Talk:Taiwan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taiwan article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Good article Taiwan was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Chronological Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Contents

[edit] Culture and Language Sections

I'm really not sure where this word "Hoklo" is from, but everyone in Taiwan just uses the word "Taiwanese" to refer to both the ethnic group and the language. As this is standard practice among English speakers in Taiwan, I think the inclusion of the word "Hoklo" is a bit irrelevant.

Also, if you're going to mention Ang Lee you ought to mention Wang Chien-ming, who may be even more popular!

--210.240.107.30 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] So many languages...

I don't know what you were thinking when you added so many different languages in order to say the word Taiwan. It takes away a lot of space in the article. Please reconsider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevennelly11 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japan's Conquest

The paragraph is ambiguous:

Inhabitants wishing to remain Chinese subjects were given a two-year grace period to sell their property and remove to mainland China. Very few Taiwanese saw this as plausible.[6]

I don't understand what it means.

Dear Anonymous Person: It is a well-written paragraph. It means that, after winning the war, the Japanese gave the people on Taiwan two years to either go to mainland China or stay on Taiwan as Japanese subjects. This was very difficult for most of them to do. Writtenright (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Writtenright

[edit] KMT

"In addition, as part of its retreat to Taiwan, the KMT brought with them literally the entire gold reserve and foreign currency reserve of mainland China. This unprecedented influx of human and monetary capital laid the foundation for Taiwan's later dramatic economic development." This statement exaggerates the importance of the influx represented by the KMT reserves and the KMT elite on Taiwan's economic miracle. Since it is entirely undocumented, I can't see how it should be kept as such.

The KMT had been engaged in a horrific war first with Japan and then with the CCP for some 20 years (not that things were so rosy in the 1920s). What little the KMT invested in Chinese infrastructures during the 1920s was wiped out. The economic situation of the country was in complete shambles! Gold and foreign currency reserves were extremely limited: Finance Weekly Vol 19, No 17, Nov. 1948 estimates the total reserves of the bank of China (foreign currency, gold, silver...everything) at $168 million...and, even if they were enough to jumpstart the Taiwanese economy...and i really doubt they were, the KMT was notorious for corrupt officials who did not invest substantially in the Taiwanese economy.

Here is a more plausible account (although also scant in references): The US government invested some $4M (M stands for billion in American Englsih) in Taiwan (financial aid alone--military equipment and food would represent even more) in the twenty year period following the end of WWII.[1] Admittedly, most of this came in the 1950s, but that is when the economic recovery started, not the 1940s. Further, Allied bombings of Taiwan were relatively limited, meaning that the infrastructure the Japanese had built up over the preceding 40years was still largley intact. Taiwan--unlike the war-ravaged regions of mainland China--had an industrial infrastructure. Thus, it seems more likely that the previous Japanese investments in the island--to say nothing of American post-war investments--played a more substantial role in Taiwan's economic recovery than the paltry investments the KMT could manage.


I agree with this. The story that the KMT took all the gold and foreign reserves from China sounds like something made up by the Chinese Communist Party to explain why Taiwan prospered while China remained poor. The inaccuracy of the wording shows the bias of the writer. "KMT brought with them literally the entire gold reserve". The word "literally" means that it happened exactly as written. In this case, it would mean that "the entire" meant everything, ever last speck of gold. Not a single piece of gold could be found in the entire land of China after the KMT left?
I'm not enough of an economist to say why Taiwan prospered, but the story that it was based on gold and foreign reserves from China doesn't pass the smell test and shouldn't be in this article without some solid citation. Readin 16:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Definitely agreed. I've removed the more controversial statement that the "influx" laid the foundations for Taiwan's growth. How could it have done - things took off decades later. As for the gold, etc I tweaked it as from what I understand the KMT only took what they could get - it is a bit of propaganda to suggest they got every penny. I've also put a citation request up. John Smith's 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This is definitely propaganda. Also Taiwan suffered a huge depression after the KMT take over as they shut down industry and virtually everything else, tearing apart the infrastructure to ship to Nanjing for the war effort. As Taiwan also underwent the latter part of the Meiji Restoration, it was highly developed prior to the KMT take-over and frankly as one of Asia's biggest fruit and sugar exporters was profitable and did not need a "jumpstart" in the economy. It only did after KMT mismanagement ruined the economy after the take over. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 22:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion about energy vs power

The present text: >>Taiwan has significant coal deposits and some insignificant oil and gas deposits. Electrical power generation is nearly 50% oil-based, less than 10% natural gas, less than 10% nuclear power, and about 35% hydroelectric power, with the remainder from renewable energy sources. Nearly all oil and gas for transportation and power needs must be imported, making Taiwan particularly sensitive to fluctuations in energy prices. Because of this, Taiwan's Executive Yuan is pushing for 10% of energy generation to come from renewable energy by 2010, double from the current figure of approximately 5%. In fact, several wind-farms built by American and German companies have come online or will in the near future. Taiwan is rich in wind-energy resources, both on-shore and off-shore, though limited land area favors offshore wind resources. Solar energy is also a potential resource to some extent. By promoting renewable energy, Taiwan's government hopes to also aid the nascent renewable energy manufacturing industry, and develop it into an export market.<<

contains a few misapprehencions. Thus, I propose the following instead:

>>Taiwan has significant coal deposits and some insignificant oil and gas deposits. Power generation is nearly 50% oil-based, less than 10% natural gas, less than 10% nuclear power, and about 35% hydroelectric power, with the remainder from renewable energy sources. Nearly all oil and gas for transportation and power needs must be imported, making Taiwan particularly sensitive to fluctuations in energy prices. Because of this, Taiwan's Executive Yuan is pushing for 10% of power generation to come from renewable energy sources by 2010, double from the current figure of approximately 5%. In fact, several wind-farms built by American and German companies have come online or will in the near future. Taiwan is rich in wind-energy resources, both on-shore and off-shore, though limited land area favors offshore wind resources. Solar energy is also a potential resource to some extent. By promoting renewable energy, Taiwan's government hopes to also aid the nascent renewable energy manufacturing industry, and develop it into an export market.<<

[edit] Formosa

"Ilha Formosa" is Portuguese for one of the major islands in the Bijago Archipelago, off the coast of Guinea-Bissau. As far as I know, it has no relation to Taiwan. The "Ilha Formosa" page should not have an automatic link to the page for "Taiwan". Wilhamo 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

At one point, Taiwan was also known as Formosa. Taiwan is one of a number of places to have discarded names given to them during times of European expansionism. That may be the connection. Not sure of the "Ilha" part.--Coro 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan was named "Ilha Formosa" by the Portugese, meaning beautiful island. "Ilha" means island.--Soccerking344 13:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dutch Government

I am not familiar with Wikipedia and too busy to become familiar enough to edit this page, but someone might be interested in adding a significant detail concerning the circumstances of the arrival of the Dutch. They were already involved in China trade (using illegal services provided by Zheng Zhilong, Koxinga's father's fleet) and looking for a base from which to stage a concerted effort to penetrate the China market. However the Portugese had negotiated some sort of exclusive contract for trading on Chinese territory. This contract was cited as a basis for the ejection of the Dutch from their attempted colonization of the Pescadores (which pushed them onto Taiwan), after which a monument was erected by the Qing government memorializing the fact that the Dutch had been sucessfully driven from Chinese soil. (This monument was on display at Taipei's Palace Museum a few years ago).

