please note: This label is meant to indicate that a discussion is still going on, and that the article's content is disputed, and volatile. If you add this template to an article in which you see a bias about which there is no discussion underway, you need at least to leave a note on the article's talk page describing what you consider unacceptable about the article. The note should address the troubling passages, elements, or phrases specifically enough to encourage constructive discussion that leads to resolution.

---

As we can see, the tag should only stay on the article when there is a discussion going on, given that there has been no discussion since July 19 on this topic, the tag should not stay up there. T-1000 (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this isn't SH9002's tag, an admin placed it there. And second, 'resolved' does not mean 'discussion died'. There is a large difference between the two. An issue that is not being discussed does not mean that it is resolved. So, that means that just because there has not been any discussion going on for a while does not mean the tag should be removed. Liu Tao (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If the issue is not resolved the tag should stay. Regardless of the time passed. And frankly July 19 is not so long ago anyway. Alinor (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there a Wikipedia Tag especially for me? and officially named as "SH9002's tag"? :)
sir T-1000, the tags which you have removed many times was not {{POV}} (which is for article, it is not the case here). They were {{POV-section}} and {{Disputed-section}} which being used for the cases when the bulk of an article is okay, but a single section appears not to be NPOV and only when the accuracy of a section is disputed. These two tags are used in which section the Republic of China is listed. And problem of that listing is that only based on some fringe theories of the Taiwan Independent supporters, and just in favor of their political purpose, they despite of the fact, ROC is still a de facto full functional sovereignty state.
- I have also pointed out many times the problems of that part and the old version of text:
(a) These 2 pages[24][25] shows how some guys manipulate Wikipedia as a validating source for their political purpose. They use the english version of GiE instead of chinese version to support their fringe theory, is just because not all reader on their blogs understand english, they just want to use that listing, and it's enough for their purpose. Any extended information in english is not important and useless for them.
(b) Even the coloring in that row of ROC is not enough to show that 'ROC classified as GiE' is disputed heavily by others, they could interpret or regard the coloring as an indication or emphasizing that "Wikipedia confirms 'ROC is a GiE'"(This picture shows exactly the case), this is actually WP:FRNG trying to avoid.
- as WikiLaurent said before, "if we put the country in one category in particular, we are already giving undue weight to one POV over the others and breaking NPOV". so, Disputed-section and POV-section tags are necessary in this case. Disputed-section tag is for the related fringe theory, which discussed heavily in this talk page; and POV-section tag is for the problem of the actual undue weight to one POV over the others in the situation of listing some unambiguous stuff in a category.
All above are not only about content disputes, but mostly about editorial disputes how to balance the different POVs, and to prevent any undue weighted editing for one POV over others. The {{POV-section}} and {{Disputed-section}} tags are the official wikipedia templates exactly for such cases.
Finally, no one can say when the discussion about some topic in the talking page goes to end. because any one can join into the discussion at any moment, as long as they have any questions about the old version. so time is not actual criterion for using of the related tags, but whether or not the disputed issues being resolved.
--SH9002 (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, all tags are supposed to indicate that editors are working towards a dispute resolution. It cannot be "the end of story". Disputes are ultimately resolved by the Arbiter Committee, if you want to go there. You cannot just put a tag up and then not discuss anything.

As for the actual issue itself, the ROC should be included in this article because the ROC is already included in the rump state article. If you remove it from here, you must also remove it from the rump state article to maintain NPOV. That would make ROC neither a GIE or rump state, which is contradicted by our sources.

Now regarding those deep Greens, those deep Green are just taking advantage of the fact that most people who go to the site don't speak english, as wikipedia did not confirm that the ROC is a GIE. If those Deep Greens want to fool their own supporters, that is their personal problem. Wikipedia is not responsible for how people use it's contents. T-1000 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

well, I don't know how all the disputes will be ultimately resolved by Arbiter Committee, and how many times only the {{POV}}[26] templates were used till now, e.g.[27],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33]etc. It seems there are tons of the old disputes ready for them. You can also suppose that the editors are still working towards a final better resolution in this article, as long as Wikipedia does not shut down.
How can you accuse me with such words "just .... and then not discuss anything"? please check the history of this talk page and its archives first, whether or not I jointed the discussion, and if i did not, to whom did you reply here?

Republic of China is not only now listed in rump state and this article, but also in many other lists e.g.List of sovereign states. Can you give me a better example of another sovereign state (except ROC) also being regard as GiE? The so-called rump state is actually not the key issue, just a question of the perspective,. Even the United Kingdom can be treated as a rump state(if any guys has interest to do that), because the UK also lost lots of its previous　territories in Today's India, USA, Canada etc., but it's not issue here.
My POV is very simple, ROC is a sovereign state since 1912(despite of the change of its actual territory), still recognized by 23 sovereign states until now, and has many officially informal diplomatic relationships with the rest sovereign states[34] (so-called not de jure recognized), even with PRC. That's the fact. GiE is just a temporary political organization and resides in a foreign country which has its effective sovereign power; none of any sovereign state can/should be listed in category of GiE. If some guys did so, it's not NPOV and factual accuracy of related section is questionable, the related tags are necessary to indicate such problem.
Finally, exactly just because of the unbalanced & questionable editing, it gives some guys the chance to manipulate.
--SH9002 (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, all Wikipedian disputes are suppose to be resolved by the arbitration committee. Those articles that you mentioned are just not popular articles, so people just forgot about them. That is not the case with this article.

