Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC

[edit] OPEN POLLS

[edit] CLOSED POLLS

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Where was this poll announced?

I removed the sentence that said not to vote if you didn't agree with the disputed naming convention - if there was no dispute this poll wouldn't be necessary. I also changed 50% mjority to rough consensus. I could potentially move my vote from oppose to support. I'm opposing because of common use and inertia. ROC is nominally the official name, I could support that if someone (not a partisan hack) is offended by the term Taiwan. SchmuckyTheCat 16:41, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you proposed to change how a poll will be passed please discuss before changing it. Thank you. — Instantnood 16:57, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, Schmuchky, you're looking for someone who's not a partisan hack? I've been reading these pages a long time. Good luck =).--BlueSunRed 02:10, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WhisperToMe's comment

For everyone voting "oppose" on several of these, you all understand that the island Taiwan is only a part of the "Republic of China" and that the Wikipedia article on the said government is at "Republic of China", right? I feel that "Taiwan" is a misonomer in several of these titles. WhisperToMe 12:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That, an NPOV is NOT negotiable, so I feel that the "oppose" votes in some of these cases are misguided and that they should not count. WhisperToMe 12:47, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What a wonderful idea - all the "oppose" votes shouldn't count! Not even Mugabe thought of that one!

Maybe some of us read the NPOV policy as meaning that Wikipedia should take neither a pro-Beijing nor a pro-Taipei approach. Usage of the term "ROC" is pro-Taipei. There are terms all sides agree on - as can be seen by the various formulations used in the international fora in which the Taipei government is represented, and these should be used.

There is another point - namely that very, very few people have even heard of the term "ROC" - it's just not used where I come from - I never see it - never, jguk 21:52, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gah, just because you've not heard of something doesn't mean that "very, very few people have even heard of the term ROC". You've been saying that for months, without any evidence besides the fact that you'd never heard of it. The terms Republic of China or ROC are perfectly common in political contexts. Quit demanding that wikipedia cater to your ignorance. john k 07:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(response to jguk's comment at 21:52, Apr 6) If you don't agree with the naming conventions, propose to change it. If your proposal is the consensus of the majority, all the pages will be renamed accordingly, to the revised set of naming conventions. Before it is changed, please don't block its enforcement. A law is still a law before it's repelled. — Instantnood 13:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I see nothing useful coming out of that page. Every action is blocked, and the only consensus that remains about that page is that it is disputed. Do not refer to disputed articles as authorities. That's retarded.--160.39.195.88 15:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that Instantnood went out and recruited a whole bunch of people when he saw that the vote was going against him. Whisper, you also know it's POV to say that Taiwan means only the island or to NOT equate Taiwan to the ROC. Both are POV so don't attempt to pull NPOV on people you disagree with.--160.39.195.88 20:27, 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 13:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan does not equal ROC. I only update articles about Taiwan.Tp kde 22:12, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's very true. I don't agree it's an NPOV to equate Taiwan with the territories administered by the ROC. They are not the same. — Instantnood 13:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's only POV if you call the polity of "ROC" "Taiwan". Calling the territories Taiwan is a non-political question. We are talking about a linguistic, cultural, economic unity. If China took over Taiwan tomorrow and nuclear hell did not ensue, then presumably, people in Quemoy/Matsu would not lose their 50 year history of living apart from the mainland.--160.39.195.88 15:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is really a difficult situation. I feel exactly the same way as Tp kde does. Had these article being changed into XXX of ROC, I would absolutely lose my appetite working on them. This being said, there is a de facto change of the territory controlled by ROC. Changing these articles into XXX of ROC would make people confused which territory the article is about and wonder if the article is about mainland China. Use the term Taiwan would be more accurate to shaping the scope of the article. NPOV would always being worked out in the texts of the articles.Mababa 01:11, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree if nobody considers it clusmey, "ROC-administered territories" would be even better.