[edit] Questionable content

Quote: The island groups of Taiwan and Penghu (except the municipalities of Taipei and Kaohsiung) are officially administered as Taiwan Province of the Republic of China.

I object: The island groups of Taiwan are actually controlled by Republic of China (ROC), but are officially administered as Taiwan Province of People's Republic of China (PRC). It is accepted by the UN that Taiwan is a province of PRC, not ROC. Also, ROC is not accepted as a country by UN. ("it has been debated if the Republic of China changed from a de-jure to a de-facto state in 1971 because it lost its UN seat." )

Kniito 06:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

no, "administered" means having direct physical control, which the PRC does not. Blueshirts 06:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
but when you put "officially" there, it is not "physical" Kniito 07:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
The UN doesn't recognize Taiwan as a province of PRC, the UN recognizes the Taiwan-area as Taiwan, Province of China and pretty much leaves it open for interpretation, although the majority view is that the PRC is China and that China includes the Taiwan-area. nattang 07:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the whole sentence should be removed or changed, especially since the provincial administration and its bureaucracy were rendered "frozen", much to the chagrin of James Soong. Blueshirts 07:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
yeah, I agree with the second message of Blueshirts. According to Nat, UN didn't specify where "China" is (which I think citation is needed), so it is not appropriate to say it's officially administered by PRC (as I did), nor is it appropriate to say it's officially admimistered by ROC (as the passage did). Whatever it is, this sentence need to be changed, and for now deleted.
By the way, I don't think UN can leave it open for interpretation. There should be something like "when not mentioned, 'China' stands for ## in following paragraphs". Kniito 07:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This section I believe is very misleading and has no citation to support its veracity: "Up to this very day, a small number of older Taiwanese are still loyal toward Japan, and they share their beliefs with the next generation. In general for its effect on politics, while the KMT remains interested in reunification with China, the DPP seeks closer relations with Japan."

I believe it is correct that the official stance of the KMT is that there is one China that includes Taiwan and that the KMT is the party that should govern all of China. The Democratic Progressive Party began mainly as a party advocating democratic ideals (at the time Taiwan was run by a military dictatorship) and defending the rights of Taiwanese (who were heavily discriminated against by the mainlanders who arrived and took control of the island after 1945 and in even larger numbers following the communist victory in China in 1949). There is no part of its party platform that advocates closer ties to Japan or in any way expresses any preference in relations with Japan versus with the government in Peking. The statement above is an attempt to slander the DPP, is unsubstantiated and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.45.19.50 (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion vote

Please see the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese Americans. Badagnani 02:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Republic of China

If it is possible to rename articles, it might be a good idea to change the title of the article to "Republic of China," because that is the complete name of the state. There is a difference between the "People's Republic of China" and the "Republic of China." --Iluvmesodou 18:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Republic of China is already an article.--Jerry 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Legally speaking, Taiwan is not the "Republic of China." This assertion can be made on various grounds, including the following: (1) None of the Allies recognized any transfer of the sovereignty of Taiwan to the Republic of China upon the surrender of Japanese troops on Oct. 25, 1945. (2) In the post war San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced all claims over Taiwan, but no receiving country was specified. The Treaty of Taipei later confirmed these arrangements. (3) Taiwan has never been incorporated into the national territory of the ROC via the procedures of Article 4 of the ROC Constituton. HENCE, Taiwan is not ROC territory. (It would be most helpful if the writers on these webpages would keep some common sense legal principles in mind when doing their writing and editing work.) If anyone can show me some definitive documentary proof that Taiwan is ROC territory I will eat a plate of smelly beancurd .... Hmortar (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger?

There may be some confusion as to whether Taiwan and the Republic of China are the same. It might be better to merge the two articles (Republic of China and Taiwan) into an article called "Republic of China (Taiwan)".Futureunwritten 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This proposal has been previously considered and rejected for the following reasons (list not inclusive). (1) Taiwan the geographic island is not the Republic of China, which historically encompassed all of present-day mainland China and then some, and interestingly excluded Taiwan island initially, (2) the article would be too long, (3) the POVish nature of the expression "Republic of China (Taiwan)." The article Republic of China on Taiwan I had nominated for deletion, but it was kept. I am all in favor of making a deal that would clearly specify what material goes where with all of these partially overlapping articles.Ngchen 12:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copy please!

Please copy the country box template from the Republic of China to Taiwan please, this can help orginize some of the issues with the merger. Thanks,CMonkey111 02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Before you do that, please see the discussion about said box in Talk:History_of_the_Republic_of_China-- Readin (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, no matter your POV of Taiwan's political status/name, it's plainl clear that Taiwan as a distinct geographic entity deserves its own page!

Taiwan does have its own page. As far as copying the box to here, I think that would be a mistake because this article is about Taiwan the location, not Taiwan the country.Readin (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan is a geographical term. Taiwan is not the name of a country. Hmortar (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is the common name or nickname of the Republic of China.Readin (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you can relabel "Republic of China" as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and leave this article, which is about Taiwan the geography, alone.--24.193.80.232 (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] a change

When alot of people, or atleast in america, search for taiwan, there looking for the entity known as republic of chinaand probly not the island, i suggest this be renamed taiwan(island) and the word taiwan itself be redirected towards ROC, with the ussual added to that page about looking for taiwan -Cody6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.202.203.233 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not To Be Confused With Thailand

What the hell? Why is this line there? They are two entirely different places! Just because they start with the same sound? Maybe we should put a line at the start of the United States article - "Not to be confused with the United Kingdom" PseudoEdit (yak) (track) 00:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people confuse Thailand with Taiwan.--Jerry 01:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Not enough to keep that kind of dab. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Well those people are very, very ignorant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.28.178.35 (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dates system (years from foundation of Republic)

It would be worthwhile to mention that it's common in Taiwan to call the year by it's "year since the founding of the Republic" (e.g. 2007 is 自民國96年 (or year 96 of the Republic). I came to the Taiwan page looking for this information, but couldn't find it. Should it be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.12.182 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need assistance to expand Taiwan Confucian Temple

Hi, if anyone can help expand Taiwan Confucian Temple, possibly by examining Chinese-language sources, that would be great. It isn't clear why the website says the temple was built in Tainan while the address is listed as Taipei. Badagnani (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this an acceptable etiquette?

The following paragraphs were copied from the aricle (Yu Bin, "America's Rogue Ally," (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, November 1, 2007). I notice the author gave a citation of the source. But is a word-by-word copy of thousand words from a copyrighted article acceptable by WIkipedia? If not, I suggest we need to either remove them or to re-write the part. Mccwiki (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The followings are copied paragraphs.

Chen Shui-bian has scored several “firsts” in the relentless UN drive that has marked his last year as Taiwan’s president. For the first time, Chen’s UN bid was made -- twice in July (July 19 and July 27) and then officially in September during the annual UN session -- under the name Taiwan, not “Republic of China.” The UN rejected all three bids according to its long-standing one-China policy (the 1971 UN Resolution 2758). Chen, however, vows to continue his highly provocative effort until the island becomes a full UN member.

