Talk:Taiwan/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Taiwan as Island is biased PRC view, Please Comment

The article depictign Taiwan simply as an island is a biased PRC view. Taiwan as an entity is being minimized to the benefit of PRC.

Let's also face the simple fact that around the world, the media, government, and business, economic reports, refer to ROC as "Taiwan". Check out all the headlines in newspapers around the world. "Taiwan" is used more than "ROC" to decribe the territories that are ruled by ROC.
I don't have experience with article disputes, but I would say that it is true that it is a big question whether or not this article covers the proper information. As per the discussion below, I suggest that a similar notice be placed on the ROC article since it is intertwined. However, I would also say that debate should be directed here somehow so that it remains centralized and this is where the debate has already begun.--Amerinese 19:24, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, this is to adhere to NPOV guidelines. Saying ROC=Taiwan is pro-Taiwan independence. We clearly imply that the ROC exists and is functional. That is certainly not the PRC's view--Jiang 02:15, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jiang, anything which minimizes Taiwan to a state of mass confusion or reduces the stature of the island nation IS mainland China's point of view.
We've clearly have not reduced the stature of the Republic of China. You are looking at the wrong article. We did not call it a defunct entity and put in the country template there, with Taiwanese statistics, suggesting it still exists - on Taiwan. Are we to redirect that article here? I think not... --Jiang 02:21, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You know what's funny? You just substituted Republic of China for Taiwan. If someone as informed as you regularly uses ROC and Taiwan as synonyms, don't you think there's something wrong with the position that claims ROC is not Taiwan?--160.39.195.88 05:01, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You were using "Taiwan" when you really meant "Republic of China". The "President of Taiwan" is really the "President of the Republic of China". IMO, you are using them improperly as syonyms. This is only my opinion and Im not alone in thinking this way--Jiang 14:45, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What? I did not take part in this discussion. You responded to anon's comment about Taiwan by talking about ROC.--160.39.195.88 20:39, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My bad. the anon needs to sign. --Jiang

NPOV Dispute Continues (3/23/2005)

There is still a lot of dispute on naming conventions. Please see attached link and comment there or below. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29

Disambiguation

Removed bolded text:

This article is on the geographical island. For the political entity commonly known as "Taiwan" and the historic entity that formerly also governed mainland China, see Republic of China. For information about the provincial division under the ROC with the same name, see Province of Taiwan

No one will come to an article on Taiwan to look for information on the pre-1949 polity. People referring to the ROC division affix the term "province" by default. --Jiang 02:14, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) You misunderstand the point of it Jiang. The point is to let them know that when they get to the ROC page, they are not just reading about Taiwanese history, which is likely what they are looking for. It helps with guiding the reader. 2) Deleting the reference to Taiwan Province is unjustified.--160.39.195.88 05:20, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1. Disambiguation notices are only needed to direct users who may have been led to the wrong place to the right place. Everything included in the ROC page is not our concern here. Disambiguation notices are not summary notices. People misdirected here are only going to be interested in the Republic of China on Taiwan, not the Republic of China on mainland. We only need to tell them to look for the Republic of China on Taiwan. 2. I justified it. When people refer to the streamlined provincial division of the ROC, they will specify "Province". --Jiang 06:23, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jiang you still don't get it. "People misdirected here are only going to be interested in the Republic of China on Taiwan, not the Republic of China on mainland." Exactly!!!!! So they will be quite surprised when they find there is only one article called Republic of China which contains information on both Taiwan and China! If you think it sounds strange that two different topics are found in that one article, then that is exactly why I made the proposal at the top of the page to change what Taiwan and ROC articles should cover.