Ok fine, you want to get technical? You went away from June 22 to July 15, when Ngchen removed the tag because of the lack of discussion. You come back on July 15 and restore the tag, but you went away from July 19 until early August (and you were definitely on Wikipedia after July 19), that's twice already.

As for the ROC, Your POV is your POV. Wikipedia is based on source. We have sources saying that it is a sovereign state/rump state, but we also have source saying that it is a GIE, which is why it is on all these lists. Since the dispute exists, both "ROC is a sovereign state" and "ROC is a GIE" are POVs, and both should be mentioned per NPOV. Trying to decide whether sources are right or wrong are "analysis of published material" which is original research. That is why Mafia's edits are OR, and you're doing the same thing as him now.

Finally regarding the Deep Greens. Those Deep Greens are lying to their own supporters. If somebody wants to lie, they could even do that with a feature article. Wikipedia cannot stop it and that is not wikipedia's problem. Currently, the article presents both the rump state POV and the GIE pov, thus it is conforming to NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

T-1000, let me quote it for you, some words above, "If the issue is not resolved the tag should stay. Regardless of the time passed.... -- Alinor"
But, removing tags just based on the argument of "lack of discussion", this is really a funny rule　according to some guys' OR for the Wikipedia guideline, it should be the greatest innovation since the founding of the Wikipedia. Ok, T-1000, if you are correct, it's your duty now to remove those tons of old tags[35] in another articles which are lack the discussion more than a month. Please go to finish your job　and take your responsibility for Wikipedia. May be, we don't even need the arbitration committee any more, all disputes would be resolved automatically, just don't talk about it more then one month, and then the world of wikipedia will be peaceful again, it's really wonderful. LOL
for the farcical　technical evidence you showed above about my usage of Wikipedia. I can only tell me, that I use Wikipedia all most every day, just not doing editing every time. BTW, I am not paid by Wikimedia to do any editorial work for this article, it's not my duty to wait　every day & every hour for some body coming to talk about something, even not suggestive at all.
I have also given your the source above, here show you again[36]. If you like to ignore it. it's also fine, just don't blame on me that way.　I don't have any web page created by my self to advocate any political theory, like Mafia or their guys here have done.
"ROC is a state", this was already listed in Wikipedia[37](sorry, it also was not done by myself, SH9002), even so the ROC is not generally recognized since 1970's.
My point of view here is totally an editorial one, "None of any state(generally recognized or not) should be listed in this category".
T-1000, I don't think you can improve the article about this issues constructive any more. If you don't understand the problem here, just go to read the things what another editors and I have said & repeated above many times. I don't want to copy it for your here again & again & again... It's useless, when you don't want to see it. And excuse me, It does mean the problem is solved or discussions are stopped. It's just to give every one more time to think about it until some guys find a much better solution, that is. Thanks a lot!
--SH9002 (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've requested help from an administrator. T-1000 (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment here so here goes. I do agree with the above that even though no there was discussion for months, that doesn't necessarily mean that the problems with the article have been resolved. If this is the case and it's evident that the issues or problems haven't been resolved then the tags should stay in my opinion. Removing them may also lead to people forgetting about the issues in the article. Hope that helps. Elockid ^(Talk) 14:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll - what to do with the Republic of China

What should we do with the issue of the Republic of China? I've previously pointed out that it's impossible to both include and exclude it from the list of governments-in-exile. I am for including it, and clearly marking it with a parenthetical (disputed) to note the fact that whether it's in exile or not is disputed. If there are other permanent suggestions I would love to hear them. Ngchen (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

My personal POV is that the RoC is a rump state and not a GiE, however there is also a very strong POV that the RoC is a GiE. NPOV states that both POVs are to be included, so aye, the dispution needs to be noted if the RoC is listed as a GiE. I've already done the liberty of 'graying' out the RoC so that it becomes distinct and people can notice from the description that the GiE status is disputed. Liu Tao (talk) 04:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Tibet

I made an explained edit to this article removing both the "governments in exile" of Tibet and "East Turkestan", and User:Liu Tao reverted me, not addressing my reasons for removal but telling me to refer to the talk page before making another edit. I see that Liu Tao made the argument (for the Republic of China case) that just because an organization does not control its territory, does not mean that it isn't a government in exile. Or something like that.

Both cases of Tibet and Turkestan are different from the Republic of China, however. The Central Tibetan Administration is not a government in exile in the true sense. It's commonly called that, and it elects its leadership, but it does not want to return to Tibet and govern (its tasks are to handle Tibetan refugees and to lobby for a "free Tibet")—and its members are not made up of the previous Tibetan government. It is definitely not a "deposed government". The "East Turkestan government in exile" is basically an obscure website formed in 2004, no relation to any previous government of the territory it claims, and the group operates solely in the U.S.A. It is not like its neighbors, deposed and notable former government officials from Serbian Krajina, Biafra, or Chechnya. There's already a huge list of active separatist movements: we don't have to take liberties with the definition of "government in exile". Quigley (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

A GiE does not have to be a previously existing government or deposed government to be a GiE. Here is the definition as provided by the article: A government in exile is a temporary political group that claims to be a country's legitimate government, but for various reasons is unable to exercise its legal power, and instead resides in a foreign country. Based on this article, any temporary political group can be a GiE. In the case of the CTA, it definitely would be considered a GiE. As for East Turkestan, I would have to disagree with you in the fact that there are multiple groups, some being armed insurgents which are advocating or in some cases, fighting for an independent East Turkestan.