After the failed UN bid in July, Chen’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) unveiled on August 1 an unprecedented draft "normal country resolution,” arguing that "Taiwan and China are not under the jurisdiction of each other." The timing of the resolution’s release was also provocative: the first day of August, which is the Mainland’s armed forces day. In mid-September, half a million people marched for Taiwan’s UN membership in Taiwan when the world body held its annual meeting in New York City. A referendum on UN membership, the first in the history of Taiwan, is scheduled to be held in March of 2008, in conjunction with Taiwan's presidential election.

Perhaps the most significant “first” is Chen’s open defiance of Washington. Prior to Taiwan’s latest UN bid, the United States sent out clear and strong messages through both public and private channels that that the referendum would unnecessarily raise tensions with China. A State Department statement in June warned that the United States “opposes any initiative that appears designed to change Taiwan's status unilaterally." In late August, the Bush administration even scaled down Chen’s “transit” through U.S. territory (usually an overnight stopover in a major U.S. city) to a few hours of refueling in Alaska on his way to visit some Central American nations.

On September 11, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary Thomas Christensen publicly warned Taiwan in a strikingly candid tone: back down or face the consequences. “Taiwan's security is inextricably linked to the avoidance of needlessly provocative behavior,” he told an audience that included Taiwan defense officials and lawmakers. “... let me be perfectly clear: ... we do not recognize Taiwan as an independent state, and we do not accept the argument that provocative assertions of Taiwan independence are in any way conducive to maintenance of the status quo.”

Christensen’s warning, however, did not seem to deter Chen. Two days later, the Taiwanese leader responded, "The United States has its interest, while we have ours. Sometimes the two do not correspond and sometimes they even clash.”

Essentially, both Chen and the DPP have tossed away Chen’s March 2000 “four NOs” pledge to the United States that he as Taiwan’s president would not declare independence, not change the national name, not push for inclusion of sovereignty themes in the constitution, and not promote a referendum to change the status quo regarding independence and unification. Taiwan’s current move for UN recognition under the name Taiwan is perhaps the last shoe to drop since early 2006 when Chen scrapped Taiwan’s National Unification Council and National Unification Guidelines -- two symbolic elements of the island’s lip-service to the one-China posture.

This is what I yanked until we decide whether to put it back in. I've read the referenced article and it does seem very very similar to what I remember.

Chen Shui-bian has scored several “firsts” in the relentless UN drive that has marked his last year as Taiwan’s president. For the first time, Chen’s UN bid was made -- twice in July (July 19 and July 27) and then officially in September during the annual UN session -- under the name Taiwan, not “Republic of China.” The UN rejected all three bids according to its long-standing one-China policy (the 1971 UN Resolution 2758). Chen, however, vows to continue his highly provocative effort until the island becomes a full UN member. After the failed UN bid in July, Chen’s Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) unveiled on August 1 an unprecedented draft "normal country resolution,” arguing that "Taiwan and China are not under the jurisdiction of each other." The timing of the resolution’s release was also provocative: the first day of August, which is the Mainland’s armed forces day. In mid-September, half a million people marched for Taiwan’s UN membership in Taiwan when the world body held its annual meeting in New York City. A referendum on UN membership, the first in the history of Taiwan, is scheduled to be held in March of 2008, in conjunction with Taiwan's presidential election. Perhaps the most significant “first” is Chen’s open defiance of Washington. Prior to Taiwan’s latest UN bid, the United States sent out clear and strong messages through both public and private channels that that the referendum would unnecessarily raise tensions with China. A State Department statement in June warned that the United States “opposes any initiative that appears designed to change Taiwan's status unilaterally." In late August, the Bush administration even scaled down Chen’s “transit” through U.S. territory (usually an overnight stopover in a major U.S. city) to a few hours of refueling in Alaska on his way to visit some Central American nations. On September 11, U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary Thomas Christensen publicly warned Taiwan in a strikingly candid tone: back down or face the consequences. “Taiwan's security is inextricably linked to the avoidance of needlessly provocative behavior,” he told an audience that included Taiwan defense officials and lawmakers. “... let me be perfectly clear: ... we do not recognize Taiwan as an independent state, and we do not accept the argument that provocative assertions of Taiwan independence are in any way conducive to maintenance of the status quo.” Christensen’s warning, however, did not seem to deter Chen. Two days later, the Taiwanese leader responded, "The United States has its interest, while we have ours. Sometimes the two do not correspond and sometimes they even clash.” Essentially, both Chen and the DPP have tossed away Chen’s March 2000 “four NOs” pledge to the United States that he as Taiwan’s president would not declare independence, not change the national name, not push for inclusion of sovereignty themes in the constitution, and not promote a referendum to change the status quo regarding independence and unification. Taiwan’s current move for UN recognition under the name Taiwan is perhaps the last shoe to drop since early 2006 when Chen scrapped Taiwan’s National Unification Council and National Unification Guidelines -- two symbolic elements of the island’s lip-service to the one-China posture.[1]

Readin (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


Good Catch, Mccwiki! Readin (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Economy?

I find it odd that there is no section Taiwan's economy. Parabolicaer (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is in the article Republic of China.--Jerrch 00:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The economy isn't political. Why is it in the ROC article rather than the Taiwan article? Readin (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats where you're wrong. The economy and economics are things that always involves politics, especially in international trade, and often is one of the main topic in political, diplomatic and international issues discussions. nat.utoronto 04:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
With the way modern governments try to stick their fingers into everything, what doesn't involve politics? Just as one example, the article mentions that Mandarin Chinese is a commonly spoken language in Taiwan. That of course has everything to do with politics. My point was that the economy is not an official function. Were Taiwan to suddenly be ruled by Japan, China, Korea, the US, or Germany, computers would still be an important industry, trade would still be critical, rice, fruit and betel nuts would still be grown in much of the island, and there would still be lots of family-owned businesses. Readin (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I propose to have the section in both articles.--Jerrch 18:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is a wiki policy against unnecessary duplication. The information on the economy should be in one location, and the other location should point to it. Readin (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should merge the ROC economy section to China, and have an economy section here in Taiwan.--Jerrch 15:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
nope. The economy is tied to the state, not a geographical location, and so it would be preferable to have that section in the Republic of China article. However, since the economy has it's own article, it is posible to place a section in both ROC and TWN articles. nat.utoronto 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Nat, that's twice you've claimed the economy is tied to the state, and you still haven't given any reason for us to accept that claim. Are you saying that if Taiwan were taken over by Congo, Taiwan would start producing a lot of diamonds? Please explain what you mean when you say the economy is tied to the state. Readin (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Jerrch, Merging the ROC economy section to China would make no sense at all. Readin (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I do like Nat's proposal that since there is already an article devoted to just Taiwan's economy, that both the ROC and Taiwan articles could briefly introduce the subject and then provide a link. Readin (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see Taiwan Miracle. Benjwong (talk) 05:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Is the Taiwan Miracle article supposed to answer my question of why the economy is tied to the state more than to the people and geographic location? Readin (talk) 15:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
What I mean when I say that the economy is tied to the state is that no one today is stupid enough to have a complete free market, which means that a mixed economy is the only viable option for any captitalist economy, which also means that the Government regulates the economy and the Central Bank of the state is in charge of making sure that the economy is stable. And your analogy is somewhat wrong Readin, as if the Congo were to take over Taiwan, it would be still the Congo where the diamonds are coming from plus whatever Taiwan produces such as rice and clocks (just some examples, I'm not saying that's all they produce), as Congo is now the state. nat.utoronto 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, perhaps I should make the analogy more precise. If the government of Congo were to flee to Taiwan and lose control of Congo, but were to keep the name of the state "Congo" so that consisting of Taiwan and a few other islands were now formally known as "Congo", would Taiwan suddenly start producing diamonds? Would the "Congo" still produce diamonds? I'll grant you that the Congolese government mostly like wouldn't manage monetary policy as well as the Republic of China has.
Certain parts of the economy are heavily government, and other parts are not. Taiwan would produce rice and betel nuts and fruits no matter who was in charge. On the other hand, the monetary policy is strictly a government function. I still like your proposal that since there is already an article devoted to just Taiwan's economy, that both the ROC and Taiwan articles could briefly introduce the subject and then provide a link. Readin (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Readin in that economy should be still placed in this article rather than in ROC. The economy of the region known as Taiwan has existed independently of whatever government has been on the island (Imperial Chinese, Dutch, Japanese, ROC), and should be at least mentioned here in this article. To move the economy section away in an attempt to completely de-politicize this article is unrealistic, inaccurate, and at best disingenuous. Sjschen (talk) 20:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

