Talk:Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall is within the scope 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 on the importance scale.
This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall article.
Article policies
Archive
Chronological Archives
1

Contents

[edit] Combining articles: National Theater and National Concert Hall

Wiki told me this discussion existed. I looked for it elsewhere, though, and didn't see it. Maybe this is the place to post this.

I recommend combining the articles National Theater (Taiwan) and National Concert Hall (Taiwan) into one article titled National Theater and National Concert Hall (Taiwan). The article about the arts venues would remain separate from the article Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall.

Terms that would forward readers to the article:

  • NTCH
  • NCH
  • National Cultural Center
  • National Cultural Center (Taiwan)
  • National Taiwan Cultural Center
  • National Experimental Theater (Taiwan)
  • National Recital Hall (Taiwan)
  • National Chiang Kai-shek Cultural Center R.O.C.
  • National Chiang Kai-shek Cultural Center
  • Chiang Kai-shek Cultural Center
  • CKS Cultural Center
  • Variant spellings using -re endings (theatre, centre).
  • Variant spellings using the word culture instead of cultural.

Combining the two makes research easier because it follows the practice of the Cultural Center administration itself. The same body handles events at both buildings. The buildings share the same publications and web site. They were planned, built, and opened together. It works like the Kennedy Center in Washington DC, really: you have a theater and a concert hall and a recital hall grouped together at a locale, but all of it is the Kennedy Center. Under the circumstances it's a bit awkward to maintain two different articles because there just happen to be two buildings. You'll end up duplicating information.

Titling the article by reference to the two structures also follows the practice of the Cultural Center, which uses NTCH (National Theater and Concert Hall) as its acronym. It distinguishes the names of the buildings at the outset of the shared article. It helps introduce the acronym NTCH and helps readers recognize and remember it in conducting their own further research.

I have written an article for the purpose. Right now it exists in mirrored form under the two headings we have. I prefer to merge the two articles as I have suggested.

I would appreciate some editorial help with my citation format in HTML. My main source was the official NTCH web site. Information about the twentieth anniversary season, Classic 20, came from a Taipei Times article. Links to both are shown in the section headed "References/Links".

It has been suggested that the article for both these structures also be merged with the article for the monument to Chiang Kai-shek. This is not a good idea. The buildings exist for very different functions and are administered differently. Readers seeking information about the one want very different information, usually, than readers seeking information about the other. Trying to merge all this serves neither well. It makes an already long article longer and harder to navigate. Keeping the arts venues distinct, with a link between the two, suffices.

Keep in mind that a great deal more material exists to be provided for the National Theater and Concert Hall beyond what I've supplied. It would be a matter of legitimate encyclopedic interest, for example, to provide a list of NTCH artistic directors, to offer a historical chronology, to mention highlight performances, and to list noteworthy premiers of new plays and compositions. All of this information is out there for Wiki contributors to find and share with us. They need that room. Alton 09:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New addition moved from article:

As these events occurred a contrasting approach, within the ranks of the KMT, absorbed the attention of Taiwan's public. Chiang Kai-shek's great-grandson Demos Chiang (蔣友柏) told a popular magazine that the Chiang family had indeed brought suffering to many people. He said the KMT served its own interests best by admitting as much, apologizing for its role, and moving on to create its new identity as one party among many in a democratic system.<ref>[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/05/29/2003362956''</ref>''

Have removed the above paragraph from article. Two problems: 1. that it "absorbed the attentino of Taiwan's public" is not apparent from the source cited; 2. I tried to edit it so that it is relevant to this article, but couldn't. The story seems to be about this guy's attitude to Chiang Kai-shek or family or administration, and not about the memorial itself or the legality of the renaming. Not sure it is relevant to this article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I support your action, and I was the one who added it. I wasn't sure about the addition, either. I never found wording that struck my ear as appropriate, to begin with. The interview was occasioned by the upcoming renaming of the hall but the English news sources I could cite didn't state this. The comment about the interest of the public was personal experience--the magazine was Next, a hugely popular magazine in Taiwan, and the interview was widely discussed in Taipei. But that reference was mainly about indicating the date. The interview appeared in the same month as the events being detailed in the Wiki article and were part of the public discussion then taking place.