I've taken a look at your link list of active separatist movements, and I have to say that there are a bit of a difference between secessionist movements and GiEs. GiEs in the context of secessionism are the actual organisations/governments that are advocating for secession which are not allowed to 'exist' in their claimed territory, at least that is how we've come to understand it. A secessionist movement however does not necessarily amount to a GiE as some of their groups are 'allowed' to exist within the claimed territory (political parties eg. DPP in the RoC). You've actually brought up something with the link, I will need some time to reorganise my thoughts and think, we may have to revise our definition and consensus of what exactly a Government in Exile is. Liu Tao (talk) 22:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed we have to clarify what a GIE is, but even under the very broad criteria you cite "as provided by the article", the CTA still doesn't make the cut. As I said, it doesn't pretend to be the government of Tibet. Can you make an argument as to why it does, instead of just contradicting? Quigley (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I will have to ask you to expand on what you mean by 'pretend'. I thought that the CTA claims the Tibet Area (Tibet Autonomous Region and other 'historical' Tibetan 'territories'). If the issue with Tibet is just that whether or not it claims to be the 'legit' government over Tibet, then we just need to find some kind of source sourcing the CTA's claims and policy towards Tibet. Liu Tao (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was, the CTA does not claim to be the 'legit government'. What the CTA considers to be 'Tibet' or 'historical Tibet' has no bearing on that. Quigley (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Then in that case we will have to find some kind of policy of the CTA pertaining whether or not if it claims Tibet or not, as we disagree on what their policy is (I say they claim Tibet, you say they don't). Liu Tao (talk) 16:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

From the last paragraph from "about CTA" on the CTA's own website:

Today, the CTA has all the departments and attributes of a free democratic administration. It must be noted, though, that the CTA is not designed to take power in Tibet. In his manifesto for future Tibet, entitled the Guidelines for Future Tibet’s Polity and Basic Features of its Constitution, His Holiness the Dalai Lama stated that the present exile administration would be dissolved as soon as freedom is restored in Tibet. The Tibetans currently residing in Tibet, he said, would head the government of free Tibet, not by the members of the exile administration.

Quigley (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

On the same page, the CTA describes itself as follows:

On 29 April 1959, His Holiness the Dalai Lama established the Tibetan exile administration in the north Indian hill station of Mussoorie. Named the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, this is the continuation of the government of independent Tibet. In May 1960, the CTA was moved to Dharamsala.

The Tibetan people, both in and outside Tibet, look to the CTA as their sole and legitimate representative. This and the administration’s commitment to truth, non-violence and genuine democracy as its inviolable principles mean that it is now being recognised increasingly by parliaments and general public round the world as the legitimate and true representative of the Tibetan people.

The Central Tibetan Administration's position is ambiguous. They do not plan to become the government of Tibet in the future. However, right now, they see themselves as the legitimate representatives of the Tibetan people, and claim to be recognised both internally and internationally in this capacity. The CTA claims to be the continuation of the old Tibetan government, and this is not an unreasonable claim: the CTA was initially composed of Tibetan government officials, and, most importantly, it was founded by and is still headed by the Dalai Lama, who was the last ruler of the Ganden Phodrang independent or pseudo-independent government of Tibet and the leader of the Tibetan region under the PRC (also nominal chairman of PCTAR). On June 20, 1959, shortly after the founding the CTA, the Dalai Lama said at a press conference, "Wherever I am, accompanied by my Government, the Tibetan people recognise us as the government of Tibet." (quoted in Tsering Shakya, The Dragon in the Land of Snows, pg. 223) The CTA is also structured to resemble a government rather than any other type of organisation; its legislature is described as the Parliament-in-exile. The expression "Tibetan government-in-exile" is very common. One might also note that, if you look at the source code for tibet.net, it says, "<meta NAME="TITLE" content="Tibetan Government Official Website">" and "<meta NAME="DESCRIPTION" content="Tibetan Government Official Website with news, Tibetan Newpapers and Magazines Online, multilingugal, offices introduction">".