[edit] Jguk's comment

THIS POLL IS A REQUEST TO OVERTURN THE WIKIPEDIA NPOV POLICY AND TO CHANGE WIKIPEDIA POLICY SO THAT IT IS ANTI-BEIJING AND PRO-TAIPEI (by jguk at 21:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC))

I agree. It's utter bollocks. In the UK, ROC has no currency at all. When we watch sports, and an athlete is announced as from "Chinese Taipei", we're scratching our heads, going "where the hell?". Taiwan is neutral. ROC is a statement.Grace Note 14:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it is unclear whether Instantnood's changes are either anti-Beijing or pro-Taipei. If we see the political viewpoints as a spectrum ranging from the CPC on one end, the KMT in the middle, and the DPP on the other end, then the intent of these polls might bring Wikipedia closer to the KMT's position, but not to either the CPC's or the DPP's—which is possibly as neutral as we can get, since the KMT's position is in the middle of the more extreme positions of either the CPC or the DPP. (This comment is not an endorsement of the viewpoint of any of these three parties.) —Lowellian (talk) 00:04, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

That is to say, I disagree with Jguk's comment. And also think there was no need to yell out (boldface and all caps) the comment. —Lowellian (talk) 00:08, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see that the PRC would describe "Taiwan" as an independent country, which is what Jguk has been advocating for the last few months. It seems pretty clear, in fact, that they dislike that kind of phrasing much more than they dislike use of ROC. john k 07:06, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I most certainly have not been arguing that "Taiwan" is an independent country. Indeed, I've been pointing out time and time again that no-one recognises that Taiwan is an independent country, jguk 12:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

True, but there are several countries that have diplomatic relations with the ROC. Which is, I think, what you were trying to deny. john k 03:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(response to Lowellian's comment at 00:08, Apr 7) Jguk's boldface and allcaps comment was originally placed at the top of this page :-D .

Back to my position. I do not consider myself pro-Beijing, pro-Taipei, pro-KMT, pro-DPP, or whatever. I proposed these moves because I don't agree that "Taiwan" can be equated to the entirety of the territories currently administered by the ROC. "Taiwan" and the territories administered by the ROC are not the same. By using "Taiwan" meaning the non-Taiwan territories is in effect discriminating these places.

And at the same time, some users who are interested in Taiwan-related stuffs, say Mababa and Tp kde, did suggest that "Taiwan" ≠ "ROC" (or "ROC" ≠ "Taiwan"). The entirety of the territories administered by the ROC = Taiwan plus something. If a page covers that something, no matter it's about politics or not, it's already not a solely Taiwan-related page. — Instantnood 13:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

This is pure sophistry. We call the UK "Britain" sometimes. We're not excluding the Hebrides when we do so. It's purely political to call Taiwan the ROC. Use the most widely understood name, make no political judgments, take no sides. That's what we ought to do. Grace Note 14:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 160.39.195.88's comment

Instantnood, you cannot tell people that they should be enforcing NPOV when the NPOV section of Chinese Naming conventions is under heavy dispute. If you disagree, you disagree.--160.39.195.88 23:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please refer to my response to jguk above. (at 13:39, Apr 6) — Instantnood 13:39, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further comments by 160.39.195.88

Please do not delete the following comment unless you can show that I'm lying, and even then, you should probably respond and not just delete. I would not be lying purposely if what I say is inaccurate. In any case, it's easily verified by anyone, and I think it's relevant. Please take a look if you're suspicious. Notice the disputed tag on the NPOV section. Notice the long, long discussions with nothing changing. Notice the time stamps and how long the discussion has been going on. Instantnood is really pushing it here between running polls multiple times in less than a month, setting arbitrary rules like so-called "enforcement" of naming conventions.--160.39.195.88 15:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) Instantnood, you cannot tell people that they should be enforcing NPOV when the NPOV section of Chinese Naming conventions is under heavy dispute. If you disagree, you disagree.--160.39.195.88 23:00, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree w/ 160. Any way we can vote out Instantnood?? Kidding of couse, but maybe we should put him in the same category as Jiang and Mababa--DINGBAT 20:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] When there is no consensus, we need to compromise

I think it's pretty clear that no consensus will ever be reached on this matter. Both "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" are POV in this case, and there is no NPOV way out of this. In this case, we have to compromise, rather than cram the opinion of the slim majority down the throats of the minority, which is not the spirit of NPOV.

I propose that the following compromise be made:

1. Put a disambiguation at the top of every page. This disambiguation will probably read:

   This article is about the _______ of the Republic of China, which currently administers Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, and Matsu. See also xxx of the People's Republic of China, xxx of Hong Kong, xxx of Macau.