-Culture- You can buy your meal in the 24-hour convenience stores. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsin (talk • contribs) 15:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan is not soveriegn?

Well, I was looking, and as it is shown on Image:United Nations Members.PNG, Taiwan is part of the country that is called China (I am saying that to prevent confusion between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China earlier stated in discussion) according to the UN if you see, on the bottom of the page that lets you choose between revisions of the map, some where it states in paraphrasing that according to the UN Taiwan is part of China( or Republic of China or the People's Republic of China, one of those, apparently is represented by the term Taiwan or I am just wrong, or confused, or-- all these terms are confusing!!!

Confused,--RayquazaDialgaWeird2210 (talk) 16:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The UN has one point of view. There are many other points of view. A big source of your confusion probably comes from not being sure what "sovereign". Or perhaps you believe you know what it means but your definition differs from other people's definitions. Looking it up in the dictionary doesn't help much because the dictionary definitions often rely on words that aren't well defined, and sometimes different.
The way I see it, Taiwan is sovereign, and the UN is just listening to China, and China is just being imperialist. The policy of Wikipedia when there is such a disagreement is to describe both views without endorsing either. Readin (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, the Republic of China is sovereign as it is the state, not Taiwan. nat.utoronto 15:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so what is the synonym for Taiwan? People's Republic of China? I'm a wee bit confused... ask123 (talk) 21:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Although it is common practice to use "Taiwan" to refer to the Republic of China, nat prefers to stick to the formal name "Republic of China". Other than that we appear to agree that the state is sovereign and that a distinction should be made between a government and the territories/peoples it governs.Readin (talk) 20:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, so "Taiwan" is the same as "Republic of China." And I take it that "People's Republic of China," on the other hand, refers to the country of China on the Asian continent, no? ask123 (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
In common practice yes. For example, if you read a news article and it says "Taiwan", it means the Republic of China. If the same article refers to "China", it means the People's Republic of China. However in diplomatic circles and among Chinese nationalists you'll find that "China" is used differently to support claims that Taiwan is part of China.Readin (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Taiwan is not a country, it's a province of China, either Republic of China or People's Republic of China, and administrated by Republic of China and claimed by People's Republic of China, and in legalstive, Republic of China claim the soveriegn of whole China, even a bit lager than what claimed by People's Republic of China, since it contains Mongolia, but Republic of China do not claim the authority over China actively these years, especially since DPP become the ruling party since 2000.
Not only According the consistution of People's Republic of China, but also Consistution of Republic of China,"Taiwan Independence"(means create a indepedent "Republic of Taiwan") is illegal.
The "Taiwan" in news refer the Taiwan Area, not only Taiwan Island, it's refer to the actual control area of Republic of China, include Taiwan、Penghu、Kinmen、Matsu and other small island.Tnds (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
And that's why it's so hard to get NPOV when writing about Taiwan. People have different opinions about it. They range from the idea that Taiwan is part of China to the idea that Taiwan is an independent nation, with a lot of subtle variations in between.Readin (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Sovereign Means

It depends on what you mean by sovereign. According to the free dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sovereign one definition of sovereign means: "Self-governing; independent" which you could argue, despite claims of PRC to the contrary, Taiwan/The Republic of China is both self-governing and is independent from control of PRC. I think it would be useful to use the term "de facto" in this type of situation, because the term is usually used to indicate that the official policy is one thing, but in fact, the situation is different. It is "de facto" an independent and sovereign state, but officially most governments refuse to recognize it. And, by the way, several governments do, in fact, recognize Taiwan as an independent country. As of 2007, 25 countries recognize the Republic of China as the legal government of all of China, while most other countries recognize PRC as the legal government of all of China ( http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/taiwancountry.htm ). If you actually look at history, one could argue that the Republic of China was the legal government of all of China before the Communist Revolution, and that both PRC and ROC have equal claims to all of China. --WisTex (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to be a sovereign nation, ROC/Taiwan has to have "territory." However, there are no international legal documents which can prove that the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan has ever been transferred to the ROC government or to any governmental entity on Taiwan. Hence, ROC/Taiwan is not a sovereign entity. Former Sec. of State Powell pointed this out very clearly in 2004 when he said "Taiwan does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation." Another reference is the CRS Report for Congress, July 9, 2007 -- China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy. In the Summary at the beginning of that report the following points were made -- (1) The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three US-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. (2) The United States "acknowledged" the "One China" position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. (3) US policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan; (4) US policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and (5) US policy has considered Taiwan's status as undetermined. Moreover, on Aug. 30, 2007 Dennis Wilder, National Security Council (NSC) Senior Director for Asian Affairs said: "Taiwan, or the Republic of China, is not at this point a state in the international community. The position of the United States government is that the ROC -- Republic of China -- is an issue undecided, and it has been left undecided, as you know, for many, many years." Hmortar (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You have references but the almost all come from a single source, the US government. Further, about your statement that "there are no international legal documents... ", it is POV to say such documents are necessary. Readin (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Taiwan was, is and will always be one part of China, no matter PRC or ROC. I think China may be the best name for calling this country, including mainland and Taiwan island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyfishinwater (talk • contribs) 19:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

HappyFishinwater, you have a POV, but we are here to disucss the article, not to state our POVs. Readin (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan was a part of China, but then was ceded in the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki. Would you care to point out the documentary evidence as to when it was ceded back to China? Certainly there were no such specifications in the post war San Francisco Peace Treaty. (Have you read the treaty?) The Treaty of Taipei later confirmed those arrangements. It seems to me that you are spouting Chinese propaganda. Would you care to consider the facts, and not just keep restating Chinese propaganda?? Hmortar (talk) 15:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Taiwan was ceded to "China", but the Japanese did surrender to the "Republic of China" and the "Republic of China" took over. While the "Republic of China" used to be commonly known as "China", it is now commonly known as "Taiwan". That the Republic of China underwent such a change from governing one place to governing another is why we have a separate article for "Republic of China" and "Taiwan".Readin (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwanese identity section could use more but makes the NPV difficult to maintain