--160.39.195.88 08:46, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please read our policy page and observe established conventions. People will not be surpised when they find out the Republic of China once administered the mainland. They are not two different topics to begin with, since the ROC on Taiwan has historical continuity with the one that was on the mainland. Even if people were confused, it is outside the scope of this article. Disambiguation should only contain enough info to lead readers to a different page. It doesnt need to provide any more detail. Please acquaint yourself with the policy --Jiang 13:13, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is SOME historical continuity between the two. Someone studying the history of China needs to know about the ROC on China but needs to know much less about the ROC on Taiwan. Someone studying the history of Taiwan likewise is in the reverse situation.
I'm acquainted with the disambiguation policy. Cite what you think is inappropriate, you can't just accuse me of not knowing it. Further, the particular situation of these articles (Taiwan-related ones) is much more exceptional than for the typical, apple is a fruit, Apple is a computer company.
An illustrating situation, once again. Someone who is searching for information about the state/people/economic entity of Taiwan under Taiwan may not be aware of ROC (we are not talking about you and I here). When they see the article for ROC, not being aware that there is an ROC, they will also not know that the ROC previously ruled China. Again, the overload of information can be really confusing to them. A few simple words in the disambiguation can help them, when they reach the article, make sense of what they are reading. Wikipedia is a reference text that takes great consideration into ease of understanding and not presenting too much information at one time. There are several subarticles for larger articles for this reason. And again, I would say that fear of distinguishing between the two ROCs even for the practical purpose of helping someone learn about Taiwan mainly if that is their objective is PRC POV driven. Ambiguity is employed regularly by the PRC to help them establish their claim over Taiwan.--160.39.195.88 17:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know this a confusing situation, but I don't think adding additional info in the disambiguation helps. That information should be presented in the lead section the Republic of China article itself. Any clarifying can easily be done there since there's room to be more thorough. The fact that the ROC formerly governed mainland China and now governed Taiwan is also discussed here. Perhaps we could still do a better job explaning the complex political situation in the political status section of this article? I see much room for improvement there... --Jiang 02:18, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, you still haven't given a reason why it's harmful to have it in the disambiguation on this very convoluted topic. But I see you also tried deleting the statement in the introduction to the [Republic of China] article that stated that it was about both the ROC that formerly governed mainland China and the so-called "regime" (the term is being used in an abnormal way in the discussions here and elsewhere regarding Taiwan) that rules Taiwan now. Now that you agree, I hope you leave that statement alone.--160.39.195.88 04:49, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is the way it's done. Diambiguation notices are designed to be short. Why? Mass italicized text hideous and gets in the way when the same information could be presented more comprehensively in the lead section. --Jiang 14:47, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One-sided dispute

I've read pretty much all of the debate now, and I don't think the facual dispute-sign has much merit. I can't see that 160.39.195.88 or 205.174.8.4 have any proper argumentation to support their complaints. That I keep seeing comments like "I think Jiang and Mababa work for the PRC." doesn't exactly convince me...

I'm taking the sign down and I'm asking that the people questioning the factual accuracy of this article to be a bit more civil in future discussions. Right now this all seems more like bickering over very minute details than reasonable doubt and constructive criticism. Maybe even bordering POV-pushing.

If you're going to put it back up, you need to stop engaging in pointless personal attacks and clearly define what you're disputing. Like maybe using {{disputedabout}} instead of the general template. Peter Isotalo 09:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

205.174.8.4 , stop deleting the following comment. Please do not associate me with 205.174.8.4 See his/her history to see his/her edits very pro China on the Republic of China article and very pro Taiwan on this article. I don't know what the agenda is, but clearly those kind of changes are not the ones that I have made. Further, I've been trying to start a real discussion about the organization of the articles and have not acted to implement it without more consensus. Do not delete comments without good reason.--160.39.195.88 08:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Edits on first paragraph to reveal Taiwan's political feature

"Taiwan is governed by the democratically elected government of the Republic of China. In particular, the geographical island of Taiwan contains the following provincial-level divisions of the ROC: Taipei City, Kaohsiung City, and Province of Taiwan (a division of the ROC which is not to be confused with the PRC's view that all of Taiwan is a renegade province). Because the ROC has its roots in the former government of mainland China before its 1949 defeat by the Communist Party of China, while maintaining authoritarian one-party rule, the ruling Kuomintang claimed the Republic of China to be the legitimate government of all of China, but since the rise of democratization and localization, this claim is no longer pursued. Taiwan's largest city Taipei serves as the capital of the Republic of China, while Jhongsing Village in central Taiwan near the city of Taichung is the capital of Taiwan province. Since 1998, the provincial tier of government has been largely eliminated, leaving the county the main division under the central government."