2. Put a disclaimer at the bottom of every page. This will be in a smaller sized font. It'll read something like:

   The location of this article should not be taken as an endorsement of the equivalency of "Taiwan" with "Republic of China" or of the legitimacy of the ROC government.

3. Leave the articles where they are. The fact is, both moving them and leaving them are POV. In this case we can only take the lesser of two evils. Moving is more troublesome and the current names are more comprehensible to hapless confused foreigners. The current name is not more NPOV. It's just that we have no NPOV choice to fall back to.

-- ran (talk) 16:58, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the direction of moving towards compromise. But I don't think accuracy for an encyclopedia can be a trade-off and be sacrificed. Quemoy, Matsu, etc., have never been part of Taiwan, in whatever meaning of "Taiwan" (except "Taiwan Area", which is used in place of "Free Area" in trade and tourism matters). It's not compromise, but submitting, if common but inacurrate usage rules.

And what does this accomplish? It is quite clear that many people feel "Taiwan" to be a term good enough to substitute for "Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy and Matsu", i.e. the "Republic of China". Either you convince most of them of your views, or you compromise. I don't see any other way out of this.

I should also add that the very idea of "POV" is that people have different views on what accuracy and fact are. In our situation, the definitions of terms are volatile and vary from political camp to political camp. You can't cram the definition of Taiwan that you have down the throats of others (and nor can they do it to you). -- ran (talk) 17:25, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I am interested to know from when Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu, Pratas and Taiping has become part of Taiwan. :-D — Instantnood 18:13, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

In the minds of lots of people here, apparently, many of whom aren't ignorant about the subject. If you make the equation that ROC = Taiwan (which a lot of people make), then by extension all of those are a part of Taiwan. You don't have to agree that ROC = Taiwan, of course, but lots of people do. -- ran (talk) 23:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

I would be interested to hearing from proponents of ROC = Taiwan that when the equation started to become valid, and when did the islands become part of Taiwan. — Instantnood 06:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think this campaign to insert references to the "Republic of China" everywhere has gone on too long, and has already put lots of noses out of joint. It's time to let things rest where they are for now - reconsider things in six months' time, if necessary - but for now, keep the status quo, jguk 17:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uncle Ed's comments

I thought Taiwan was the geographical name of an island, and Republic of China was the official name of a government which de facto controls the island. What is this dispute about? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:25, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Republic of China is not just the island. It controls some islands off Fukien/Fujian coast, and in the South China Sea. — Instantnood 18:16, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Holy Cow, ED, where have you been!?!? What the heck are you doing on this page then...--DINGBAT 20:56, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Artificial distinction. There is a single culture among all the territories of the ROC that can be identified most neutrally as Taiwan or Taiwanese or of Taiwan. It's been 50 years of a single state. I'm sure living on small islands makes you kind of different, but in the big picture, although it's a funny unity, it exists.--160.39.195.88 22:52, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, there are two major culture groups on Taiwan, and two major languages. There are many Chinese people on Taiwan who primarily speak Mandarin, and there are many Taiwanese people on Taiwan who primarily speak Taiwanese. There are important questions fluctuating being debated on the island, such as what the national language should be, and what languages the school should teach. But yes, they have essentially been ruling themselves for decades, as the byproduct of a divide in a civil war that seems to have never really ended. — Cortonin | Talk 05:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The old passports issued by that government used to say "Republic of China" on the front cover, but the new passports say "Taiwan" on the front cover, for people from the main island, and for those from the other tiny islands. There are elements within the government which would like to change the name, such as the currently ruling political party, and there are elements of the society which would like the name to stay ROC. China has of course threatened war if the island's government declares independence, and changing the name officially from ROC to Taiwan has been seen as one such declaration of independence. So a delicate political dance has been struck, and instead of changing the "official name", the ruling party, which wants to change the name, has instead changed the public face of the name, in part by changing the name on the passports to "Taiwan". In the Olympics, Taiwan has to appear as "Chinese Taipai" because China refuses to allow Taiwan to participate in the Olympics under the name and flag of Taiwan, because that would legitimize it as an independent country. So it would be an understatement to say that this is a delicate issue that the NPOV policy does not fully equip us to handle. The name of the country is an issue of cultural self-identity, and one of those nearly unresolvable international issues which has balanced itself into a careful dance. Unfortunately, it might break out into war before all those questions are resolved. — Cortonin | Talk 05:04, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's a picture of the old and the new passports. — Instantnood 11:38, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Instantnood tries for a change to the rules