In view of these facts, although the status of the CTA (more commonly abbreviated TGIE) is ambiguous, it seems like we would doing better service to our readers by including it than by excluding it.—Greg Pandatshang (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, you may be right on the CTA. Okay, then I guess we'll remove the CTA for now, at least until we can finalise that it is a GiE. So then what about East Turkestan then? 204.126.132.34 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hold on about the CTA, I'm trying to compare them to the Government of Free Vietnam, National Council of Resistance of Iran, and Progress Party of Equatorial Guinea. What makes them different from the CTA? 204.126.132.34 (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference is that these three were established much later after their claimed exile dates (Vietnam) and independently of any former governments (all) - they are actually "opposition forces" that have declared a GiE as part of their activities - they are similar to the "separatist governments" with the difference that they don't wish to govern only part of the country (often some ethnic minority related part), but the whole country, as it is today. See below discussion. Alinor (talk) 05:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hamas

Since the retreat of Hamas to Gaza during the Fatah–Hamas conflict it is in situation similar to RoC - claiming to be the legitimate government, but controlling smaller part of the territory and losing control of the internationally recognized administration. So, maybe we should list Gaza/Hamas in the "subnational" list with gray color (to denote "partial" exile). Alinor (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

RoC flag

I propose that we change the neutrality/factual accuracy tags with a 'dubious - discussion link' tag (with the earliest of the current tag dates). The current tags format is meant for inserting into the article text, not inside tables - so they are very distracting. The dubious tag is much more suitable for insertion into a table. Alinor (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Alinor as a temporary measure. In terms of finding a permanent solution, should a list of those involved in the present dispute file a request for mediation with the mediation cabal? Ngchen (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Alinor, you have ignored the tag about neutrality of the section of ROC in related table, which was discussed many times[38][39] in the talk pages. I restored a comparable tag {{POV-statement}} for such debate again. --SH9002 (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought that 'dubious' covers both 'factual accuracy' and 'neutrality'. Anyway, I don't object with the additional tag - I objected only about the form of the previous tags that was meant for articles, not for rows of tables.
But what is this "mainly based on the political issue inside of the ROC" remark below "Republic of China"? It looks like "RoC is mainly based on political issue inside of RoC"... If you want to explain why the tags are there this should be done with hidden text before/after the flags and/or on the discussion page - the dubious flag has an argument for linking to the exact discussion, but haven't used it as RoC has too many - but if you have a prefered place to link to you can use it. Alinor (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

About the usage of tag's templates, please look the related explanation - Template:POV-statement#Resolving_disputes_-_templates, the only tag that covers both Dispute and POV is the {{Controversial}} Box. I don't think, it is suitable for this case.
To the text inside of parentheses, I want to indicate that "this classification of ROC as GiE" is "mainly based on the political issue inside of the ROC", not for the explanation about the tags. Thanks for your feedback, so I try to make some change for that indication. (what about "This classification is mainly caused by/based on the political issues inside of the ROC."[40]?)
Btw, I have checked it out, that is much difficult to link discussion sections to these 2 tags, {{POV-statement}} and {{dubious}}, because there are too many sections in the talk pages related to ROC and some of them were already being archived. It seems impossible to link the archived sections to tags. --SH9002 (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes and yes. The current revision is an improvement, but why not use a straight "Classification of RoC as GiE is mainly based on ..."? Anyway, I'm not sure that such note is needed - the "notes" column is already describing the issue in much bigger detail. IMHO it would suffice to add a single line there such as "Classification of RoC as GiE is controversial", if such is not already present. Alinor (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

It's long history of the reason for that 2 additional dispute tags in the first column, you can look the old discussion about this issue. If you can read Chinese word in this picture, which is on a blog of the taiwan independence supporter. It shows exactly how they manipulate different language version of Wikipedia as a "valid" source to advocate their political ideology(they used english version to support their fringe theory instead of using chinese version of GiE, because (1) not all of their supporter understand english, the additional describing in the information column is useless. (2) they want to let their supporter to believe that ROC as GiE is an international commonsense, even Wikipedia also "admits that should be the fact" ). I'm confident that some of them added this controversial classification of the ROC as GiE in the Wikipedia at end of 2009, and then in May 2010 arose a debate in ROC about if ROC is or not a GiE. It was a kind of cyberwar and media war used for the political issue in ROC. So the additional note even in the first column is necessary to prevent the Wikipedia being abused by any political group. The note about the controversial classification in first column was indicated by that 2 tags and text of "this classification is mainly caused by ...." indicates where such disputed classification comes from. Or, your suggestion maybe better, but I am not sure. --SH9002 (talk) 01:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As previously noted, we cannot prevent people from lying to their own supporters. We can only present the truth, as reported by various sources. So do you have any suggestions as to how we can neutrally present the disputed status of the ROC? Ngchen (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

what for a truth do you want to tell every body? the only fact i know is, there is no any sovereign state calls ROC as a GiE, only some TI supporters with U.S. or ROC citizenship etc., they personally use such funny term for their purpose. I don't know if any one (or some so-called expert/historian) calls U.S. as an Anglo Government in exile or Israel as Jews Government in exile, is it enough as "valid reference/source" to list U.S. or Israel in this GiE category? It's just a political farce. Well, at moment I haven't any much better suggestion for a much more neutral way other than setting some related tags/notes to indicate such problem. --SH9002 (talk) 18:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Start by explaining in the notes section how the ROC currently has full de facto sovereignty over Taiwan and several other territories, and considers itself the de jure sovereign over all of China, as well as some territories outside current Chinese control (e.g. Mongolia). Then, explain that some supporters of Taiwan independence consider the ROC to be a GiE based on arguments XYZ. Next, note that the PRC does not consider the ROC legitimate, and that this view is held by a number of states. On the left side, we can then leave the ROC with a parenthetical (disputed). Ngchen (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any different from the current version, if ROC would still be listed in that table. Whether ROC is legitimate or not for PRC, PRC had never claimed that ROC is a GiE. If i am wrong, then show me the evidence/source and add it to the text. But the other PRC's claim/POV about illegitimacy of ROC government isn't important in this article. it belongs to the political status of Taiwan. --SH9002 (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

remove "expansion" tags in "List of current GiEs"

There is a "list incomplete" tag, but I don't see what other entity we could add - if someone knows - let's tell/add it, otherwise I propose to remove this tag (the "list incomplete" tag in the "historical GiEs" probably should remain).