There has been tension over this topic for quite some time however competing documents from various recognized authorities still conflict. I'm surprised that this article doesn't contain a mention of the Taiwan Relations Act.

http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive_Index/Taiwan_Relations_Act.html

"(3) to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means;"

Taiwan is clearly not sovereign or there would be war between the mainland and the Taiwanese. However just because they are not sovereign does not mean that they are a province of the Peoples Republic of China. The US created the TRA to ensure that the decision is made peacefully. It is interesting to note that a recent survey shows half of the island is in favor of declaring independence.(i'll see if i can find the citation) The long time enemy of the Chinese Communist Party (the KMT) are actually the ones who are fighting the most against this decision. Whether or not Taiwan reunites with the mainland remains to be seen.

Zeroday (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Stay Neutral, You Have Give Both Sides Equal Time

Instead of having the ROC and PRC people constantly fighting to change the article to their POV, I would suggest simply stating the fact that the legal status of Taiwan is disputed, and provide sections showing the PRC view and the ROC view (and perhaps other major views if there are any). I think it would be very educational and informative to see ROC's and PRC's claims compared side-by-side in a manner than gives respect for each side's point of view, but does not endorse either point of view. i.e. The ROC and 25 countries say X, and the PRC and the rest of the nations say Y, and the UN says Z. I think the only way to have a neutral point of view is to air both sides in a fair and neutral matter, because they are not going to agree on it. --WisTex (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We have other articles for arguments over the Legal Status of Taiwan and the Political Status of Taiwan. This article is supposed to focus more on the land and people, not the nation-state.Readin (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Colonisation and Ethnic Cleansing

Was Taiwan colonisied after japanese conquest? How many japanese migrated to there? What happened with that population after WWII? Is there still any Japanese (apart from tourist and recent expatriates) in the island today?. Rocha 201.6.91.122 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any source to back me up, but I may be able to answer your question. First, yes, Taiwan was colonized by Japanese after the conquest, as the Empire of Japan had set up a government to govern Taiwan. Japanese language was made the official language, and law enforcement, judicial system, and education were established in line with the Japanese system. As to your second question, there could be as few as 50,000 and as many as 300,000, depending on the source. Almost the entire Japanese population was forced to relocate to Japan following Japan's defeat in WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by K kc chan (talk • contribs) 21:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

However, for the article, the word "colonized" is avoided for NPOV reasons. The main reason is that the description you K kc chan gives "as the some country had set up a government to govern Taiwan. Some country's language was made the official language, and law enforcement, judicial system, and education were established in line with some country's system." applies equally to China, but if you use "colonize" to describe the Chinese takeover, some people get offended. So to maintain NPOV, neither country's takeover is described as colonization. Readin (talk) 23:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I was simply giving a description as to what a colonizer typically does to the colonized; besides, the Chinese and Taiwanese shared the same ethnicity and culture while Japanese influences were considered foreign to Taiwan at the time of the respective takeover. Your argument would be more convincing if Taiwan and Japan shared the same cultural background prior to the invasion. However, I personally prefer to call that period of time Japanese administration era, as Japan did in fact tried to assimilate the local population. --K kc chan (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hakka? Revival?

The text claims that there are still many speakers of Hakka. But what I heard is that Hakka is declining rapidly, because of the dominance of Mandarin and Minnan in the media, and mixing through marriage between Hakka, Minnan and former Mainlanders.(talk) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sovereign State??

Are there any actions for declaring a sovereign state in 2008? Simplicius (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No. Hmortar (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV to recent updates

I have retooled additions to the History section added by Aznassassin for length and neutrality (diff. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. -Loren (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan is sovereign

Taiwan, or at least the Republic of China, has a democracy, which means that the people rule (popular sovereignty). Since the government of the ROC is of the Taiwanese people, by the Taiwanese people, and for the Taiwanese people, I don't see how Taiwan isn't sovereign.

One could probably argue that the ROC is the current regime the rules Taiwan, but that would only be partially correct. As I stated in the last paragraph, Taiwan is ruled by the people of Taiwan and possesses self-determination (Taiwan could technically declare independence anytime). It is only a difference between the fact and the law. Taiwan is, in fact, an sovereign independent country with a de jure name of the Republic of China.

