Talk:National Anthem of the Republic of China

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Old talk[edit]

Added some of the current politics of the TPP.

Also changed a lot of the wording. The interpretation at this point is not merely the interpretation of the KMT but rather also the official ROC government interpretation which at this point is not controlled by the KMT.

The term world peace has a special signficance. --Roadrunner

Good edits. --Menchi 22:46 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Three Principles of the People?[edit]

Where do you get that the ROC Anthem is called "Three Principles of the People"? It it called the ROC National Anthem in all official government Publications! --User


Still wondering where you got that anthem's name is "san min chu i". --User

Guess no one cares.

Anthem[edit]

Yeah it's not called "San Min Chu I" in Chinese. And I've never heard the title called "Three Principles of the People" in English, it's always "ROC National Anthem."

Sign your comments if you want anyone to reply. It's called Sanmin Zhuyi because it's its opening line. Lots of songs are named that way. eg. Das Horst Wessel Lied is also Die Fahne Hoch from its opening line.

Anyway, would an editor please find a mp3 file of the song? -Hmib 05:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This oversight has been corrected.
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E 07:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody delete the traditional chinese fonts and use simplified chinese fonts please?

Any particular reason? -- 我♥中國 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing this is an article on the Republic of China (Taiwan), a nation that uses traditional Chinese as its official written language. I don't think it's a good idea. Wen 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NATIONAL anthem?[edit]

To the anon editor who deleted his above comments: Regardless of whether you consider the ROC a nation, there's only one way to correctly translate into English "中華民國國歌". -- 我♥中國 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:ROC National Anthem inst.ogg[edit]

Image:ROC National Anthem inst.ogg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Banned in China??[edit]

I don't recall seeing any law that ban this song in China. Moreover, even if someone sings it in China, I doubt people would actually know this song since it was abolished by China since 1949.

The song in Hong Kong and Macau[edit]

I reverted the edit concerning the status of the song in Hong Kong and Macau. User:210.17.198.70 made an edit saying that this song is not encouraged in Hong Kong and Macau, however, it does not say it is not encouraged by whom. Moreover, I don't see any verifiable evidence that the song is not encouraged by the government, people in general, or any particular organisation in Hong Kong. What I am sure and factual is that it is rare to hear this song in Hong Kong and Macau. So to say that this song is disencouraged there is just a POV sentence. Thus I reverted the edit. Salt (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xiao'erjing transliteration[edit]

I doubt if it is necessary to provide a Xiao'erjing transliteration in English Wikipedia. Xiao'erjing is mainly used by Dungan people and was not an official transliteration system accepted by the government of Republic of China. There're many Chinese romanizations and in my opinion in this article we should use Zhuyin Fuhao, Wade-Giles and Hanyu Pinyin (after 2008 in Taiwan) as they were used by the ROC government. -- Ericmetro (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Speedy Close. WP:POINT. Jiang (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– The so-called consensus was to equate the ROC and Taiwan, and standardise all titles, etc., with Taiwan. The existing of these few articles makes it way too inconsistent, confusing, difficult to follow and counterproductive to navigation. Let's get the standardisation done no matter what. The so-called community consensus ruled that history, accuracy, politics, etc., are all irrelevant. For the sake of consistency all these articles should be considered together. Therefore, line-item veto shouldn't be considered. 202.64.189.90 (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY CLOSE: Ridiculous for this IP to dictate how these articles must be lumped together, especially China Airlines and The China Post. Can someone tell me what is "unfree area of Taiwan"? The only moves I can sympathize with are List of political parties in the Republic of China and List of diplomatic missions in the Republic of China. HkCaGu (talk) 19:54, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move to made up names, you cant just change some of these that are clearly using the correct common name for the related organisations. If the original proposer is that concerned about individual names then they should unbundled and raised on the appropriate talk pages not considered with unrelated subjects. MilborneOne (talk) 19:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move request: Concerns[edit]