I edited the first paragraph in the politics section to the above form because 1) democractically elected government of the ROC is the most important feature of the government and 2) Taiwan Island contains Taipei City, Kaohsiung City, and Taiwan Province, not just Taiwan Province. It is also worth explaining that the provincial level of government is not as important anymore.--160.39.195.88 10:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I made some minor copy and paste. I hope this edit would help people understand people live in Taiwan's position while keeping the NPOV status intact.Mababa 21:47, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Mababa, I appreciate that. It is more clear. I don't understand why Jiang keeps insisting on wording to have Taiwan province up front without reference to Taipei and Kaohsiung and removes the reference to democracy.--160.39.195.88 00:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's alright. My edit get reverted anyway. :) I did not closely follow the difference between yours and Jiang's edit. However, I believe the rationale is that the current consensus decide to keep political neutral description on the political entities across the straite, thus China is called PRC and Taiwan is called ROC. We avoid editing wars by reflecting the status quo at the expanse of the common usage Taiwan and China for describing the two political entities. In this setting, Taiwan is regarded as a geographical entity just as China was being treated. Jiang's edits only follow that consensus. On the other hand, I belive that in order to reach neutrality, the common usage should also be reflected, under the caveat that by presenting opinions we not necessarily translate them into truth. Thus, if we want to present the general perception calling the polity ROC as Taiwan, we should also present the opposit position to make the article neutral and less contentious. Please take note that my edit still follows the Naming convention and did not make direct equation between ROC and Taiwan. My edit is only based on your previous edit to present the common usage of Taiwan refering to the polity without making it a formal name of the polity. And I personally do not believe that ROC has the legal sovereignty over Taiwan until a independence is declared. There is no international treaties to support ROC's claim and even its own constitution denied its. I am not certain if democracy would generate sovereignty, but if it does, the sovereignty resides in the people not the regime.--Mababa 00:18, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Its constitution does not support of deny it. Its reclaimation of Taiwan was based on international law that when the treaty was nullified, the original sovereignty holder, or its sucessor, got it back. — Instantnood 08:42, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your interest on this topic. However, your comment maks me have to provide the following articles for participants to get a better understanding on the authentic interpretation of the international law in this regard. Please refer to Legal status of Taiwan for the different interpretations on the internatioanl laws. The treaty of SFPT is supreme over any other documents in Taiwan's sovereignty, not the bogus nullification thing. And also the article 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of China stipulates that any change of territary has to be endorsed by the National Assembly. Taiwan was never being annexed by the Assembly. Taiwanese member in the Assembly was initially hand picked by the ROC and does not bear any legitimacy to represent Taiwanese. Most of all, even if the ROC constitution did annexed Taiwan(which actually never happened in this univers, perhaps Instantnood heard it from a parallele universe), it still contradicts with the SFPT and the Treaty of Taipei and thus would be nullified. Anyone claims Taiwan sovereignty cession to Japan is nullified by the act of war or the Treaty of Taipei, please tell me if Korea has become an dependence of China again and if Japan has ever returned the money to China. If these act of nullification never happened, then Taiwan sovereignty would never return to China either. Article of Legal status of Taiwan would give a better and neutral presentation on this topic than the one Instantnood just did.Mababa 05:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vote to remove Jiang from editing this page (3/25/2005)

It appears that Jiang is not following proper protocol and is adding his POV causing mass changes. Reading through the discussion pages, it appears that there was consensus prior to Jiang's mass deletion. Mababa, I apologize, but thought that 160's edits prior to Jiang's mass deletion was correct. This paragraph contributed by User:24.0.31.146.

It's alright. However, your revert missed the disambiguity lines which has been hanging there forever and I think it should be placed back. Since I do not know which version the current edit has been reverted to, I will have to leave it to you to sort out. Also, acts of reverting usually are based on NPOV and accuracy reasons. I think it would be better if the next reverting has some better reason; otherwise people might regard it as vandalism. Meanwhile, Jiang is a really really nice guy. If you talk with him, he will response and reason with you. Please keep him and do not vote him out. BTW, he won't be removed out any way. :) Let's all behave and be civilized.--Mababa 23:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, I thought we have a tradition adding new discussions at the end of the page.Mababa 23:37, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If it is possible, I would vote to remove Jiang from editing Taiwan pages. Based on his comments, his POV = to mainland China's POV. We should keep Taiwan as neutral as possible b/c of all the political disputes. Contributed by User:70.242.208.89.