Talk:China already has a discussion going on about whether to add "China is a country" to the article or not. I think we should have the same thing here: whether we should add "Taiwan is a country" to this article or not.--Jerrch 02:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan, the island, is not sovereign. The Republic of China is sovereign. The reason why Taiwan is not sovereign is due to the fact that is it one of many islands that are administered by the Republic of China. Saying that the Republic of China is synonymous with Taiwan would therefore be incorrect when defining what is sovereign and what is not. Granted, Taiwan is the largest of the islands govern by the Republic of China, but again it is only one of many. My position on the proposal is No. Taiwan is not a country because a country is commonly referring to either a nation (a cultural/ethnic entity) or a state. Taiwan is not a nation or a cultural entity due to the multiple ethnic and cultural backgrounds of the inhabitants: the different aboriginal groups, and the different Han Chinese groups (Hoklo/Min-nan/Fujianese, Hakka, Shanghainese, etc.); Taiwan is not a state as, I've said before, the Republic of China is the state and Taiwan is one of many island governed by the Republic of China; Therefore, Taiwan is not a country. nat.utoronto 08:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I undestand the idea that Taiwan is not a country or nation simply because it has minorities such as the aboriginies and the recent migrants from China. Most countries have minorities and many are even more diverse than Taiwan. See the United States of America, United Kingdom, China, Switzerland, and many other examples.
That Taiwan the island is only a portion of Taiwan the country isn't a good reason. The reason the country is commonly called "Taiwan" is that Taiwan the island makes up the vast majority of Taiwan the country. Naming things this way is not uncommon.
The only valid snag I see is the difficulty of handling pre-1945 ROC history. If we treat the Taiwan page as the ROC page, then what of the early history of the ROC that had nothing to do with Taiwan? As was pointed out on the Talk:China page, it is wrong to say "Taiwan" was one of the victorious allies in WWII.Readin (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
We could create an article called Republican China that covers the history of the ROC in mainland China (period after the fall of the Qing Dynasty and before the CCP took over).--Jerrch 15:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. One thing remains, I think. There is a clear continuity in government from the dictatorship in China to the dicatorship in Taiwan. Chiang and his cronies kept government structures and personnel when they switched countries. I think there should be an article to address this dictatorship. What would we call it? Perhaps Kuomintang_(government) or Kuomintang_(one party rule)?Readin (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be Nationalist China, and Kuomintang (government) (國民黨政府) would be fine also.--Jerrch 21:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a very good idea, and ROC history on Wikipedia would be much more organized. We would probably have a ROC history template that looks a little something like this:
Republican China
 Covers period after the fall of the Qing Dynasty and before the CCP took over, including the Warlord era and Nanjing decade.
Warlord era Stays the same.
Nanjing decade Stays the same.
Second Sino Japanese War Stays the same.
Nationalist China Covers period of Chiang autocracy and Kuomintang dominance on mainland China and in Taiwan.
Second Republic (zh:中華民國第二共和) Covers the history after the first direct presidential election (end of autocracy).
The comments on the right are about the bold articles on the left. Please modify it if you think something should be changed.--Jerrch 21:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
If this has nothing do with directly redirecting the article Republic of China to Taiwan, then I'm all for it. nat.utoronto 04:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not really a direct redirect. It's more like a split instead. The article ROC would be separated into four articles: Republican China (pre-1949 mainland regime), Nationalist China (conceptual article on the Kuomintang autocracy), Second Republic of China (conceptual article on the post-autocratic government), and Taiwan (present government).--Jerrch 02:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Where does the "Second Republic of China" come from? I agree that the change from authoritarian Chinese rule to democratic Taiwanese rule is significant enough to be considered a "second republic", but we can't just make up a name. Where did you get that name from?Readin (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a concept introduced by Wakabayashi Masahiro, a Japanese expert on the history and politics of Taiwan. This concept is also backed up by Taiwanese politicians including Frank Hsieh and Lin Chia-lung. President Chen Shui-bian also indirectly recognizes this concept. While it is not recognized by the mainstream historians, it certainly is not a made-up term.--Jerrch 19:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The reason why "Taiwan" is not considered sovereign is mainly due to the fairly complicated political mess (with all the conflicting claims) detailed at political status of Taiwan. Nat is correct; Taiwan is not a single "nation" in the cultural/sociological sense, neither is Canada or the United States. At the same time, it is not a "nation-state" in that the governing regime is called the "Republic of China." And people can argue ad infinitum as to whether the ROC legitimately or illegitimately exists today.Ngchen (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I need you over at Talk:China to help my explain that saying "China is a country" is problematic because people don't agree on the meaning of "country". Under your definition of "country", China is clearly not a country, and very few mondern states are countries. Readin (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Those countries who recognize ROC sovereignty also recognize it over mainland China. Therefore, Taiwan and ROC can't be merged. T-1000 (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That is not a valid assertion. You don't explain why they cannot be merged.--Jerrch 02:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia can't make up Territorial Definitions. The only people capable of doing so are the ROC legislature. T-1000 (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't making any territorial definitions. That is absurd. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The territorial definition of the ROC includes both the Mainland and Taiwan. If the ROC and Taiwan page are merged, this implies that the ROC renounced the claim on the mainland and the "Free Area of the Republic of China" is a country, which it isn't. T-1000 (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I still fail to see your point. Yes, it is true that the ROC claims control over the mainland. But that doesn't change the fact that Taiwan is the common name for the ROC. If the ROC and Taiwan page are merged, this implies that the ROC renounced the claim on the mainland and the "Free Area of the Republic of China" is a country, why is that? Please explain a little more.--Jerrch 00:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding Common usage, From Wikipedia:NAME:
"Use common names of persons and things
Convention: Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Where articles have descriptive names, the given name must be neutrally worded and must not carry POV implications."
The Montevideo Convention asks for the territorial definitions, not the "free area". "Free Area" implies that there is also an "unfree area of the ROC" that is part of the territorial definition. Wikipedia does not have the authority to redefine a "free area" into a "country". Furthermore, redirecting ROC to Taiwan is only supported by the Greens and Wikipedia can't allow due to NPOV, just like how we can't redirect "China" to PRC or ROC to support the Blues or the Reds. T-1000 (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has lots of text. It has lots of room to define things. It has nothing to do with international conventions.
There is nothing POV about using Taiwan as common name for the ROC. Even the KMT under CKC did it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
No, the KMT was very clear about the difference between ROC and Taiwan province. They even refuse to abolish the ROC Fujian province. Furthermore, Ma just stated on TalkAsia that "One China = ROC", so clearly "ROC = Taiwan" is a point of view. T-1000 (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but you see, anything could be a point of view. The current "Two China Policy" of Wikipedia is a point of view. Taiwan =/= ROC is a point of view also. However, Taiwan is in fact (or de facto) a country with an official name of the Republic of China, according to reliable Taiwanese medias and most international medias.--Jerrch 19:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"Two Chinas" is not a point of view. We could take a picture of the a PRC embassy, then take a picture of a ROC embassy, place them side by side, and there you go, Two Chinas confirmed. The legitimacy of the Two Chinas is a POV, but Wikipedia is silent on that issue. T-1000 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
That Taiwan is the common name for the ROC is also not POV. The usages is all around us. Do a search of "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" in news articles and see which gets more hits and check what those hits are referring to. You'll find that "Taiwan" is the name commonly used for the Republic of China. The fact that the ROC embassy is labeled "Republic of China" reflects the POVs that went into naming the embassy. It doesn't reflect the reality that Taiwan is not China. A silverfish is neither silver nor fish, and the Republic of China for a long time was not a Republic and it still isn't China. Readin (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan as the common name for the ROC, as a fact, is not POV. However, redirects implies legitimacy. Saying ROC is the legitimate government of only Taiwan is a POV. As Ma stated, his viewpoint is that the ROC is the legitimate government of both Taiwan and the Mainland. T-1000 (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Even if we were to give undue weight to Ma's view, we address this issue in the proposal below by not redirecting Taiwan to ROC. Instead we treat Taiwan, Pescadores and other associated islands as a country with a distinct history and culture currently governed by the ROC, and also have an aricle for the ROC as a state. Getting back to Ma's position, whether the ROC is the "legitimate" government of the PRC, it is not in fact the government of the PRC. To say what is "legitimate" is to take a POV in a debate. To describe what is actually occuring is not POV. Even Ma does not claim that the ROC is currently governing the PRC.Readin (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Undue weight has to do with legitimacy, giving undue weight would be to only show evidence that support Ma, and Wiki is not doing that. Anyway, when you use the term "country", you are expected to use the requirements define by the Montevideo Convention. How can Taiwan be treated as a country on Wiki when it doesn't meet 2 out of the four requirements? T-1000 (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm using the wrong term. What is it called when you give equal weight to the flat earthers and the round earthers, treating both theories as equally valid?
As for my use of the word "country", I'm using it in the sense of some of the dictionary definitions of "2 a: the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship b: a political state or nation or its territory" and "any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions, by a distinctive population, etc". Taiwan fits both of those. Taiwan also fits the four Montevideo Convention guidelines of "a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.". But of course "country" has other definitions so we should be careful about using it in the article unless we can agree that it fits all the definitions that would be assumed by a reader with little knowledge of the country. Readin (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
No, First, although the ROC does have a territorial definition, it does not include just Taiwan, but also the mainland, so Taiwan fails to meet requirement b; Second, those countries that hold relations also recognize it's sovereignty over the mainland, so Taiwan fails requirement d. If Taiwan is to be a country, then the territorial definitions needs to be redrawn and other country needs to recognize it as such. The ROC Fujian and Taiwan provincial governments also needs to be abolished. There is not enough support to do any of these things. T-1000 (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The Montevideo rules say "a defined territory", they don't say how it has to be defined. The borders of Tawian are defined militarily, economically, and internationally by long-accepted practice. If you're not sure about, ask your country's government who you need to get a Visa from to travel to areas around the Taiwan Strait. They can provide you a very precise map showing which areas are part of Taiwan and which areas are part of China, and the maps will be the same all around the world. The territory is very well-defined. As for the suggestion that other countries need to recognize that definition, Article 3 specifically says "The political existence of the state is 'independent of recognition by the other states". So it doesn't matter what other states recognize. Other states only matter in that Taiwan has a "(d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states" which it clearly does because it enters into relations with both countries that recognize it and countries that do not recognize it (e.g. AIT).Readin (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) It's called undue weight. But FWIW, the notion that Taiwan remains Chinese today is not fringe. Arguments in favor of Taiwan independence belong in that article. For the sake of neutrality, we should avoid taking sides, and simply describe things the way they are. Interested readers can get all the political claims and counterclaims at the articles dedicated to those issues. Finally, the Taiwan article clearly states at the top that material about the governing entity can be found at the Republic of China page, which I fully support.Ngchen (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
"It doesn't reflect the reality that Taiwan is not China." As for this statement, defining "China" as only the mainland is itself a POV. T-1000 (talk) 01:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Even the extremists who claim Taiwan is somehow part of China don't try to claim that Taiwan is the entirety or even the majority of China.Readin (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, besides the extremists, there are the moderates who consider Taiwan to be returned to China in 1945, but then "China" split into the PRC and ROC. T-1000 (talk) 07:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Even those moderate extremists who pretend Taiwan is still part of China don't try to claim that Taiwan is the entirety or even the majority of China Readin (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
How can you prove a political viewpoint about legitimacy wrong. T-1000 (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The term "Second Republic" as it applies to the modern ROC is a recently coined term that has not gained acceptance by mainstream historians and should not be used. I don't think splitting and creating a disambiguation page helps things any bit, as there are references to more than one era (eg UN representation). The answer is Wikipedia:Summary style.