It seems that Instantnood now agrees with Whispertome - all the oppose votes should be discounted as they are made by people who are misguided. He's even appealed to Jimbo (in a disingenuous manner too given his past record on Taiwanese matters) [5]. At what point will Instantnood recognise that he has failed to gain a consensus for his views and allow us all to return to more productive editing? jguk 21:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• he'll recognize consensus when Szeto Wah stops paying his rent. SchmuckyTheCat 22:17, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 160.39.195.88's comment

The above is not agreed upon. The NPOV page that is cited is heavily disputed. See discussion below.--160.39.195.88 23:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 160.39.195.88's comment

The above is not agreed upon. The NPOV page that is cited is heavily disputed. See discussion below. Instantnood, stop deleting this comment. You are attempting to censor dissent. Setting the terms of the vote in an absolute way without allowing people disagree creates an unfair vote. I'm sure I could make up a poll if I set the parameters just right to get whatever result I wanted. But that doesn't help the validity of the poll.--160.39.195.88 23:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have never deleted your comment. — Instantnood 13:04, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

• no, you just bury it at the bottom. SchmuckyTheCat 18:15, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If she/he wants to say anything, she/he should do so at the right place. — Instantnood 19:21, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 160.39.195.88's comment

The above is not agreed upon. The NPOV page that is cited is heavily disputed. See discussion below. Instantnood, stop moving this comment to somewhere people won't see. You are attempting to censor dissent. Setting the terms of the vote in an absolute way without allowing people disagree creates an unfair vote. I'm sure I could make up a poll if I set the parameters just right to get whatever result I wanted. But that doesn't help the validity of the poll. Again, stop trying to move this comment. It disputes the very terms of the vote, and you can't try to make it so that people will not see it before they vote.--160.39.195.88 23:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Double Jeopardy Policy on votes

I believe that the result of this kind of vote based on the very same reason could be foresee from the previous votes. The nature of POVness on this topic makes a consensus almost impossible to reach. I believe the status quo is the best we can get. 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|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.Mababa 00:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, thanks for bringing this up. --Umofomia 00:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I have realized that many articles being voted here have already underwent another round of votes exactly one month ago. I do not see this vote is warranted or any additional reason that was not previously discussed in the previous votes one month ago. If this vote again failed to be passed, should we allow a third vote being waged one month later? Or perhaps should this vote passed, could we initiate another vote to reverse the decision? These are the topics should be discussed not only for this current vote but also for the community.--Mababa 01:04, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rough Consensus or >50%?

At the begining of this voting page, it states:

Like Wikipedia:Requested moves, a >50% majority is needed for a move to be passed. The poll will be closed 30 days from today (12:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)), or 7 days after the last vote is cast, whichever the earlier.

I would like to challenge the standard for passing the votes today. In the WK:Requested moves, it states that a rough consensus is require to pass a vote. However, the rule stated in this voting page simplified it into >50%. I would like to ask if the standard for passing a consensus has been altered from a more stringent majority consensus into a >50% consensus. I also wonder what is the difference between 49% and 51% of support in this voting today? Does 51% of support shows a stronger support than 49% when the difference could be tipped off by one single vote? Is >50% really what a rough consensus mean? I would tend to think a vote with small difference should be regarded as no consensus and should not be regarded as a consensus being reached. Please comment and help me understand if there is a difference between rough consensus and >50%. Many thanks.Mababa 04:26, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In the interest of fostering a political community it's generally a bad idea to take the position that anyone who gets 50%+1 gets to do anything they want. (Curiously this one of the reasons I don't trust Chen Shui-Bian and why I think politics in Taiwan is such a mess). Instead of looking at the whole thing, we can break down the results. It's clear that there is a large majority against moving most of the articles so I think we can agree not to move those. There are a few articles were the support gets close to about 50%, but I think its a really bad idea to do something with 50%+1 support if there is a large minority that feels strongly against it.

