Talk:Economy of Taiwan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Taiwan To-do:

"Agriculture only comprises about 269% of Taiwan's GDP." This must be an error. Since agriculure is a part of the total economy, it has to be below 100 %.

Looks like a missing decimal. Check sources - Be Bold! ;-)

Contents

[edit] Page move

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved:

[edit] Economy of Taiwan → Economy of the Republic of China

and Holidays in Taiwan → Holidays in the Republic of China, Demographics of Taiwan → Demographics of the Republic of China, New Party (Taiwan) → New Party (Republic of China), Communications in Taiwan → Communications in the Republic of China, Highway System in Taiwan → Highway system in the Republic of China, Transportation in Taiwan → Transportation in the Republic of China, (Category:Airports of Taiwan → Category:Airports of the Republic of China)

This request is to make the titles of these articles to conform with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV: "the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate. ".

Note: If you do not agree with the said conventions, bring the issue to its discussion page. Please do not oppose this request because you disagree with the conventions. — Instantnood 20:08 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

  • By nominating I support renaming. — Instantnood 20:08 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for the same reasons I've opposed all your other taiwan → ROC proposals. No one understands the ROC or its nuances, Taiwan is the prevalent Western usage. I (as several others here are) am growing tired of your forcing this issue down everyone's throats. Wikipedia is not a place for your personal or political agenda. —ExplorerCDT 20:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • In other words you disagree with the naming conventions. Please go to its discussion page. — Instantnood 01:12 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, you're not the boss of me, I'll oppose what I want, when and where I want to...and I'll tell you where you can put that discussion page. Besides, we've already talked about recent, suspect changes to the naming convention you so like to tout that just coincidentally happen to suit your personal and political agenda. —ExplorerCDT 01:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • It has nothing to do with any political agenda, and I have no contribution to the naming conventions. — Instantnood 07:16 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)
        • No, but the pertinent naming conventions are the boss of you and everyone else. Here and now is neither the time nor the place to discuss your individual objections to the naming conventions. Those conventions are the result of a community consensus. All we're doing here is determining in what form they apply to the proposed move: if they apply, and I think they do, we have no choice but to rename the articles according to those conventions. --MarkSweep 13:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per ExplorerCDT, please see the reasons I've opposed all your other Taiwan → ROC proposals. Please stop this disruptive behaviour. Whilst I personally will not list you on WP:RfC, I would now be willing to certify any listing added by another - you have the right to ask your question once, maybe twice, but having gotten the answer you should not persist, jguk 21:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm in the same boat, but he's actually threatened to RfC me on other people's talk pages (yes, Instantnood, I see everything) for having the temerity to oppose his disruptive b.s. Am I wrong in likening him to one of those annoying little gnats that pester on a humid summer day? —ExplorerCDT 21:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
      • I did not. BlankVerse mentioned about you at my discussion page, and I told her/him about an old RfC of you. — Instantnood 01:13 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
        • Then what is all these trash on my talk page?--Huaiwei 10:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
          • I have never threatened to RFC anybody. — Instantnood 11:01 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
    • Relax, and please stop the accusations. Discussing a proposed move is hardly disruptive behavior. --MarkSweep 13:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose As ExplorerCDT and jguk have both been told, there is no need to dumb things down for encyclopedias just because the masses of people are dumb and the media has to cater to these dumb masses. Our job is not just to inform but to educate. We shouldn't be using inaccurate names. However, in this context "Taiwan" is the appropriate term. Please use non-political terms for non-political topics. Economy is not political enough and by using "Republic of China" we make the POV claim that it is equivlant to its current territories. This point should be left ambiguous. --Jiang 00:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I do not consider Matsu Islands and Quemoy as part of Taiwan, just like Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales aren't part of England. The title "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu" on Template:WTO already suggests just saying Taiwan is not accurate and exhaustive. — Instantnood 01:07 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
      • I could also say that the ROC=China (Mongolia included). No term is 100% accurate. Note the usage of the term "Taiwan Area" by the ROC government to include Quemoy and Matsu, just like how all ROC legislation use "Mainland Area" to describe the PRC. It's even clearly defined by this law: http://www.mac.gov.tw/english/english/foreign/law1.htm --Jiang 09:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the interesting information. An alternative to "Taiwan Area" used by the ROC government is "free area", as in an appendix of its constitution, and in many other web pages. — Instantnood 09:56 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
        • Quoted from a news article: " [Wang Jin-pyng] said that the Constitution stipulates a "free" area and a mainland China area, and that the statute governing relations of the people across the Taiwan Strait also mentions the "Taiwan area" and the "mainland area, " adding.. ". — Instantnood 10:12 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Spinboy 05:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: You're not supposed to nominate multiple articles so I dont think your request carries much weight, but I hope you're aware of Public holidays in the Republic of China, which makes moving the "holidays in Taiwan" article doubly pointless --Jiang 09:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • The holidays listed in Holidays in Taiwan are not only local ones, but includes many brought by the Kuomintang to Taiwan. — Instantnood 10:01 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. What Jiang said. And also, I might support the movement of some of these articles if they specifically pertain to political entities, but many of these articles do not. —Lowellian (talk) 11:23, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Everybody knows about Taiwan. Few people know or care about the nuances of nomeclature. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I think it's fair to say that on the order of a billion people do know and do care (or at least are forced to care) about the nuances of this particular piece of nomenclature. And the nuances are not particularly subtle either: if the definition of the terriotrial claims of the ROC were to change in certain directions, this could easily lead to a situation which the PRC has long classified as automatically triggering military action. It is quite important for stability in the region that both sides recognize that there is one single unit called "China" (though both may think they are it). If the ROC would officially start calling itself "Taiwan" in the current climate, they better be fairly confident in the abilities of their air force. --MarkSweep 13:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Support tentatively. I don't think mass listing was a good idea. I agree with most of the proposed moves, but I have some reservations. Better to list them individually if we can all agree that the purpose of this discussion is only to determine how the naming conventions apply. --MarkSweep 13:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Basically agree. One does not have to be agree with each of the requests for agreeing with the general direction. But things have got to be settled to have it proceeded. — Instantnood 14:16 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
  • Support,because
    1. The main article about the political entity is at Republic of China.
    2. These articles about the political entity, not the island. There is no article on Economics of Java or Sakhalin or any other island. Same with Demography and other stuff.
    3. The Wikipedia naming conventions specifically cover that. Grue 16:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • OpposeUsing the name of Taiwan which is much more popular to refer the entity would not really downgrading the accuracy of this encyclopedia. Most of these articles made it clear that the subject discussed is under the control of ROC. No political implication, declaring independence, denouncing the sovereignty of ROC, or equate Taiwan to ROC, is suggested in these articles. In this arrangement people find their information easier.Mababa 07:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess you have misunderstood. As MarkSweep has mentioned in his comment, redirects can bring readers to the right article. The title is for accuracy, whereas the redirects bridge the gap between accuracy and popularity. With redirects, it wouldn't be harder for readers to locate the information they want. — Instantnood 09:49 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the very good reasons listed above by others Grutness|hello? 10:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The so-called good reasons are also applicable to justify having references to Wales in an article titled "Economy of England". Many places in the territories under ROC's control are not part of Taiwan. — Instantnood 10:21 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