We need to seperate "history articles" "government articles" and "country articles" and not confuse them all. For example, Nanjing Decade is a "history article" (on a historical time period) while non-existent (and badly needed) National Government of the Republic of China article is on the government that existed during the Nanjing Decade and beyond (1927-1948) and should explain government structure, personnel, and control.--Jiang (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Second Republic is not accepted yet by the mainstream historians, I guess we could just add the information to the Taiwan article. Also, maybe Republican China can be both government and country? Because it is covering the pre-1949 country.--Jerrch 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your proposal. What is being split/merged? Articles in question:

--Jiang (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've been giving it some thought, and I can't help reaching a conclusion that the ROC needs to have its own page because of its history of moving from one country to another. This makes the ROC government rather unusual (perhaps unique) among governments.

However, that still leaves the question of how to properly handle "Taiwan". "Taiwan" is more frequently used as the common name for the modern day Republic of China than it is for the island. Here are some questions to consider:

  • Does it make sense for the island to have it's own article? Based on precedent, yes. Great Britain and Hong Kong Island both have there own articles.
  • Does it make sense for the country to have its own article separate from the ROC? Yes. Even though the country wasn't independent, most areas (with the exception of Kinmen and Matsu) of the country have a shared culture and a shared history of aborigine settlement, Dutch rule, Qing rule, Japanese rule, Chinese rule, and democracy.

I would say that if we need to have a separate article for just the island of Taiwan, it should be called "Taiwan Island", while the "Taiwan" article should be about areas that are or have historically been part of the same country. To that end our topic sentence for the Taiwan article should point out that it applies to the other parts of the country (such as the Pescadores) as well. Finally, the template for the ROC government should be added to the Taiwan page as the ROC is the government of Taiwan.Readin (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

So it means that there will be major changes to these pages?
Sounds nearly right to me, but I wouldn't expect the ROC article to as bare as the French Fifth Republic article. The ROC article should still have the trappings of state - it should show the flag, the current president, the official name, etc.. This would be done with a template that would also appear in the Taiwan article. That is, the following would be made into a template that would appear in both articles since it applies to both the country and the government and contains no purely historical information:
台灣
Taiwan
Flag of Taiwan National Emblem of Taiwan
Flag National Emblem
Anthem: National Anthem of the Republic of China
Location of Taiwan
Capital
(and largest city)		 Taipei[2]
25°02′N, 121°38′E
Official languages Standard Mandarin[3]
Demonym Taiwanese or Chinese*
Government Semi-presidential system
 -  President Chen Shui-bian
 -  Vice President Annette Lu
 -  Premier Chang Chun-hsiung
 -  President-elect Ma Ying-jeou
Taking office 20 May 2008
 -  Vice President-elect Vincent Siew
Taking office 20 May 2008
Formation
 -  Kingdom of Middag 1540s 
 -  Kingdom of Tungning 1662 
 -  Republic of Formosa 1895 
 -  Republic of China 1949 
Area
 -  Total 36,188 km² (136th)
13,975 sq mi 
 -  Water (%) 10.34
Population
 -  2007 estimate 22,911,292[4] (47th)
 -  Density 633.12/km² (14th)
1,639.43/sq mi
GDP (PPP) 2007 estimate
 -  Total $695.388 billion (19th)
 -  Per capita $30,126 (28th)
GDP (nominal) 2007 estimate
 -  Total $383,307 billion (24st)
 -  Per capita $16,274 (36th)
HDI (2005) ▲ 0.932 (high) (23rd if ranked)
Currency New Taiwan dollar (NT$) (TWD)
Time zone CST (UTC+8)
Internet TLD .tw
Calling code +886
* Due to the government's territory after 1949 having little overlap with its pre-1945 territory, those who were nationals before 1949 are likely to be identified as "Chinese". Also, due to the controversial political status of Taiwan, those supporting Chinese reunification may refer to themselves as "Chinese" in addition or in place of "Taiwanese." Those favoring Taiwan independence tend to refer to themselves as "Taiwanese" only.

Readin (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I modify some things in the infobox. I think the major difference would be the history section--Jerrch 22:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
ROC took over in 1945, not 1949. T-1000 (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

As people say in America, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. There is nothing wrong with things as they are, pursuant to the disputed naming conventions. I do object to any attempt to equate "Taiwan" with the ROC, as it is POV-pushing, albeit something that is often done informally. The Polish city of Gdansk has its page listed as such after much discussion; on a similar basis, we should keep things as they are. Wikipedia's job is to describe, not prescribe.Ngchen (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of all this? We would have to create a bunch of confusing pipelinks ([[Taiwan|Republic of China]]) in situations where the term "Taiwan" would be plain inaccurate and anachronistic as the short form for the the Republic of China. The converse does not occur. In any case, if the countries template were moved, the infobox would be copied verbatim. The Republic of China was established in 1912, not 1949, and you post official names in the infobox.--Jiang (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't need the pipelinks because Republic of China would not be deleted, redirected, or merged. The only difference is that some of the information on that page would be moved to Taiwan. It says 1949 (it should be 1945) in the infobox because that's when the ROC took over Taiwan.--Jerrch 23:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The only merit for moving the template over is because "Taiwan" is "conventional short form" for "Republic of China", not because "Taiwan is a country". this means nothing changes (as the infobox is already on the ROC in its current incarnation, without data for its time on the mainland). the succession of states in the infobox is not a real succession of states. no mention of Dutch, Spanish, Qing, Japanese to finish the chronology, well, because there has never been a Taiwanese state except briefly in 1895. what it is implying is inappropriate.