Roadrunner 04:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I myself is a supporter of proportional representative electoral system. And in fact Chen Shui Bian didn't get over 50% of vote. :-P — Instantnood 08:30, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Mababa, I did change that to rough consensus when I first saw this page. Instantnood deleted my change. He is well aware that the policy on this page differs from that on Requested Moves (even though it states otherwise). SchmuckyTheCat 14:09, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear SchmuckyTheCat, I would like to express my appreciation on your careful notice on the difference between the genuine voting standard used in the Reqeusted Moves and the modification on this page. You are a thoughtful person!! Thank you so much for your notice!!:) --Mababa 01:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat, I did request you to discuss before making a change. If people prefer rough consensus, or perhaps even >75% support to >50%, we will have to go with it.

But please bear in mind these are polls for assessing the the applicability of the naming conventions to each case. They are not polls for expressing your view or opinion whether they should be moved or not. — Instantnood 14:19, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it do you? The statement "Like Requested Moves, a 50% majority"... is... is... well, I won't call it a lie, but you are equating your 50% rule with that one and that one isn't a 50% rule. I changed it to match their rule, you deleted it. If you want to be 50%, delete the statement "Like Requested Moves", because one of these things is not like the other. SchmuckyTheCat 14:55, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) 

Well I thought the polls at WP:RM are passed by >50% majority, by counting the number of "support"s and "oppose"s. Let me know if I am wrong, and I won't object to have that sentence rewritten. — Instantnood 16:06, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Some reference on the definition of the "Rough Consensus"[6][7]. Your simple majority is NOT a rough consensus by definition. I guess the reason why we need a stronger consensus rather than a simple majority consensus is that the Wikipedia is a community composed of spontaneous participants. With a contineously floating number of participants in each vote, a simple majority would not be able to represent a true consensus in the total cohort. It is not that a support of 51% is not a majority, it is that a vote with such a 51% of support does not sample the participants in this community enough to show a meaningful and true difference from a 49% of support. The simple majority system proposed in the top of this page would make any controversial result easier to be passed (including today's votes) and misrepresenting the true consensus of this community. You may want to have your sentence rewritten so that the votes would meet the higher standard of the Wikipedia.--Mababa 03:44, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's more that if 49% of those who vote oppose you, you certainly don't have the support of the wider community. You must convince all or nearly all that your change should be made. Strong and significant dissent is sufficient for a fairminded judge to decide there is no consensus. Grace Note 05:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dear Instantnood, I have yet seen you making modification on the voting rule to meet the Wikipedia request for move voting standard. Is it because you think this voting doesn't count again because they mostly failed or it is because you are not convinced by the reference I provided? I would like to suggest that failing to do so without clear explaination would make people misunderstand that you do have the intention to twist the voting rule in favor of your proposal to be passed. Please kindly response and comment.--Mababa 01:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In addition to what I've said above, I did not notice WP:RM was rough consensus rather than >50% majority, by counting number of "support"s and "oppose"s. I don't mind changing it, but it'd better be done by going through discussion. — Instantnood 07:26, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Response in conjuncture with Instantnood's reply in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/China or PRC vs. mainland China.
In the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/China or PRC vs. mainland China, Instantnood responded shortly "Change it if it should be rough consensus," when I asked him to rectify his misleading voting rule. As a participant in this vote initiated by Instantnood, I am realy troubled by this answer. I believe that I deserve a more responsible reply from Instantnood.

I would like to remind Instantnood that is him who initiated these massive votes without any supporting consensus to do so in the community. It is also Instantnood who made the misleading statement that the rule for passing the vote complies with the Wikipedia voting standard, "like Wikipedia:Requested moves."(see above) I believe that the burden is layed on Instantnood's shoulder to ensure this vote to be conducted fair and just, and that he can not brush my question off as if he has nothing to do with the misleading voting rule. Afterall, he is the person who initiated and concucted today's voting than simply brushing me off.

Since today's votes are about moving titles of articles, no matter whether a discussion would be held to change the voting policy to the simple majority system from the rigorous rough consensus as Instantnood suggested, the default voting standard in ANY Requsted moving votes should always be rough consensus. SchmuckyTheCat was nice enough to notify Instantnood the difference between the simple majority and the rough consensus. As a participant, I also did my share to remind Instantnood to change his misleading rule back. It is now for Instantnood to demonstrate his responsibility to correct his own mistake, I believe.