But that context in Wiki, IMO, was already a problem. I see the whole last section is an unnecessarily detailed digression into municipal political maneuvers. The addition was relevant to the immediate subject (showing readers the plurality of opinion that exists among the KMT under discussion). But I don't think much of that immediate subject even belongs. Most of it strikes me as too detailed and too "close to things" for an encyclopedia entry about a monument.

I shouldn't have fed it. Wiki is not a nightly news show. I think it's better just to clarify for readers the general positions of the parties, say the situation is still playing itself out, and give a general picture of how things stand at the moment. One can leave things at that until the picture changes. Alton 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we really need to change the "post latest news" with something more to the point. should start removing stuff and rewording as the political issue clears and the future of the site more certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinkhoo (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition party

It's inappropriate to use the term "opposition party" to refer to either the KMT or the DPP, or either the Blue or Green coalition. As one will learn by reading Opposition (parliamentary), the term "opposition party" refers to the party that does not control the legislature in the Westminster system. It is inapplicable to a Presidential system like Taiwan's. See, for example, the lack of references to the Democratic Party (United States) as the "opposition" in the US.

The situation is analogous. The KMT controls the legislature. If Taiwan were a Westminster system, it would be the government party. Taiwan is not a Westminster system. But that does not make the KMT the opposition party. All you can say is that it does not control the presidency. Under the five powers Constitution, the President can't just pass laws without the legislature's assent. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The KMT does not control the legislative - it only does so with the support of the PFP. However, it is true that the Taiwanese media refers to the DPP as the "ruling party" and KMT et al as "opposition". "Opposition" refers to the political parties that are set against the government/not allied with it, not who is in control of the chamber(s) itself. John Smith's 19:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Taiwanese media calls the DPP 執政黨 and the KMT and PFP 反對黨.--Jerry 19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes the KMT controls the legislature with the support of its coalition partner. So the accurate way of describing it is "the KMT-PFP coalition is the majority party in the legislature". However, my point about the Westminster-origin of "opposition" remains: no matter which way you look at it, the DPP is not the majority party in parliament, so the KMT is not the opposition in the Westminster - i.e. ordinary English - sense. Again, I point to the way the Democrats in the US are not referred to as "the opposition".
2. This is the English wikipedia. The word "Opposition" should be used in its ordinary English sense as used in English (i.e. the non-government party in a Westminster legislature), and not in the sense that its probable Chinese translation is used in Chinese. \
3. The situation of the KMT (or KMT-PFP coalition - the distinction does not matter in this context since they voted as one on this issue) is analogous to that of the Democrats in the US: a presidential system; controlling the legislature but not the presidency. Whichever way you would describe the Democrats, the same should be used for the Pan-Blue legislators here.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't really have an opinion on this but the American media calls the DPP the ruling party and the KMT the main opposition party.--Jerry 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name change - again

It appears that this time the Taiwanese government has won its fight to rename the monument/memorial hall, according to this article - Taiwan's Chiang Kai-shek Memorial to fade into history.

Obviously I am not suggesting changing the name and re-writing the article now, but subject to any later developments I hope that people will not object to a name change of this article and the according necessary re-write. John Smith's (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the Memorial Square are renamed to Liberty Square [1].--Jerry 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't really mind if you change it, but I just read that news report, and there are still a lot of legal battles over this issue, and until they are all solved/dealt with, I would suggest that we maintain the status quo for now.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thing is that the matter will never be "settled" because the KMT will always oppose it. Even if the DPP won control of the legislative and Taipei mayor & city elections, the KMT would still be threatening this, fining that and suing, etc.
Wikipedia shouldn't block name rectification on those grounds. Of course we can mention the fact the name change has been disputed, but that's it. If the site is given special status that means it comes under the control of the national authorities, it's up to them - there's no law to say the KMT have to agree to it. John Smith's (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

From my reading of the Chinese press, the DPP administration is continuing to push through "administrative" changes. I think that is conceptually different from a legal change of name, given that the Taiwan Democracy Hall does not legally exist while the CKS Memorial Hall still legally exists.

The Education Ministry's claims in the article linked to in this section make no sense, legally speaking. The heritage council is in charge of approving or disapproving modifications to protected structures. Approval to change a tablet does not a legal change make.