This is not the forum to "vote" on any such thing. If you have problem with Jiang, try to resolve your dispute with him first. If you've done so and failed, consider filing an RFC or go for mediation. --MarkSweep 05:22, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

MarkSweep is right, but if possible I would definitley remove Jiang from this page as his POV is too biased.--205.174.8.4 16:15, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ROC does not claim to rule all of China Taipei is not provisional

"has no longer actively pursues" implies that it will in the future. Since localization, the chances of ROC ever pursuing claims to rule over all of China are zero. If you have proof that Taiwanese politicians think otherwise, state it and provide reputable links. Everyone knows ROC's constitution says a lot of things that aren't true. Ruling China is one of those things. The constitution is hard to change because China threatens war if Taiwan alters their constitution.

Taipei is not the provisional capital anymore. Taipei is the provisional capital only in the same sense that ROC is the legitimate government of all of China. It is called provisional because the idea was that Chiang Kai-shek would reinvade China, take it back, and make Beijing or something like that the permanent capital of the ROC. There is also zero chance that Taipei will not be the capital of the ROC. You could say that it is called the provisional capital and give an explanation why, but it is not true that en realis it is a provisional capital. --160.39.195.88 20:59, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please add posts to the bottom since we archive from the top.
This doesn't imply that claims will be pursued in the furture. The claims stand a symbolic purpose of demonstrating that this is an unresolved civil war, a notion that is important in justifying the unificationist cause. There is a reason Chen Shui-bian had to promise not the change the national borders in his new constitution and why the PRC was inflamed about the new constitution (even though they regarded the document as illegitimate in the first place...). The claims symbolically link the two sides as rival governments divided de facto within one china. If the claims are formally dropped, we have de jure and not de facto two China, which the PRC is strongly opposed to. Please note the symbolic implicit, and not the practical and explicit, relevance here.
The ROC constitution in its current form doesnt say anything about "ruling China". I'm interested in learning what it says that is not true. I suppose it's not really relevant here. --Jiang 07:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is no way that Taiwan would pursue claims of legitimacy over mainland China. Cite major politicians in Taiwan that would try this.--160.39.195.88 09:20, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
So you're saying, because China wants Taiwan to unify with it, it is important that Taiwan keep things in their laws that would make it seem like the ROC government is illegitimate. That's so funny. Chen Shuibian promised not to change national borders because China feels like the next step would be independence. Thus they want Taiwan to keep the fiction that they would like to be the legitimate rulers of all of China. There is no chance that Taipei will cease to become the capital. Either China successfully unifies Taiwan with itself, making Bejing the capital, or Taiwan continues on independent, with Tapei its capital.--160.39.195.88 09:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think you didnt grasp my main point or I failed to articulate it clearly enough to you.

I didn't say the ROC would like to pursue its claims. I said that the fact that these claims are still symbolically in place are important becuase "because China feels like the next step would be independence. Thus they want Taiwan to keep the fiction that they would like to be the legitimate rulers of all of China" That was my whole point. Because it is such, we should not sweep the fact that these claims still exist under the table for the reason that they arent going to pursue them. Their existence is still an important part in cross-straits relations. --Jiang 16:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei

"Because of pressure by the PRC, the ROC sometimes uses the name Chinese Taipei in the Olympics and other international events."

What do you mean by international events? In what international events does the ROC not use "Chinese Taipei"? Can you provide examples?

This is entirely relevant in the "political status" section because when a country is not allowed to use its official or common name, this fact is being used to dispute this country's sovereignty. --Jiang 19:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dont call Taiwan a state

The statement that Taiwan is a state is so biased that I don't think I need to elaborate. The political entity is discussed at Republic of China, not here. --Jiang 21:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poll on Scope of Article

There appears to be strong sentiment that this article should cover more than just Taiwan Island as it does not reflect usage of the word Taiwan. In my view, limiting Taiwan to Taiwan Island from the encyclopedic point of view also creates a hole in the coverage of the geographical and cultural features of the lands governed by the Republic of China. Let's measure exactly how strong the sentiment to change the scope of the article is.

I think this is the most appropriate place to conduct a poll as there is an inability to create consensus on the Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV on many issues, probably due to the huge size of the discussion and the number of issues that are covered. A decision on the scope of this article should have minor ramifications for other articles, if any.--Amerinese 08:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For elaboration and discussion, see the next section: Talk:Taiwan#Poll on Scope of Article Discussion

Registered users, please vote agree or disagree on the following statement:

The Taiwan article should not be limited to Taiwan Island. Instead, it should cover the geographical and cultural aspects of the lands controlled by the Republic of China (Taiwan). Popular usage often equates Taiwan with the Republic of China (Taiwan). However, when refering to political entities, equating Taiwan to the polity ROC is controversial, so political information will remain at the Republic of China article.