Regarding the concerns raised above, some of these articles, such as Vice President, Premier, list of premiers, list of diplomatic missions, law, armed forces, supreme court, central bank, list of political parties, national day, constitution, etc., are more descriptive rather than official titles. And regarding Jiang's closing remarks, I don't agree this is WP:POINT. I've explained why the move request has to be bundled. If you think any particular article isn't relevant, single that particular article out. Or else it's strawman argument. 202.64.189.90 (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating multiple pages to be moved at the same time is done either (1) to enact a systemic change of formatting across almost identically named articles e.g. Talk:Washington_Initiative_1029#Move.3F or (2) because it is necessary to move an existing article out of the target location e.g. Talk:Pompadour_(hairstyle)#Requested_move as part of a series of interrelated moves. Finding multiple articles relating to Taiwan with "China" in the title and proposing that the word "China" be replaced with "Taiwan" in all instances is not an appropriate use of the RM process. Frankly, I think you may have a point with a couple of these proposed changes, but the majority have no chance of being approved, so nominating them here is just plainly disruptive and detracting from those that deserve discussion.--Jiang (talk) 03:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is ok to suggest a group of moves together, I don't think the group above should all be located together. I see at least two and possibly three groups (that is, if we want to discuss more than one move at a time). The Central Bank of China, China Airlines, and the China Post are, as I understand, simply the names of organizations. The are not descriptive - they're just names. I think they are poorly chosen names, but they are nonetheless the names. I don't see what argument can be made for moving their articles. In the second group would be descriptions of people and institutions within the Republic of China government. And I think there may be a third group where the descriptions are also proper titles. (if, for example, the official title for the premier of Taiwan is "Premier of the Republic of China"). In my opinion all the names are best left the way they are. The proper names should obviously stay put. The other names, describing institutions more closely associated with the Republic of China government than with the country Taiwan, should keep the government's name. However I know there are others who prefer to use Taiwan as the common name. Whatever the final outcome, I hope more thought can be put into the move request both to filter out items that clearly shouldn't move and to group articles more carefully. Readin (talk) 07:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UCN and WP:ON shall apply. 202.64.189.90 (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you advise what I can do to nominate the relevant ones en bulk? 202.64.189.90 (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of these should be nominated together. As noted above, List of political parties in the Republic of China and List of diplomatic missions in the Republic of China probably have a good chance of passing. I suggest that you nominate these separately. I don't suggest you nominate any of the others.--Jiang (talk) 06:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I have to do it separately? Why can't I group the similar ones? They may not be one big groups.. there can be three groups or so. 202.64.189.90 (talk) 08:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:National Anthem of Bolivia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China or Republic of China (Taiwan)[edit]

I dont think there is any debate on the subject but apparently there is. In the inbox for the page National Anthem of the Republic of China should the flag/description be  Republic of China or  Republic of China (Taiwan)? The President of the Republic of China (aka the President of Taiwan) said this in an interview with the BBC yesterday "we call ourselves the Republic of China (Taiwan)”[1] you cant question that. Also TaerkastUA I would appreciate either a retraction of your assertion that my single revert of your edit broke WP:3RR or evidence that I did as you contend. Tagging Mr. James Dimsey. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

there is no Republic of China (Taiwan) in the official law of the Taiwan, the easiest way to confirm this is just to look at a taiwanese passport, on the seal it is written "Republic of China", there is no "(Taiwan)" in the seal since passport are official document and have to obey official Taiwan laws. while the president may have use this term in speech and their office, the constitution clearly state that it is the constitutional law that has the sole power to determine the national status and official titles and the president should have no power to change it. this is intentionally written into law because the 2 major political parties fear a rogue president may just announce 'Taiwan is part of PRC' or Taiwan is the 'Republic of Taiwan'. both scenario scares the hell out of the political parties, I really suggest people understand a country's laws before jumping to conclusion. Yes the politician thought about the possibility of the president messing with the name and has outlaw it. 2406:3003:2006:C2A4:EC3B:9DFC:BBF:BA07 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Anthem_of_the_Republic_of_China&oldid=1214604764"