| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One China article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on One-China policy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061211233313/http://www.nwc.navy.mil/apsg/communiques.htm to http://www.nwc.navy.mil/apsg/communiques.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Proposed Change
editThe first sentence of this article defines the one china policy as "insists both the Taiwan area and mainland China are inalienable parts of a single China". Many countries have it's own one china policy. Some of them, such as the United States's one China policy agrees that there is only one country of China, but leaves deliberate ambiguity about whether Taiwan is part of China. This makes the current definition inaccurate. The current citation also does not support the definition. I propose to change it into:
"One China policy" is a policy saying that there is only one country of China, despite the fact that there are two governments, China (officially the People's Republic of China) and Taiwan (officially the Republic of China), with the official name of China.
and elaborate the stance of different countries in the content.
The sentence of in the lead of "An analogous situation..." is original research and I propose to remove it.
The section 3.2 is about territory of the ROC, and is not directly related to the one china policy, so I propose to remove it. Uaat (talk) 23:39, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Note: the OP has unilaterally implemented his version without any consensus made. --117.136.106.112 (talk) 03:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Uaat, the 1992 Consensus states that there is only One China, therefore I may have to re-add back section 3.2 since the ROC's constitution stipulates that they still claim the ownership of the Mainland. Outer Mongolia is no longer part of ROC's territory c. 2012. -135.23.145.49 (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, the 1992 Consensus is disputed in Taiwan and not the policy of the current Taiwanese government, and it is already mentioned in the "Viewpoints within Taiwan" section. Whether the ROC's constitution still claim the ownership of the Mainland is also disputed. See Talk:Taiwan/Archive_26#Remove_ROC_"continues_to_view_itself_as_the_sole_representative_of_China." Furthermore, the ROC constitution does not distinguish between Outer Mongolia and mainland China when mentioning territory, so it is contradictory to say that the ROC's constitution still claim the ownership of the Mainland, and Outer Mongolia is no longer part of ROC's territory.--Uaat (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note that the ROC has officially given up its territorial claim over Outer Mongolia since 2003. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the point is that the territorial claims of the ROC constitution is disputed and should not be stated assertively in the article. Even if we interpret the constitution as claiming all China, another issue is that is it legally valid for the government to give up territorial claim without a constitution amendment? With such complicated disputes, this really shouldn't be in the article.--Uaat (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- According to the ROC's own press release in 2012, before the ROC officially adopted its constitution on 25 December 1947, it already recognized the independence of Outer Mongolia, and therefore Outer Mongolia is not part of the definition of its "mainland". In other words, the ROC's change to its territorial claim over Outer Mongolia does not require a constitution amendment. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:53, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the point is that the territorial claims of the ROC constitution is disputed and should not be stated assertively in the article. Even if we interpret the constitution as claiming all China, another issue is that is it legally valid for the government to give up territorial claim without a constitution amendment? With such complicated disputes, this really shouldn't be in the article.--Uaat (talk) 14:28, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Note that the ROC has officially given up its territorial claim over Outer Mongolia since 2003. --Matt Smith (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, the 1992 Consensus is disputed in Taiwan and not the policy of the current Taiwanese government, and it is already mentioned in the "Viewpoints within Taiwan" section. Whether the ROC's constitution still claim the ownership of the Mainland is also disputed. See Talk:Taiwan/Archive_26#Remove_ROC_"continues_to_view_itself_as_the_sole_representative_of_China." Furthermore, the ROC constitution does not distinguish between Outer Mongolia and mainland China when mentioning territory, so it is contradictory to say that the ROC's constitution still claim the ownership of the Mainland, and Outer Mongolia is no longer part of ROC's territory.--Uaat (talk) 14:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Uaat, the 1992 Consensus states that there is only One China, therefore I may have to re-add back section 3.2 since the ROC's constitution stipulates that they still claim the ownership of the Mainland. Outer Mongolia is no longer part of ROC's territory c. 2012. -135.23.145.49 (talk) 01:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
IPA
editThe IPA transcriptions for Yīgè Zhōngguó zhèngcè and Yīgè Zhōngguó yuánzé look wrong to to me, particularly the one for zhèngcè giving an alveolar-velar [nk] cluster, but I don't actually speak Chinese. There might be good reasons for some things, like why some of the falling tones are not written (perhaps they're neutral tones in Taiwanese Mandarin).DubleH (talk) 04:21, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Removed polls
editRemoved these polls which have nothing to do with one china policy, but US-China relations. DrIdiot (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
The United States public opinion on the One-China Policy is much more ambiguous than the opinions of the American political elites and policy experts. A Pew Research poll from 2012 found that 84% of policy experts believed it to be very important to for the U.S. to build a strong relationship with China, whereas only 55% of the general public agreed with that statement.[1][2] However, U.S. popular attitudes towards the People's Republic of China are negative, where China is viewed as an economic adversary rather than a friendly rival. A 2015 Pew Research poll found that 60% of Americans view the loss of jobs to China as very serious, compared to only 21% who view the tensions between China and Taiwan as very serious.[3][4]
References
- ^ "U.S. Public, Experts Differ on China Policies". Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project. 18 September 2012. Archived from the original on 4 October 2017. Retrieved 2 November 2017.
- ^ Bush, Richard (March 2017). "A One-China Policy Primer" (PDF). East Asia Policy Paper. 10: 12. Archived (PDF) from the original on 7 November 2017. Retrieved 2 November 2017.
- ^ "6 facts about how Americans and Chinese see each other". Pew Research Center. 30 March 2016. Archived from the original on 6 November 2017. Retrieved 2 November 2017.
- ^
Inc., Gallup. "China". Gallup.com. Archived from the original on 3 November 2017. Retrieved 2 November 2017.
{{cite news}}:|last=has generic name (help)
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
editThe following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Lead Section
editWhat is the difference between "One China" and "Cross-Strait relations"? Both phrases use similar language in the opening statements of their lead sections.
- "One China is a phrase describing the international relationship between the People's Republic of China (PRC), situated on the Chinese Mainland, and the Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan."
- "Cross-Strait relations (sometimes called Mainland–Taiwan relations, China–Taiwan relations or Taiwan–China relations) are the relations between China (officially the People's Republic of China, PRC) and Taiwan (officially the Republic of China, ROC)."
Chino-Catane (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
- Cross-Strait relations is about all of the different diplomatic relations between the two Chinas, "One China" is the specific stance on the legitimacy of either government as the de jure nation state of China as a single entity. This also falls under WP:WORDISSUBJECT, as its mostly about the specific phrase appearing in different statements and policies. Orchastrattor (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)