I expect that this issue will be resolved after the next presidential and legislative election. I say we continue to document moves on both sides, and change the heading/lead as appropriate when the matter is settled - i.e. either the DPP manages to pass the bill through parliament, or the KMT manages to win the presidency and annul these administrative orders. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the article again. It says the heritage council has designated it/is going to designate it as a national memorial, which is thus under the control of the central government. Do you dispute that? Also, as I've said previously, it will not be "resolved" after the elections because the KMT will continue to whine and throw temper-tantrums regardless of what happens. John Smith's (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, PalaceGuard008 does have a point. If the KMT win the next presidential and legislative elections, then the decision will be reversed. However if the DPP remain in power, then the whole name change will be set in stone. So we could definitely wait and maintain the status quo til those election do happen.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  08:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I very much disagree with your thinking. Even if the DPP continue to control the presidency, that won't mean the KMT can't win in 2012 and then change the name. There's always the threat of a name change being reversed, so if one argues the article should not be renamed on the basis of a possible name change it can never be renamed.
Even if the monument only has a new name for 6 months or so (I believe the President Chen's term expires a month or more after the election), that will still be its official name and the article should reflect that. Also there is no guarantee it definitely would have its name reverted even if the KMT do win the presidency if the public are opposed to another change. So, as I said, if the heritage council do officially put the monument under the central government's control and the name change is announced or affirmed, rename the article (and any other related ones that have to be) accordingly. John Smith's (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I think JS is confusing between two concepts: on the one hand the site of the Memorial Hall, which is now heritage listed and thus within the central government's jurisdiction in terms of approving or disapproving modifications, and on the other hand the two rival institutions, the CKS Memorial Hall and the Democracy Memorial Hall, the former of which exists at law but (perhaps) not in practice, and the latter of which (perhaps) exists in practice but not at law.
The two concepts are interlinked - if the CKS Memorial Hall becomes abolished and the Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall becomes established, then we are likely to say that the name of the site changes, since it is the institution which uses, manages, and occupies the site.
However, right now the Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall doesn't exist at law. At best, it is an informal, unregistered "trading" name of what is legally the CKS Memorial Hall. That the site becomes heritage listed doesn't give the Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall any more or any less legal basis.
To give you an analogy, whether the Palace of Westminster is heritage listed or not, whether its planning is controlled by Greater London Council or a national body, does not affect the legal status of the institution that sits in the palace, being the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
As to "KMT whining" - all functioning democracies face such an uncertainty as governments change. However, whether something legally exists or not is easily determinable without reference to the probability of another party winning government in the future. WorkChoices is a part of the law of Australia, even though we know that the present government intends to - and will - abolish it soon. Likewise, when either the DPP passes a law or the KMT cleans up all the quasi-legal administrative stuff, the legal situation will be clear and we will report it as such. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dubious

I have tagged part of the last paragraph as dubious. Under the ROC Constitution, only the Legislative Yuan has the power to pass legislation. The executive arm can only pass delegated legislation authorised by authorising legislation passed by the Legislative Yuan. Unless this is some peculiar meaning of "bill" that I am not aware of, the Cultural Heritage Council is not competent to pass a "bill", that competency being solely in the domain of the legislature. I have a feeling there has been a mistranslation. Does anyone have a report on the same news item from a more reliable source? The Taipei Times article, for example, does not mention a "bill". I think it would be better described as a "regulation" or "designation" or even "inscription". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's more of a "motion" or "resolution", especially when it comes from a non-legislative council or committee. nat.utoronto 21:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