It is also Instantnood's responsibility to initiate the discussion to change the voting rule from rough consensus into simple majority(>50%) as the initiater, not mine or anyone else's, if he truely find the simple majority votes are superior to the rough consensus votes. I would like to urge Instantnood to recognize his reponsibility to rectify the mistake and please do not brush my question off, if he is serious about hold a fair and just vote and if he is not twisting the voting rules in favor of passing his proposals and if he is genuinely acting in good faith.--Mababa 02:38, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will response the following reply which I have recieved in the page of Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/China or PRC vs. mainland China here.

Instanthood doesn't owe you anything and he's been nothing but forthcoming, honest, and polite with everyone including those who have disagreed with him (which is a lot more than I can say for some people involved in this). I'm going to recommend he not reply to your constant questioning because right now this isn't productive. I'd suggest a Wiki-break and reflection to gain some perspective. --Wgfinley 04:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no clue this response is about. I was not a party of any arbitration and thus I am have no idea why is that I get a reply from a advocate from my question for my friend Instantnood.

Clearly Instantnood's personality is not part of my question or discussion, I do not knwo why Wgfinley made comment in this direction. Frankly, Instantnood and I also had many interesting discussions which we enjoyed very much. Wgfinley's claim that I raised constant questions for my friend Instantnood is a distortion of truth, and I do not think it to be appropriate. I only raise my question for Instantnood when I have question on his statements that I think is deviated from the reality I percieved. Contrary to Wgfinley's claim, Instantnood is the one who constantly debates and quibbles on Taiwan-related topics.

Since I thought Instantnood is a conscientious Wikipedian who is enthusiastic in conducting a fair and just vote for apporving his proposal, I assumed he would take on the responsibility for the vote he initiated to ensure the fairness and just during the vote. I also assumed that Instantnood would show the same level of enthusiasm to promptly address people's concern on the voting rule which is solely decided by him and turn out to controversial.

Assuming today's vote is still alive and active, the ultimate question is who should be hold responsible for a vote initially portrayed to be following Wikipedia Requested Moves voting rule turned out to be deviated from that voting standard without discussion or consensus warranting such change. It is certainly not me or anyone else, but Instantnood.

Suprisingly, Instantnood showed no willingness for change and told me to change the rule if I want. As the advocate for Instantnood, Wgfinley advised my friend to ignore my concern over the voting rule. I am not sure if they have already decided today's vote does not count after getting so many people embroided into this vote or because Instantnood is not responsible for the twist of voting rule which I personaly believe to be misleading. Or perhaps they believe that the result of this vote can be decided by their arbitration[8] and thus keeping today's vote as fair as possible is not important any more? Or perhaps they are poised for a third round of votes already and thus no one really cares about today's vote? If I remember correctly, igoring questions also contradicts to the principles of Wikipedia etiquette. I actually did not unexpect this kind of advice from an advocate.

Indeed, Instatnood owes me nothing. However, he owes everyone participated today's vote a fair and unbiased voting regulation which I was expected to recieve.

In my opinion, Wgfinley's calim that today's discussion not constructive is again incorrect because failing to address the voting rule problem is even more detrimental to the legitimacy of these votes initiated by Instantnood, which I assume are still alive votes. As for the proposed Wiki break, if everyone enjoys the privilege to take a Wiki break, Instantnood certain does not have it for the time being since he still has the responsibility to carry this vote through until it ended. I will be happy to leave this discussion if my participation is a problem for Instantnood's comming back to address and fix today's question. However, I will be ready chiming in if I noticed any statement again does not match to the reality. Please comment and I would be looking forward to any response. Please do not make me disappointed and misunderstand any potential evasion from the responsibility.--Mababa 04:42, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A few more words before I take a Wiki leave from this issue. I have left a note for Instantnood in his talk page urging him come back to take care of our questions. People work hard on these voted articles and therefore they take today's vote seriously.

I hope Instantnood can also seriously take participant's time, energy, opinion and concern. I urge Instantnood to live up Wgfinley's forthcoming, honest, and polite expectation. Please do not let people wonder if today's vote was initiated irresponsibly and unseriously as one's past time.--Mababa 05:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Instantnood and his advocate were kind enough to exchange some opinion in my talk page. Just for the record that Instantnood is still responding privately; though he still holds the position that he has nothing to do with the voting rule.--Mababa 05:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Legitimacy of this vote