Was anyone here aware Instantnood is running another poll to move "XXX of Taiwan" to "XXX of the Republic of China" at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC? The poll "started" a week ago, but since no pages link to the polling page, I thought maybe it was a little onesided and needed some publicity... SchmuckyTheCat 21:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please kindly check Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC (except those added by SchmuckyTheCat just now), for what pages are linked to it. Thank you.
Please also note that the polls there are enforcement of the naming conventions. — Instantnood 21:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer

I first suggested to proceed to have a poll as a solution on March 10 at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/archive4#Solution, and there was no objection. More than two weeks later on March 26 I suggested to have polls on a case-by-case basis (at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV#Solution). A link was added at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV#Solution to direct readers to the polling page on March 31, at the time when the polling page was created.

SchmuckyTheCat is wrong for accusing me for starting the polls with no page linked to it, that it might resulted in onesided and lack of publicity. Please note this is an accusation, though I am pretty sure opinion wouldn't be affected easily. — Instantnood 06:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Disclaimer Instantnood is running the same poll again that you see so many people shot him down with at the top. Tell me what the motivation of that is. Vote until you get your way? Vote until you can muster enough support from buddies? Stop trying to implement something that so many people disagree with.--160.39.195.88 23:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid 160.39.195.88 failed in understanding the meaning of the poll at the naming conventions talk page, and the previous poll on WP:RM (archived above). Could 160.39.195.88 please tell us in what way the WP:RM poll addressed the application of the NPOV section of the naming conventions? — Instantnood 14:32, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • the same way this phrase that you wrote in the heading of that poll addresses it: "this request is to make the titles of these articles to conform with...". what? SchmuckyTheCat 14:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double Jeopardy Policy on votes

This article has been voted before. I belive that there should be a limit on initiating similiar kind of votes for the sake of everybody's time and energy. Thus, I have posted a Double Jeopardy on votes discussion to see if we can come up something to curtail this type of frivolous votes in the future. Please kindly spend some time and participate in that discussion if you have any suggestion and opinion on in this regard. Best regards. --Mababa 00:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Need More Detail on Technological Sector

I am interested in the technological sector of the economy. It is only mentioned in the first paragraph. Can somebody write a few things about it? What do these companies make? Where are they concentrated?--Hillgentleman 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/c/o/Talk%7EEconomy_of_Taiwan_eaf2.html"