  • Agree. Well, I initiated it, so I support it.--Amerinese 08:04, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree - Strongly This is a cloudy article and can cause a lot of confusion. I especially think the politics section should be simplified.--50Stars 20:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Partly Agree. I prefer political acticles about Taiwan and ROC to coexist. Because Taiwan =/= ROC, articles about Taiwan's politics should remain and maintained "independently" from ROC's. Tp kde 04:05, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. I do, however, have the same reservations as Tp kde.--BlueSunRed 01:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Disagree. john k 07:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Strongly disagree. Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu, Pratas, Taiping, etc., despite their geographical and population size, has never been part of Taiwan. They do not share the same path of history until relatively recently, and the culture and cuisine are quite different. All except Pratas have never been made administratively part of Taiwan. — Instantnood 13:56, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree. Jiang, remember that I will ALWAYS be watching you. Disappointing to hear that you're not going to get away with sneaky ass garbage eh? Do not delete the disambiguation you fought so hard to put to say that the scope of this article is on the island. Now that there's a vote, let the people decide. Why would you do that except that you want to hide that there's a vote and that it's disputed?--160.39.195.88 23:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree With expansion to culture, and if there is ever a move to expand to politics, i support that too, you can proxy vote me in the future. I don't like the hostility above. I have agreed with 160.39.195.88 many times, and I have agreed with Jiang too and always been able to come to an agreement when we disagreed. I know y'all can be reasonable. *kiss kiss* SchmuckyTheCat 19:24, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not clear what this would change in the article. I need to see a more thorough proposal. --Jiang 07:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, looks like we have a rough consensus. I will make some edits, and I hope others will improve it as well to move it in line to the article's new scope. There may be a future edit on inclusion of the political system, but that will be decided later.--Amerinese 16:53, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Disagree. Explain difference between geographic usage of term (equal to "Formosa") vs. popular political usage (referring to the ROC) and link prominently to Republic of China. --MarkSweep 20:29, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The above opinion was added after changes were already made.--Amerinese 00:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Partly Agree. Refer to Tp kde. I just want to establish the rule that ROC could be refered as Taiwan. However, in legal terms, Taiwan=\=ROC.--Mababa 21:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Changes Resulting from the Poll

Seems okay with me too - but I think we should note that the other areas are de facto under the control of Taipei. We need to be careful to imply a preference for either side involved in the cross-Straits dispute, jguk 19:15, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
6 yeas and 4 neas is not rough consensus. Maybe 6 yeas and 1 nea is rough consensus but there are too many nea's here. No one has bothered answering my question: what would be specifically changed in the article? --Jiang 23:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It was 6-3 when I made the changes. That means there's less agreement for the previous state of Taiwan meaning Taiwan Island than for its current state, and it's well more than a majority. I responded to you about changes below. I've also made quite a few changes so I'm not sure what you are confused about. The notice that it was about the island was removed and wording was changed so it wasn't focused on the island. Taiwan in this sense means much more the essentialist entity, the one in the imagination of a people, in the same way that China means something more and different than PRC.--Amerinese 00:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I looked at your edits and it looks like you wiped out references to the ROC. I think removing references to the ROC is a bad idea given the confusing nature of the dispute. For example, the entire point that President Chen makes when he says "Taiwan is independent" is to say that it is synonymous with the ROC and that is independent; to imply otherwise would be to be declare Taiwan independence, which is grounds for an invasion. The qualifier was lost through your edit. (whoops, confused you with an anon) I really don't see why the mass amount of text under the political status section describing the status of the ROC and the text under culture mentioning the National Palace Museum was deleted. The National Palace Museum is a cultural topic indeed.