Since this vote is not opened in the Wikipedia:Requested moves and presumably many outside opinions would be excluded, does this vote mean a second vote should be submitted into the Wikipedia:Requested moves or this private vote is a done deal? Can we move this current vote to the public voting page? Why is that this vote is not held in the Wikipedia:Requested moves page or perhpas this close-door vote is only a prelude held by Instantnood according to the requirement of Wikipedia:Requested moves to gather consensus before bringing the votes into the Wikipedia:Requested moves?--Mababa 04:33, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Replied at user talk:Mababa before I notice this section here. :-) — Instantnood 06:47, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please also explain to me why's that result of the vote held one month ago was disregarded? Can I also just disregard the result of this vote, too? :) Mababa 04:48, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why was this vote even started. I would suggest us to leave the articles as they are now, until a major political change is made to Taiwan's official title.Tp kde 07:50, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry about that. Would you mind spend some time rolling up to the top of this page, click the links there, and read the previous discussions? It would help understand what had been going on. — Instantnood 08:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

The following disclaimer was copied from Instantnood's post in Taiwan talk page in Apr 6, 2005

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)

A few points. There are no tags on these being voted article. I assume that there was no appropriate notification for these votes. Secondly, eventhough Instantnood claim that there was no clear objection for his voting proposal, there was no indication for a consensus among the community for supporting Instantnood's initiation of the second round of voting, either. As a matter of fact, only two votes participated that poll and both endorsed for another round of votes. One of them is Instantnood himself. There was no other votes. There were no enough momentum to warrant his massive move proposal. When he make his proposed case-by-case proposal, it was basically a monologue. Again, no consensus to warrant his votin proposal on Taiwan-related articles.

I think Instantnood needs to explain to us why is he so indulged into targeting on Taiwan-related articles so that he would still repetitively initiate voting wars when there is no enough consensus to support his proposals. I also wonder: should we proceed requesting for deletion on this vote page just like the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/China or PRC vs. mainland China, since apparently the existence of this poll was not adequately broadcasted?--Mababa 02:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are not the same sort of move requests on WP:RM, rather, they address the applicability and application of the naming conventions. It is not "another round of votes". I hope you can understand how the meaning and objective they are different from WP:RM.

For an article which content (particularly figures and statistics) covers not only Taiwan, but the entirety of ROC-administered territories, it is no longer a Taiwan-related one.

I won't comment whether the polls were "adequately broadcast", but I have done what I considered necessary to let people to know about it. — Instantnood 07:48, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. However, I still failed to understand the differece you claimed to be between this vote and the previous vote held one month ago. If you did not notice the extreme resemblence between the two rounds of the votes, I would be delighted to help you in this regard:

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 (Republic of China) → 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)

The content above is part of the the first round of votes adopted from the record listed in the Talk:Economy of Taiwan. In that previous vote, you have already made it clear that your arguement is based on your personal interpretation of the naming convention. The word naming convention appeared in that previous vote for twelve times. There is nothing more clear that you was holding the poll in the name of the naming convention. Still, eight out of the eleven votes opposed the way you interpreted. And thus, you initiated the second round of today's vote for your second attempt.

What I believe is the same between the two polls one month apart:

1. The objectives: to move pages from one name to another name
2. The arguements: the same (Naming convention and ROC;Taiwan)
3. The target pages: the same
4. The result of the polls are the same: lack of support

What I believe is different between the two polls one month apart:

1. This vote is held outside of the Wikipedia Requested Move and thus presumably excluded many outside opinion.
2. The voting rule has been changed from a rigorous rough consensus to simple majority(>50%)
3. The duration has been extended from 5 days of discussion to 30 days

For the reasons above, I failed to see the difference as you claim. However, I saw the changed voting rules makes the result more prone to be disputed and manipulated. If you still hold the belief that there is any genuine difference, would you please further explain and help us understand? --Mababa 01:16, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Basically, Mababa has carefully, thoughtfully demolished any legitimacy to this vote. What steps can we now take to formally invalidate it?--160.39.195.88 15:45, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, we should consider action against Instantnood. I don't know the Wiki policy, but it makes sense mathematically to me to ban extreme individuals from editing particular groups of articles or topics. Since no one person is essential to an article, a banning of a single person every now and then for good reason should pose major benefits in eliminating bad edits with little risk of losing good ones.--160.39.195.88 15:50, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For your information, there is a request for arbitration pending against Instantnood. Susvolans (pigs can fly) 16:02, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit]

[edit]