There are two "section should be expanded" tags in the name column of the separatist table. I don't see how the names can be expanded and also both rows have big enough description column/resume - do we really need to add any additional info in these rows? I mean, additional infos should be in the articles of the GiEs, not in the list here, right? I propose to remove these two tags. Alinor (talk) 08:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are totally different disputes about ROC

To the edit dispute on 15 October 2010:
T-1000, the dispute between ROC and PRC is totally different from issue of the so-called territory dispute about Taiwan island between the different political groups inside of ROC today.
(1) PRC has no doubt that ROC got the sovereignty over Taiwan after ww2, PRC said China(PRC/ROC) got the Taiwan back after ww2. PRC only denied the existent of ROC after 1949, PRC treats itself as the successor of ROC. But after president of ROC Ma Ying-jeou proposed the ‘mutual non-denial’ policy in 2008, PRC has actually accepted his strategy until now[41]. That means there is no dispute about any particular territory between PRC and ROC government, it's the question about the State entities of ROC/PRC between them.
(2) But the debate about if ROC has sovereignty over Taiwan & Penghu or not is only mainly disputed between the different political groups inside of ROC. There is and was no other sovereign state joined in such dispute from 1950s until now. It's different as the case of dispute about Falkland Islands or Diaoyu Islands. As I have said, sovereignty is a state property, not a right of any individuals.
(3) The word of Taiwan has actually multiple meanings dependent on the perspective of different parties. It times refers to ROC and times refers to the Taiwan island or province, in the different issues or contexts. so the "dispute about Taiwan" is not equal to "the dispute about Taiwan".
To the text you edited, "For example, in 1952 peace treaties with Japan arguably transferred sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu to the ROC" is not correct, neither PRC nor ROC government said, the sovereignty over Taiwan was transferred to ROC/China after ww2. They say that China/ROC got Taiwan back (in Chinese hand). In 1952, Japan hadn't transferred any territories to any state through the treaties as I know, but only renounced its sovereignty over related territories through peace treaties (e.g. Treaty of San Francisco-SFPT). Then ROC got Taiwan back in terms of terra nullius[42], like Soviet got Sakhalin, Kurile after the SFPT, even if Soviet didn't sign the SFPT, and soviet also didn't need to sign any treaty to get a terra nullius, ROC did the same, what they only need to do is the actually and effectively occupation of a terra nullius. Here repeats the explanation about the latin word about terra nullius once again[43], "If guys check another latin words like nullius filius：literally "nobody's son", A child of unknown parentage; an orphan.[44]; res nullius: (law) Something that has no owner (see: Res nullius), it's clearly terra nullius is about land not legally belonging to anyone. It doesn't matter if it is populated or not. It's about legal ownership[45], like Antarctica, its status as terra nullius is enforced by the Antarctic Treaty System, even if Antarctica is already populated by scientists from different countries. so, if any territory abandoned by its former sovereign owner, it status changes to terra nullius until next one occupies it effectively & declares his ownership explicitly/implicitly. That is the case ROC got de jure sovereignty over Taiwan & Penghu, & USSR got de jure sovereignty over Sakhalin etc. as japan renounced all right to those territories in 1952". That means the owners of the related territories were changed, but not through transfer.
so the appropriate text should be "In 1952, ROC held the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu through peace treaties with Japan" (and no other state occupied the Taiwan and penghu except ROC in 1952, and the United States and the other Allied Powers have accepted the exercise of the Chinese authority over the island at that time[46].), which followed with "Due to the controversial legal status of Taiwan, the ROC can be argued to have been and be the legal sovereign over Taiwan, but the opposite can also be argued...."
And the text of "... the ROC is still officially recognized by more than 20 states" is better then using 23 states, because the source is 29[47] which shows the status in 1996, different from the status in 2010, and if it would be changed is unknown. so in this case a little bit ambiguous number is better than an accurate one.
--SH9002 (talk) 21:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