I don't know how to combine current and historical country infoboxes, but that would work for the Republic of China article.--Jiang (talk) 10:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The states I included in the infobox are all "Taiwanese states". The 1985 Taiwan Republic was not the only state based in Taiwan. Just because it was the only state with the name of Taiwan does not make it the only Taiwanese state. The other states, kingdoms, or republics in the infobox are all Taiwanese because they were all established in Taiwan, with the exception of the ROC, which is why the date for ROC would be 1945.
Also, the reason not to mention foreign colonial rule is apparent: They are not, like you said, "Taiwanese states."--Jerrch 16:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

These are not a succession of states. They are not related to the current polity and thus do not belong. It's like posting Iroquois Confederacy or Texas Republic in the United States infobox.--Jiang (talk) 05:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Administer" versus "Govern"

Administer suggests something done on behalf of another. administer Etymology: Middle English administren, from Anglo-French administrer, from Latin administrare, from ad- + ministrare to serve, from minister servant — more at minister Date: 14th century and administer 1: to manage or supervise the execution, use, or conduct of <administer a trust fund> (notice the usage is an example of managing something owned by someone else).

This use of "administer" is reminiscent of the PRC's habit of refering to the Taiwan government as the "local Taiwan authorities".

"Govern", on the other hand, implies neither national nor local authority. We talk about national governments and we talk about state governments.

"Administration" is sometimes used for the national government of democratic countries, but it refers to the currently elected leadership, not to the government over time. That is, when we talk about the "U.S. administration", we are talking specifically about the "Bush administration" (or whoever is president at the time). This is because we see the elected leadership as governing on behalf of the voters. "Administration" is rarely used for dictatorial regimes (we use "regime" instead) who see themselves as owning the people and the state. We can say "Chen adminstration", and soon we can say "Ma administration", but we should not be saying that the ROC "administers" Taiwan because 1. The Taiwanese never chose to have the ROC as their government - so the democratic thing doesn't apply. 2. the ROC is not universally accepted as a local government.

We can use "administer" to refer to sub-parts of the ROC government also. For example, we can say the Taipei City government administers Taipei because it is doing so either on behalf of the ROC or the PRC, depending on your position.Readin (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cults in taiwan

it should be added to the article that the tsjeng-ji (a daoist cult) is present at this island. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.166.163 (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weasel Words

After a brief reading I found the History section of the article to be using biased language - not towards any particular point of view, mind you, hence the weasel tag - this includes several unsourced statements that I think fall into the realm of OR but are also biased in terms of language. The section itself is very informative and only the odd statement stood out to me - hence the weasel tag. The following are three sections which I believe the problem is evident in:

  • "Allied POW's, as well as 'women and children as young as seven or eight years old,' were brutally enslaved at various locations like at the copper mine northwest of Keelung, sadistically supervised by Taiwanese and Japanese." - The word 'brutally' is unnecessary, slavery is slavery - however, I don't think that's a fair word unless a source is provided that proves it. 'Sadistically supervised' implies cruel and unusual treatment - perhaps find a source (if there is one) that claims that the POW's human rights were abused and then provide the Japanese standpoint on the treatment of Allied POWs. A better version of this sentence would read: "Allied POWs, as well as 'women and children as young as seven or eight years old,'(cite) were put to work at the copper mine northwest of Keelung by their Taiwanese and Japanese supervisors(cite). Allegations of human rights abuses have been leveled(cite) at the Japanese administration during this time(cite), on which the Japanese have made no comment(cite)." Obviously fill in the facts where I've missed them.
  • "But the Japanese occupation had long lasting effects on Taiwan and Taiwanese culture. Taiwanese tend to have a more positive view of Japan than other Asians. Significant parts of Taiwanese infrastructure were started under the Japanese rule. The current Presidential Building was also built during that time." - This appears to be OR. Also, I realise this is meant to be a conclusion to the section on Japanese occupation, but to me it appears to have too much pro-Japan content without pointing to any negative long-lasting apects of the occupation.
  • "Many other Taiwanese, however, who fought against China and the allies for the Japanese war machine never greeted more than reluctantly, this new generation of Chinese arrivals." - For one thing, this sentence is poory phrased. To add to that, 'Japanese war machine' is a strongly pro-Allies/China word. 'Japanese army' can't be used?

Sorry for just pointing out problems and doing nothing to fix them, I don't have the knowledge or the time to make any meaningful contribution to this comprehensive article, and wouldn't have the first idea of where to start looking for sources for those things I've pointed out. Hope I've been helpful (if annoying), at least though, and would love to see this article reach GA status. Cheers Davidovic 08:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, we're all short on time. To get started, here are some POW camp related links
Readin (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Native Taiwanese?

I see the term "native Taiwanese" being used in the article a couple of times to describe those Taiwanese people who claim Han Chinese ancestry from the southern part of Fujian province of China or the Hokka people.

My view is that the term "native Taiwanese" is not an appriproate term to describe any individual group of Taiwanese people. Anyone who calls Taiwan home is native Taiwanese. But if the term is used I think it should be used to more correctly describe the indigenous Taiwanese people "原住民", namely those peoples who have lived in Taiwan for apparently thousands of years. Similarly, I believe in the US the term "Native American" is used to describe indigenous Americans.

I have noticed in the last couple of years, the Taiwanese media (and to a lesser extent the Taiwanese general public) have been using the term "Native Taiwanese" a lot less. Instead, they use the term Hakka people to describe people with Hakka ancestry or the term "福佬人" (Hoklo people) to describe people with Fujian ancestry.

As the term "Native Taiwanese" may be offensive, I would like to suggest that maybe we can consider replacing the term with a more correct term. I think the categories used in the Taiwanese peoplearticle (the history of the major socio-cultural groups section) are good starting points.--Pyl (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I did look at the Taiwanese peoplearticle and the terms we would use to replace "native Taiwanese" when referring to people whose ancestors came from China several hundred years ago are "Hakka" and "Hoklo". But this same article says that both groups are hybrid with the aboriginal (pre-Dutch settlement) Taiwanese. So using "native Taiwanese" isn't a problem from that standpoint. The Hakka and Hoklo and aborigines are "Native Taiwanese" in the same sense that "Native American" is sometimes used in the U.S..

However, that the U.S. does something doesn't make it right. "Native" means by birth. The Chinese occupation started more than 60 years ago, so most "mainlanders" are in fact native Taiwanese, having been born and raised in Taiwan. Is there a better term we can use to easily group the aborigine, Hakka, and Hoklo?Readin (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overlinking

Is it really necessary to link common words like island? --Wo ai taiwan (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

There, fixed that for you. Readin (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In this case I think it is necessary because "island" is central to the definition being stated.Readin (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Link

The link to the Spanish Wikipedia links to "Republic of China" instead of the island "Isla de Taiwán". As the article is protected, I cannot change it. 84.58.60.75 (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)