Talk:Taiwan/Archive7

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Contents 1 Bias 2 Dispute tag 3 Taiwanese people 4 GA failure 5 Redirection 6 Geography 7 "Taiwan Province" 8 History of Taiwan 9 Stylistic Problems (language) 10 Recent events 11 Navigational templates 12 Ethnic Groups 13 Taiwan and ROC articles 14 Energy 15 Legal status of Taiwan 16 Chinese/Han Chinese 17 References 18 Question 19 ROC as a de facto state 20 Population 21 chinese dude with english nobility? 22 developed? 23 Taiwan-China relations 24 small typo 25 Add japanese characters of "Taiwan" in the first sentence

Bias

"Some 1.3 million refugees from Mainland China, consisting mainly of soldiers, KMT party members, and most importantly the intellectual and business elites from the mainland, arrived in Taiwan around that time" Intelluectual? elites? I think we should change some words to make it less of an attack to the mainlanders when editing is allowed.

I'm not sure who wrote that, how about add the word, "many" before "intellectual and business elites from the mainland", since its obvious that not all of them came here —The preceding --65.88.88.155 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dispute tag

We need to do something about that to pass GA. --Ideogram 12:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The source [1] used in the disputed section is an essay written by the Chairman of "World United Formosan for Independence", a politically motivated organization. Using his essay is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on no original research. (to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas.) — Nrtm81 08:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This is silly. Someone who has strong knowledge of Taiwanese history, culture etc. should correct this citation problem and remove (or have an administrator remove) the neutrality tag. ~~ask123

Taiwanese people

Hi, there's a dispute here involving an anon who is trying to push the POV that the Han Chinese ethnicity does not include speakers of Wu (吳語), Min (閩語), Hakka (客家話) or Cantonese (粵語), with the conclusion being that the Hoklo and Hakka are not Han Chinese. The basis of his definition is genetic: in short, southerners with Baiyue (百越) admixture are not true Han Chinese.

In fact, the entire Taiwanese people article is extremely messy. After several POV-pushing attempts, it now appears to say the same thing three or four times from different angles. The article needs to be cleaned up or merged into Demographics of Taiwan.

Please come take a look if you're interested.

-- ran (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of ethnicity is ridiculous. You might as well as "Anglo-American-Canadian-Australian-New Zealand Ethnicity" or "European Romance Language Speakers Ethnicity". The cultures, languages in your so-called ethnicity are over 10. What in the world are you defining as ethnicity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRussian (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2007 February 22

GA failure

Why: factual accuracy dispute needs resolved, citation needed tag needs a ref, there should be no space btwn punctuation and refs, a 48K article needs more than 21 refs. Rlevse 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirection

I seriously think we should redirect this to Republic of China. In 80% of probably all cases involved, people writing "Taiwan" into Wikipedia's search want the damned government establishment on the island, not the geographical piece. --84.249.253.201 10:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Good god, NO. For one thing, finding out that Taiwan is the name of the island and the RofC is the political body is a learning experience. More importantly, Taiwan has a history that proceeds the RofC and (presumably) will continue to be an island long after the RofC stops existing; it has geography and climate and flora and fauna and other things that have nothing to do with the RofC. John Broughton | Talk 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the government of Taiwan (ROC) should be included under Taiwan. A lot of people don't know that the ROC is Taiwan's government, and it makes them think, at first glance, that Taiwan is part of China (PRC). You should try to address this problem. Contributer314 04:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you. We can consult the article Hong Kong and Macau which introduce their government at first line. We should point out the fact that Taiwan is currently ruled over by ROC instead of PRC. --Peachwa & Neversay(talk) 13:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

errr.... But we have pointed out the fact in the first line of this article. We need not include whole ROC content into this article. I think there is no necessity of emphasizing this issue. --Peachwa & Neversay(talk) 13:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

However, Taiwan is actually it's own country. It's not a part of the "Republic of China". Taiwain has it's own form of government, politics, economy, and what's more, Taiwan and China are very different from each other. Not only does Taiwan have it's own government, but it's a Democratic government. China is a communist country. No prejudices about it, but they're just very different. 68.109.83.231 01:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

See how the "Republic of China" can be confusing? He/She think the ROC=China (PRC).--Jerry 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Geography

I've added a "main" link to Geography of Taiwan. Would an editor more interested in the subject than me (I've just wandered in here because of a content dispute that I may or may not actually be helping with) please (a) move a lot of the information in the "Geography" section of this article to that separate article (while there is some overlap, there isn't that much); and (b) then sharply reduce the amount of text in this article pertaining to geography - the section should become just be a summary of what's in the main article about Taiwan's geography. Thanks! John Broughton | Talk 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

"Taiwan Province"

There has been a string of edits that repeatedly changes that name of "Taiwan" to "Taiwan Province". [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