PRC believes that it has Taiwan's sovereignty from 1949 to present, nor does it recognize any ROC-Japan peace treaties. Therefore, it certainly disagrees with "In 1952, ROC held the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu through peace treaties with Japan" and the PRC's POV cannot be ignored per NPOV. As for the number of states, "more" and "less" are POV language. A deep Green can change it to "ROC is recognized by less than 30 states" to try to imply that ROC is illegitimate. T-1000 (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

oh, it's really funny assumption. But actually, the ROC-Japan peace treaty in 1952 is a fact and had nothing to do with PRC, just like any treaty between Russia and PRC that define the borders between this 2 states doesn't need any recognition of the Unite State. There is no source shows PRC has any POV about the ROC doesn't hold the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan & Penghu. PRC has only questionable POV about if ROC is legal or not/(does it exist or not now) in the law/political system of PRC, and vice verse, pls check One-China policy. The POV of PRC about Taiwan island, is only that "Taiwan is part of China/PRC", PRC didn't say any words like "Taiwan is not part of ROC" or "ROC is not China". if you find any evidence against this, pls show it to me.
Btw, the time of exile for the ROC is funny & should be removed or replaced with a question mark, like source notes[48] ROC "was until 1971 one of the five permanent members of the Security Council" of United Nations. And until 1979 U.S. had still the officially diplomatic relationship with ROC. Can it mean that PRC was in exile until 1971 or 1979, and ROC goes in exile from 1971 or 1979?
About the number of states, "more than" or "less than" is not POV words, but art of counting, totally neutral. I wouldn't against the text like "between 20 to 30", if any deep green wants to engage such dispute. There is no int. standard about number of the recognized state that affects/defines the legitimacy of one state entity. It only dependents on the related parties. --SH9002 (talk) 01:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

But the PRC considers the ROC to no longer (legitimately) exist, and the states that do not recognize the ROC's existence are many, such as the USA, UK, and basically every state that has diplomatic relations with the PRC. Using that line of reasoning, the ROC would also be a "government in exile," although not in the same sense that the deep-greens use the term. Due to this and the related green-based controversy of whether the ROC ever "legitimately" acquired Taiwan, I still believe that the only fair way to present the information would be to simply list the ROC with a parenthetical "disputed," and direct the reader to the political status of Taiwan article for details. Ngchen (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

PRC claims that ROC no longer exists after 1949, something that doesn't exist in 1952 can't hold sovereignty. T-1000 (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

come on, is PRC the god of world?(if the claim of PRC can justify any thing then it should be in UN in 1949 not wait until 1971, but PRC doesn't have such capability) If PRC does really think ROC doesn't exist, with whom can PRC negotiate the issue of reunification? vice versa, ROC also doesn't considers the PRC to (legitimately) exist, then must PRC also be a GiE and PRC also doesn't hold any sovereignty, right? UK stopped diplomatic relations with ROC in 1950s, but USA until 1979, and ROC was still one of the five permanent members of the Security Council of UN until 1971. so can any one tell me when ROC disappeared or died, in 1950s, 1971, 1979 or etc.? Btw, USA, Japan, south korea etc. have also no diplomatic relationships with north korea, then north korea should not exist? or should be GiE, by using some line of reasoning? In addition, there are enough int. treaties/laws/law theories, which conflict with each other. So my POV is whether or not any one want to dispute the so-called "legitimately" acquire Taiwan by ROC and whether or not any state has diplomatic relations with ROC, doesn't affect the action in 1952, ROC held the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu through peace treaties, when Japan renounced sovereignty over related territories. --SH9002 (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the PRC is not the god of the world. But surely it's POV is substantially mainstream to merit mention, right? Now, in terms of who holds territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and assorted lands, such is a highly disputed question with the gory details available at legal status of Taiwan. Maybe we're confusing diplomatic relations with recognition of sovereignty, whether explicit or implicit. For instance, the USA recognizes the Cuban government as sovereign over Cuba, but does not have diplomatic relations with it. North Korea is a trickier case w/r/t the USA (no diplomatic relations, minimal contacts, although the US Secretary of State visited years ago.) My point is that the views of the ROC, PRC, and TI supporters are all sufficiently prominent that they should all be mentioned. Ngchen (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

pls don't mix the total different disputes into one. PRC had never said ROC is GiE. PRC's announcement "Taiwan is part of China/PRC" is based on the logic that ROC got Taiwan total legally, and PRC is the successor of ROC. PRC didn't recognise the ROC-Japan peace treaty is only because that treaty imply that ROC is still exist as a state entity, but PRC had never denied that ROC held the sovereignty over Taiwan & Penghu islands. Without this fact, PRC couldn't said Taiwan is part of PRC. If you understand chinese, you can check median in the PRC. They criticized Tsi's opinion because that makes Taiwan as a foreign territory. Again, the dispute about the state entities between ROC & PRC has nothing to do with the debate about the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan island between political groups inside of ROC. Sovereignty of a state entity is one issue, and the territorial sovereignty is the other. They are totally different. BTW, yes, diplomatic relation doesn't automatically connect with recognition of the sovereignty. but, this is again an new issue. Finally, if you guys can't find source to support T-1000 assumption that PRC deny ROC has the sovereignty over taiwan island, then i will restore that old version. However, any POV of PRC doesn't affect "the event" that ROC held sovereignty over Taiwan in 1952(that supported by the source). Any dispute or opposite opinion can follow that part of text. That's no problem. Just like PRC was established in 1949 (this is an event), but until 1970s it was recognized as a (legitimate) state entity by the UN and USA. --SH9002 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, all PRC sources show that ROC doesn't exist after 1949. ROC holding sovereignty over Taiwan would make ROC a country, and PRC certainly does not agree with ROC being a country. Fact, according to Wikipedia, is something without notable disputes, and the PRC' POV is a notable dispute. T-1000 (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