The name should be changed now. After an official renaming ceremony and inscription change of the main gate plus the building itself, I don't see why this page shouldn't be moved. The legality of the name change is somewhat controversial, but that's what the Controversy section is for. Wikipedia is about facts, and the fact is that the name of the memorial has been changed to Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall.--Jerry 21:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not just "somewhat controversial" - the name has not been changed at law: no law has been passed deprecating the CKS Memorial Hall and insituting the Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall. I say keep status quo until the situation clarifies next year after the elections. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
But the fact is that the name has been changed. And you can put the legal issues under the Controversy section.--Jerry 20:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't the renaming ceremony held months ago? They just changed the inscription. How is this different?--Jiang (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Well changing the inscription seems pretty different because if it wasn't changed, anyone could argue that the name hasn't changed. So the inscription change makes the name change more complete. That hardly what we should focus on, though.--Jerry 21:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a personal interpretation. I could conversely say it's not "pretty different". They had those portable signs up for months. And we're talking about the name inscribed on the main gate, not the name of the hall. --Jiang (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
"More" complete perhaps, but not complete. My stance is that until it gets fixed up legally in one way or another, we keep to the existing legal name. The situation would be different if everyone in Taiwan calls it the Democracy Hall - but that is not the case. Where there is no clear and unambiguous common name, Wikipedia policy is to defer to the official one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, maybe this article should have been moved in May. I do want to point out, a legal name does not make it official.--Jerry 22:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
How so? As far as I'm concerned legal = official. What, in your opinion, makes something "official"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe the official renaming ceremony makes NTDMH the official name. And I am curious about where exactly WP:NC says Where there is no clear and unambiguous common name, Wikipedia policy is to defer to the official one. May I see the exact quote?--Jerrch 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
It's in the naming conflict rules: WP:NCON.
Anyone can have a "renaming ceremony" and call it "official" - but if it is not authorised by law, it is not official. I dunno, perhaps we come from different legal systems and there is not much of that sense of supremacy of the rule of law in your system. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Can I see the exact quote please?
Well, I suppose a ceremony in which the elected president announces an official name change to a building administrated under the government an official one. I don't know, but I think the central government has more power than the local government.--Jerrch 14:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Nobody is above the law. Even the president cannot act without legal authority. This is what we call "separation of powers". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure, but I don't think Wikipedia should be about the law, it should be about the fact. The fact is that the name has changed by the central government. There might be some legal issues, but that's what the controversy section is for.
Can I please see the exact quote that says Where there is no clear and unambiguous common name, Wikipedia policy is to defer to the official one.?--Jerrch 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NCON#Proper nouns: there is no common name in this case, so the official name prevails.
Wikipedia may not be about the law, but it is also not about the unilateral, ultra vires actions of a government official. Wikipedia is about sources: unless a clear majority of sources document that the new name has been established as the common name, then we either (1) retain the previous common name, or (2) retain the official name. As of now, the legal name must be the official name.
Regardless of how much you love Chen Shui-bien, the fact remains that there is no basis for the new name being "official" because it is not supported by the state of the law in Taiwan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I do support the DPP, but I have never said before that I support Chen. Please keep that in mind.
Okay, I agree now, that the official name is CKS Memorial Hall. One more thing though, I'm afraid that CKS Memorial Hall will not be a self-identifying term anymore, since the memorial will no longer displays CKS legacies and belongings. If that happens, how are we going to name this article?--Jerrch 20:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jerry, IMO, as we always do with touchy Chinese-ish politics and such, it's best to leave the status quo until such time we have a more or less definitive answer/solution to our problem, which is the upcoming 2008 presidential-legislative elections, whoever wins will pretty much set the answer in stone ( Ma and the KMT = NCKSMH / Hsieh and the DPP = NTDMH ). nat.utoronto 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
But if either are mix (i.e. Ma in the presidency and the DPP in the legislature or Hsieh in the presidency and the KMT in the legislature), the mess will continue and we'll have to wait another 4 years before this is solved) nat.utoronto 20:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(Just for a different perspective) The way Chinese Wikipedia seems to be treating the issue is to call the site the "Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall", and then have a separate article for the organisation the "Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall". The buildings and grounds are described in the former. The organisation and controversy as to its legal existence are described in the latter.

This seems to be the same way Chinese Wikipedia deals with Forbidden City/Palace Museum: there is one article talking about the buildings and grounds of the Forbidden City, then a separate article called "Palace Museum" that deals with the organisation and the museum collections. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exhibition

The Democracy Hall will be having new exhibitions after the opening of the hall. Here's a news article on it. [2].--Jerrch 17:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoration

I removed the section "Restoration" because there was no source at all. While the content may be true, the fact that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, made the removal of the section necessary.--Jerrch 02:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The sources cited to say Ma will restore the name do not say that. I can recall a couple of weeks ago when the Taiwanese media asked Ma about this, he replied that he will act according to the will of the people (and therefore he avoided the question and didn't promise a restoration).--Pyl (talk) 15:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)