Take another look--it was moved further down (tenuous connection to the paragraph it was attached to), not deleted. Like he said though, the writing could be improved.--160.39.195.88 05:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Yes I didn't delete it. National Palace Museum is still there.--Amerinese 05:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
nevermind that entire post then...sorry i didn't check closely enough. Im fine with your edits--Jiang 07:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think having an economics section is a good idea, but the one here is a duplication of the one at ROC. Perhaps we should template it at [Taiwan/Economy] and post the same version at both articles. --Jiang 02:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll second that (are you surprised that I agree with you?!). I understand there should be as little duplication as possible but I think there are special circumstances here that allow (well, in my view, require) it to be in both, especially as they are summaries of articles and not main articles themselves--160.39.195.88
I'm not sure about that. I think philosophically economy clearly belongs in the Taiwan article, but at the same time, people may want to see it in the ROC article, especially the foreign relations part. Including it in both articles may be the best compromise unless a good reason for different summaries of the same article, i.e. ROC one emphasizing foreign relations and government intervention, Taiwan emphasizing the nature of the economy.--Amerinese 05:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poll on Scope of Article Discussion

I'm not sure what expanding the scope of this article to the "geographical and cultural aspects of the lands controlled by the Republic of China" would change in this article. What would be added? Can you elaborate? --Jiang 09:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, seems like he means Quemoy and Matsu right? Because right now the article says it's only about Taiwan dao.--BlueSunRed 01:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Quemoy and Matsu are not very big. What would be the content additions? --Jiang 05:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I apologize for the hiatus. For one, the little used (I can't even remember ever hearing anyone use Taiwan in this way in either Mandarin or English) reference of Taiwan as the island will be dropped. Economy is a section that is sorely lacking for this article as is demographics. The idea is to recognize that the government's name is controversial as its jurisdiction, and so leave information about the government often referred to as Taiwan under the ROC article, but for geographical, cultural things, leave them at the Taiwan article. Taiwan is the most neutral name for the area given that it is disputed and under either independence or unification, it would remain "Taiwan". Quemoy and Matsu should be included because they have been part of the ROC on Taiwan for 50 years and share the same culture and political unity. Penghu as well. This is to say that in many ways they have reason to be included together with the main island, along with Penghu, because of political unity--however, these unities themselves are not the political ROC itself. Plenty of people from Quemoy and Matsu have grown up and moved to the main island, especially for university, and today there is a single cultural unity. Laws apply universally across this area. You don't need a passport to go from any of the minor islands to Taiwan Island and back. There is one currency. These are all effects of the single government, but it is not the government itself (i.e. it's not foreign relations or somehting).Amerinese 21:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
For a good example of what I mean, see 160.39.195.88's comments at Talk:Cinema of China#Undid disambiguation. While I do not condone his combative tone, I do think he makes quite a few good points. Taiwan as an entity, regardless of its political status, is very clearly identifiable and palpable. This is exemplified in the tradition of Cinema of Taiwan. Chinese Cinema has taken a very interesting and peculiar path that differs greatly from Cinema of Hong Kong and Cinema of Taiwan. These separate traditions exist regardless of HK's recent return to Chinese control or Taiwan's contentious de jure status. So it would be completely inappropriate to call it Cinema of ROC, as 1) it's confusing since it has nothing to do with the ROC on China and 2) even with unification, as with HK, it is highly likely Taiwanese cinema would be completely different from Chinese cinema and even if it were to merge with mainland cinema, it would take quite a bit of time for it to happen. That is the kind of thing I'm talking about. If it's not about capitals, governments, foreign relations, Taiwan is the most neutral word and it exists apart from political status.Amerinese 03:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding comment by 160.39.195.88:

see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Please answer my question. --Jiang 00:37, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So everyone knows, what I did was reverse Jiang's delete of the disambiguation notice that stated that "This article is on the geographical island" along with the disputed tag and the notice that there is a poll to settle this dispute. Jiang did not explain what he did either in the edit summary or in the discussion section. Nor has he voted in this poll. Further, even though he deleted that notice, which he was previously a champion of, he proceeded to replace any edits towards country or nation (which may be inappropriate) back to ISLAND. Why is he enforcing the scope of this article as the island but deleting the very disambiguation notice he had previously advocated? This is not a personal attack but his actions I think are harmful, and even shameful, for someone that has made a lot of edits to Wikipedia. I have no idea what question he's talking about but if he has something worthwhile to add to the discussion that has not yet been brought up, I would be willing to talk about it.--160.39.195.88 02:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I specifically cite the policy: "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party." Yes, you are making personal attacks and if you won't cut it out I will take further action. I have not voted because I am still trying to figure out what I will be "voting" for - what would this change in the article? --Jiang 02:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Show me where I called YOU a name. I certainly expressed plenty of attributes regarding your unjustified, unexplained, controversial changes, but you still won't respond to any of that. You are accusing ME of calling you names, which is just another sneaky way of attacking MY character.--160.39.195.88 17:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You didn't call me a name and I didn't accuse you of doing so. My point being: You are not supposed to discuss the the attributes of other editors here. Period. If you have a problem with my edits, then discuss with me privately and I will respond. Let's not pollute this talk page with endless bickering. --Jiang 07:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Instantnood's comment:

Don't you mean Taiwan Province? My understanding is that this article is not about Taiwan Province at all.--BlueSunRed 05:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think of it, I remember a disambiguation notice that pointed to Taiwan Province. Either way, there is another article about Taiwan Province.--BlueSunRed 05:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Polls for assessing the applicability of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV on titles of Taiwan-/ROC-related entries

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 21:15, 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 21:45, 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 06:39, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Started a poll and then now advertised to his buddies to try to tilt it to one side after he was losing badly. There were only 2 voting in favor prior to his recruitment effort. If you're so neutral, then why don't you make the same effort to advertise the poll everywhere instead of just to those you think would vote your way?--160.39.195.88 20:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everyone is an independent actor. I don't think people will vote in the same was as I did just because I was the one notifed them. — Instantnood 21:03, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
My guess is that everyone on Instantnood's side is basically on mainland China's side and is trying to display mainland China's POV.--DINGBAT 19:31, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You are not fooling anyone, DINGBAT. Your act has exposed your intantion. Not only that, the kind of "Taiwanese" you used was not used in Taiwan, HAHA. Tp kde 19:36, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sure, then why do you need to recruit individuals? Fact is, they voted exactly how you wanted them to. How do you explain the nice coincidence?--160.39.195.88 23:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't think I have instructed them how they should vote. I respect their choices no matter they share the same view as I do, given that everyone knows well what's going on, and what the meaning of the poll is. — Instantnood 06:16, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

disputed discovery and settlement

There has been a dispute about Chinese discovery and Han settlement.

DINGBAT claimed that:

  1. Taiwan was discovered by Chinese during the "Three Kingdom period";
  2. Taiwan was then under the uninterupted control of China for about 212 years between (1683-1895) during the Qing Dynasty.

Number one is disputed, there is no actual proof of this discovery. Unless DINGBAT is able to prove this, which would be a great discovery for himself and the Chinese, I will revert this so that the article here would be consistent with the article of "History of Taiwan".Tp kde 19:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following article is one source detailing the recorded discovery in a specific year.--DINGBAT 20:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/asia_pac/04/taiwan_flashpoint/html/history.stm

Number two is wrong. Qing Dynasty never had control of the entire Taiwan island. The settlement beyoned Taiwan's western plains was prohibited until 1870s -- which was too late for Qing to gain control of the entire island. By 1890s, most of the mountainous central and eastern Taiwan were still out of reach of Han settlers.Tp kde 19:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Qing Dynasty had full control of Taiwan during that time. Yes, there were uprisings, etc., but no other entity controlled Taiwan during that time.--DINGBAT 20:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree w/ Dingbat. Also, in reference to contention #2, there is no dispute over the settlement, just the extent of the settlement.--205.174.8.4 14:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Dingbat, hide in your cave and don't touch that part of the article unless you can backup with evidence. You are not convincing anyone by multiple reverts of the same passage.--160.39.195.88 23:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So lame 160... The BBC article was convicing to me. I think it counts as evidence!--205.174.8.4 14:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is not good evidence. Newspapers are not good sources for ancient events.160.39.195.88 03:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I have concerned, a newspaper article is not a proof.

Please practice your English before using the English page. Perhaps you should be editing another page. Clearly you need help.--DINGBAT 19:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. As stated in the "History of Taiwan" article, because there was no actual evidence, the Chinese discovery in "Three Kingdom period" is disputed and likely had not happened. It is not very hard to imagine how likely it would be to travel across a violent sea of 100 miles wide, and most importantly -- come back, when maps and transportations were primitive.