(1) Any POV of PRC doesn't affects an history event supported by the notable source (2) In this article we need the direct source to show PRC's POV about if or not "ROC is GiE", not other unrelated POVs, or "any so-called POV of PRC" deduced by yourself. (3) What you called notable dispute here belongs to the other articles, e.g. political status of Taiwan, and that argument doesn't show any direct POV of PRC about "if ROC held the sovereignty over Taiwan or not". btw, the source above shows PRC didn't occupy Taiwan in 1952, so the related law principles aren't applicable to the PRC. (4) the One China Policy shows PRC knows exactly ROC does exist. otherwise PRC doesn't need to require other state entities to break the diplomatic relations with ROC first, then can establish a diplomatic relation with him. --SH9002 (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have a source, but the PRC also have sources, when sources are in disagreement, there is a dispute which is what Ngchen and I have been saying all along. There is an argument that the ROC held sovereignty in 1952, but it is only an argument since PRC do not accept it. That's why the word arguably needs to be there. Your original statement was "In 1952, ROC held the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu through peace treaties with Japan" and the PRC's POV is that ROC held Taiwan's sovereignty only until 1949, when it cease to exist. After 1949, PRC held sovereignty of Taiwan. The event you mentioned was ROC signing a piece of paper in 1952, but whether this piece of paper is valid is disputed by the PRC. You are stating a POV as fact, which violates NPOV.
Here is the source you wanted, clearly shows that PRC's POV is that China got Taiwan back in 1945, not 1952, and through the Cairo Declaration, not ROC-Japan peace treaties. [49].
T-1000 (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As I said, any POV of PRC doesn't affect the event in 1952. And that is just a POV, any POV doesn't change the existent of a notable historical event. Excuse me, the signatures of Treaty of San Francisco & ROC-Japan peace treaty isn't POV, ok? If any one want to dispute about its validity, that's just because treaty exists. If you want to add different POV against that treaty, it's fine. pls just follow that part of text. This is the way of NPOV.
The source you gave shows only (in PRC's POV) that ROC got Taiwan was in 1945 (this could be treated as de facto), but the event in 1952 was totally in the sense of de jure. They are different and don't conflict to each other. In your source it only says "...推翻了南京的“中华民国”政府..." in english is "...overturned the ROC government in Najing". No problem, because at that time ROC government already retreated to Taiwan. PRC's POV just claim PRC government is theoretically the so-called the only legitimate government for all China. so what ROC government did same. It's the problem of political status of Taiwan. nothing to do with this article. And PRC still doesn't say any words in your source that "ROC is not China" or "Taiwan is not part of ROC." Whatever, this doesn't change that Taiwan is still in ROC's hand. Meanwhile, your source shows no information about GiE, this could also means PRC thinks that ROC government is in some where in the part of China, even though PRC doesn't like use the term of "ROC government", whatever which term PRC like to use is still connected to ROC government, the partner with which PRC government wants to talk about the issue of reunification. If you indeed want to note the PRC's POV that Taiwan back to China was in 1945. you can just append it after the text of "In 1952, ROC held the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu through peace treaties with Japan", but nothing more. Finally, pls don't put any deduced information by yourself like "After 1949, PRC held sovereignty of Taiwan" into the text. Even PRC government didn't say like that. Don't forget, until now PRC has not overturned the ROC government in Taipei, and there is also no peace treaty between ROC and PRC government. --SH9002 (talk) 00:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's the same issue. The 白皮书 clearly states that "中华人民共和国政府是中国的唯一合法政府，台湾是中国的一部分" and you're going to argue PRC didn't say "ROC is not China" or "Taiwan is not part of ROC"? Since PRC regards ROC as illegitimate, then any treaty ROC signs with Japan is also illegitimate in the PRC's POV. The treaty's existence is not POV, but the treaty's ability to transfer sovereignty is POV. the 1952 treaties were not mentioned in the 白皮书. In the end, "In 1952, ROC held the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu through peace treaties with Japan" is only the ROC's position, and to state a position as fact, as you have done, violates NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 02:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