2. Qing's control was not present to the south of Gau-ping river, and to the east of central mountains.Tp kde 19:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please point me to your source. The Qinq controlled the whole island.--DINGBAT 19:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about this?Tp kde 19:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) http://www.taiwanus.net/history/3/7.htm

If you are using sources written in Chinese, perhaps you should be editing the Chinese page...--DINGBAT 19:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Except that his English is good.160.39.195.88 03:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How credible is a news medium? NOT CREDIBLE, so you would have to provide a "much better" better proof.Tp kde 19:19, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How can you say that news is not credible. Just because in China you get the news directly from a bunch of liars doesn't mean that news sources around the world are not credible. And if you speak Taiwanese (which you probably don't since you are a lower class Mainlander), Lee jia wa-e SIE!

How do you know who I am? I am sorry that I am not a Chinese, but a Taiwanese. Maybe you should learn some POJ before you try to talk with me in Taiwanese? You have personally attacked me, please be aware of what you write here.Tp kde 20:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Only in your wildest fantasies. Perhaps before reverting me 3 times in a row (You could be blocked for 24 hours for that, btw), you should take that POJ and stick it where the sun don't shine.--DINGBAT 19:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have exposed yourself fully, DINGBAT. I will submit you to the "appropriate authority". You don't even know what POJ is? How could you even think of writing Taiwanese, if you don't know what POJ and MTL is?

Let's be civil. Dear DINGBAT, I would like to make the same argument that Tp kde made had he not made those arguement earlier. Even though you also showed us your source of your statement, the evidence was weak and ends with one single line. On the other hand, the evidence Tp kde cited is obviously more clear and in much more detail and I believe is engough for rebuttal. Based on the NPOV principle of vital component: good research, I would like to suggest you to show us more to bolster your statement. To the best of my knowledge, the hypothesis connecting Taiwan with the islands names in three kingdom was first made by the Japanese scholars during Japanese rule. Before that, not a single Chinese people ever made those connections. But again, this hypothesis, which may or may not be true, was used for Chinese political propaganda during the Chinese republic. These informationation should be easy to find in the internet. I will try to put the link here if I ever come across it again. Meanwhile, even though BBC is a prestigeous news source, it does not mean that they do not make mistake. Someone should try to contact BBC to get that line fixed. It is not we would not present your chinese POV, it is that the POV can not be presented as fact before it is proven to be a fact. Mababa 22:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time to tidy up?

Is it time to tidy up the sections on this talk page, to rearrange them according to chronological order? — Instantnood 14:01, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes.--205.174.8.4 14:39, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Done. :-D — Instantnood 07:40, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)
Hello. Some of the topics seem old too and can be put away. Their relevance is not necessarily based on chronology either.--BlueSunRed 05:25, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adding the obvious

Added the obvious to the start of the article (start with aboriginal or pre-aboriginal settlement of Taiwan). Also I think that people in the cited article are mistaking settlement with control. The fact that the Qing court was able to (rather effectively) prohibit Han settlement in parts of Taiwan indicates political control.

Made a change that hopefully completely side steps the issue of control and the definitional issues regarding what constitutes "Chinese." The concept of Chinese is remarkably complex and you can get into long interesting discussions over whether the Qing, Taiwanese aboriginals, or Min-nan settlers are "Chinese."

Its best in these sorts of arguments to try to minimize interpretation and stick with basic facts.

Roadrunner 23:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also changed some language about the Dutch for consistency. If one wants to make the argument that the Qing did not control all of Taiwan, then this argument has to also apply to the Dutch.

Roadrunner 23:51, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This needs some referencing....

The ROC troops were initially hesitant to accept the surrender of the Japanese garrison and undertake military occupation of the island.

Also removed statement on Koxinga's motivations.

Roadrunner 23:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tweaked the language regarding culture. I think most people who actively support Taiwanese localization would consider the notion that they are doing it to express distinctiveness from the Mainlander population to be slanderous.

Roadrunner 04:25, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Double Jeopardy Policy on votes

The articles involved in the vote posted above by Instantnood have been voted exactly one month ago. 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)

Disabiguity of ROC

According to the view of the ruling party, DDP, of the Republic of China(Taiwan), "Taiwan is an independent country, now named ROC." So it would be appropriate to state the "Disabiguity of ROC" : The current ROC is different from that established in 1911 in China and succeeded (and died) by PRC in 1949. -- Cherico Apr 16 18:10:27 CST 2005

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/i/Talk%7ETaiwan_Archive_3_2c82.html"