excuse me, pls look it carefully ,the source I found does not come from ROC government, it comes from the book of Henckaerts, Jean-Marie(The international status of Taiwan in the new world order: legal and political considerations), that shows some juridical positions of the Japanese courts in 1950s and some of the independent scholars. They note the historical events in 1950s that justifies the de jure sovereignty of ROC over Taiwan island. let me note it here again "on p7. of the book “In any case, there appears to be strong legal ground to support the view that since the entry into force of the 1952 ROC-Japan bilateral peace treaty, Taiwan has become the de jure territory of the ROC. This interpretation of the legal status of Taiwan is confirmed by several Japanese court decisions. For instance, in the case of Japan v. Lai Chin Jung, decided by the Tokyo High Court on December 24, 1956, it was stated that ‘Formosa and the Pescadores came to belong to the Republic of China, at any rate on August 5, 1952, when the [Peace] Treaty between Japan and the Republic of China came into force…’” on p8. “the principles of prescription and occupation that may justify the ROC's claim to Taiwan certainly are not applicable to the PRC because the application of these two principles to the Taiwan situation presupposes the validity of the two peace treaties by which Japan renounce its claim to Taiwan and thus makes the island terra nullius.”", In the text I didn't note any official position of any state government. Those 2 treaties are not POV, they are the historical events/documents. If any one wants to dispute or protect the validity of the treaties, That is then the different POV about the treaties. Don't mix the different issues. the the following text "Due to the controversial legal status of Taiwan, the ROC can be argued to have been and be the legal sovereign over Taiwan, but the opposite can also be argued. " has already balanced the different perspectives. Nothing violates NPOV. Again, I have said, if you want to add more different opinions about those events. It's no problem, just follow that part of text.
In the white book of PRC government says "中华人民共和国政府是中国的唯一合法政府，台湾是中国的一部分" in english is "..PRC government is the only legitimate government of China, Taiwan is part of China...". That is it. don't deduce any unrelated things by yourself. ok? Any POV of PRC about if those 2 treaties are valid or not, doesn't affect the existent of the historical events. You can freely append PRC's position. It's your choice. --SH9002 (talk) 03:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If you admit that "the ROC can be argued to have been and be the legal sovereign over Taiwan, but the opposite can also be argued", then why do you state "In 1952, ROC held the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu through peace treaties with Japan" as a fact? Aren't you contradicting yourself? T-1000 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you are contradicting yourself or have logical problem. It's very simple. If the event of "ROC held the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan etc. through treaties with Japan in 1952" doesn't exist, then there is no logical base to discuss if that territorial sovereignty changing is valid or not. Similarly, only when the event of "PRC found as a state entity in 1949" exists, then other countries has logical base to recognize if PRC as a state entity is a legitimate or not. --SH9002 (talk) 14:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

But that is precisely where the Problem is. There is a disagreement over which "event" transferred sovereignty of Taiwan to China. ROC believes that the event is the 1952 peace treaties with Japan, but PRC believes that it is 1945 with the Cairo Declaration. Since there is a dispute over which "event" did this, you cannot put the ROC POV as fact. T-1000 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think You have a big Problem with understanding. I'm sorry to say that. Pls look it carefully again, the source I found comes from the book of Henckaerts, Jean-Marie(The international status of Taiwan in the new world order: legal and political considerations), that shows some juridical positions of the Japanese courts in 1950s and some of the independent scholars. They note the historical events in 1950s that justifies the de jure sovereignty of ROC over Taiwan island. The source notes:
"on p7. of the book “In any case, there appears to be strong legal ground to support the view that since the entry into force of the 1952 ROC-Japan bilateral peace treaty, Taiwan has become the de jure territory of the ROC. This interpretation of the legal status of Taiwan is confirmed by several Japanese court decisions. For instance, in the case of Japan v. Lai Chin Jung, decided by the Tokyo High Court on December 24, 1956, it was stated that ‘Formosa and the Pescadores came to belong to the Republic of China, at any rate on August 5, 1952, when the [Peace] Treaty between Japan and the Republic of China came into force…’”
on p8. “the principles of prescription and occupation that may justify the ROC's claim to Taiwan certainly are not applicable to the PRC because the application of these two principles to the Taiwan situation presupposes the validity of the two peace treaties by which Japan renounce its claim to Taiwan and thus makes the island terra nullius.”",
In the text I didn't note any official position of any state government. Treaty of San Francisco & ROC-Japan peace treaty are not POVs, they are the historical events/documents. Any disputes or comments about the validity of the treaties is then called POV. Don't confuse the different things.
In the old version, the description of the event is "In 1952, ROC held the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu through peace treaties with Japan", and that part of description then followed with different POVs about that events(added by Ngchen on 27 September 2010) "Due to the controversial legal status of Taiwan, the ROC can be argued to have been and be the legal sovereign over Taiwan, but the opposite can also be argued. " That's it.
Again, if you want to extend more different opinions or the PRC's position about those events/treaties. just append them after that part of text. Don't waste our energy to repeat again & again the old talk.
In addition, as said before, !!! in 1952 the owners of the related territories were changed, but not through transfer !!!
I really don't know, such description like "PRC found as a state entity in 1949" is for you an event or the POV? For me it's just an event. You can comment that PRC is legal or illegal, this is then so-called POV. --SH9002 (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You said "They note the historical events in 1950s that justifies the de jure sovereignty of ROC over Taiwan island." Ok, now answer the Question, does everyone agree that these historical events justified the de jure sovereignty of ROC over Taiwan island? I know that your book agree, but does PRC agree? T-1000 (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

It's the book of Henckaerts, not mine. And if you want to append other opposite opinions about the events, just to extend "but the opposite can also be argued" with the valid source you found (better not from blog or some private sites. but maybe also ok, because deep greens already did many times in this article). pls! --SH9002 (talk) 00:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The book of Henckaerts is POV (the POV of the Japanese court cases) because the PRC does not agree with it (notable dispute). Since the book of Henckaerts is POV, then the statement ""In 1952, ROC held the territorial sovereignty over Taiwan and Penghu through peace treaties with Japan" is also POV. And you can't state a POV as fact. T-1000 (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

come on, in Henckaerts' book there notes the events, also presents the different POVs, just like every book did. If you have understanding problem. sorry it's just waste time to repeat old talk. --SH9002 (talk) 00:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Henckaerts' book did not Present the PRC's POV. T-1000 (talk) 00:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)