To prevent a edit war and a violation of 3RR, I'll hold off from reverting until a consensus is formed. However, the current version uses the name "Taiwan Province", despite differing consensus in the archives. I traced the original edit back to Dec. 8, by User: Nationalist [9]. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Quite obvious, it is POV pushing either from the PRC side claiming Taiwan as part of PRC or ROC loyalist claiming ROC still administer all of China and Taiwan. Either way, it is not neutral and the article should be intentionally vague given the subtle situation. Anyway, Nationalist is blocked due to 3RR.--Certified.Gangsta 07:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

From the historical record it appears that the island of Formosa is occupied territory by the Taiwanese government. It doesn't appear to be Chinese at all, whether a nation or a province. If having a large Chinese population present in a geographic area is a reasonable basis to claim that area is Chinese territory, then the PRC could claim sections of almost every nation on earth as provinces. Lucindy 17:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Systematic changes of this scale should be discussed prior to implementation. In general, the naming conventions suggest avoiding controversial terms when not directly addressing the controversy in question. In light of this, I am in favor of reverting the changes in question until a consensus can be reached. My 2 cents: In light of the fact that the provincial government pretty much exists in name only these days, coupled with the inevitable controversy over which "Taiwan Province" we're talking about (not to mention NPOV questions over endorsing the idea that there is a Taiwan Province), I think that including that particular term in every single reference to Taiwan is more trouble than its worth and runs dangrously close to soapboxing. Also on an unrelated note to User:Certified.Gangsta, please stop removing the WP:CHINA header from this talk page. As has been stressed many times, the presence of that header simply denotes that Taiwan is an issue somehow related to China in general and makes no implications whatsoever over whether said interest is legitimate/illegitimate... etc. -Loren 09:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.mac.gov.tw/english/english/anti/mofa940329e.htm

How does the provincial government pretty much exists in name only these days? Are you implying there is no controlling government? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.153.10.138 (talk • contribs).06:32 Jan 24, 2007 EST

I now know what you meant by provincial government...... This should further add to the notion it should be Taiwan Province instead of just Taiwan. Since the point of PROVINCial government is to govern the PROVINCE. This should establish clear it was know as Taiwan Province in the past and since status quo has not changed because Taiwan has not formally declared independence, it should still be referred as Taiwan Province --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.153.10.138 (talk • contribs). 12:05 Jan 25, 2007 EST

I think it should be called Taiwan Province until Taiwan formally declares independence. Taiwan was originally recognized as China by the UN for years. Taiwan held one of the five permenant security council seats. This of course was later transferred to Beijing. But my point is at one time Taiwan is China and during those times, Taiwan was a province of China. It wasn't until recently when KMT lost power, talks of independence began to grow. But since most of the world does not recognize Taiwan as a country we shouldn't promote it as a Country. Here's a question, if Taiwan does declare independence, would Taiwan history include a Formally a Province of China section? --06:32 Jan 24, 2007 EST —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.153.10.138 (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Just wanted to make it clear that the above poster is inaccurate when talking about Taiwan, or more accurately Formosan Independence. Formosan independence has been around for centuries. It was not a recent development. In fact, just to prove its been around for over 40 years, just grab a free copy of the 1965 Formosa Betrayed by Kerr (http://www.romanization.com/books/formosabetrayed/index.html) and you'll see it even being mentioned and documented then. In addition, Formosa was in Nationalist powers for about 4 years after the Nationalists lost power in greater China, earlier it was run entirely by the Japanese. Before then only the North-West part of the Taiwan island was run by the Qing Dynasty. The majority of Taiwan, the Southern and Eastern coast was run by the natives. Before that there was the Dutch, Portuguese, and French colonies/bases than ran part of the island. --65.88.88.155 19:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to the above comments:

1. "Taiwan" refers to the geographical region. "Taiwan Province" can refer to one of many things depending upon who is using it. Using "Taiwan Province" to refer to the entire geographical area when not directly referring to the governmental division is non-neutral. The Taiwan article mentions the existence of the term and points to it's specific article. Independence doesn't even enter into the question.
2. The functional bodies of the provincial level of government were eliminated in 1997 (凍省) in favor of distributing powers formerly held by the provincial government to counties, provincial level cities, and the central government. Since then, 台灣省政府 exists only on paper.
3. If you are referring to the ROC government as a whole as the government of Taiwan Province, which you seem to be, might I suggest that you go over Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV. -Loren 17:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
4. The above poster makes a number of statements such as "Taiwan was originally recognized as China by the UN for years. Taiwan held one of the five permenant security council seats ... " all of which confuse Taiwan with the Republic of China. The two are not the same. Taiwan was NEVER a member of the United Nations. The Republic of China was a member of the United Nations based on its recognized status as the legal government of China. When that fiction was finally seen through, of course the PRC was recognized as the legal government of China.

History of Taiwan

I think there is a name in Three kingdoms period of Taiwan -- YiZhou (traditional Chinese: 夷州; simplified Chinese: 夷州; pinyin: yizhou; Wade-Giles: ichou). Although there is an issue on whether the name have been referred to Taiwan, we should add this name to the prehistory section for fertilizing this article. Any suggestion?--Peachwa & Neversay(talk) 14:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan in Chinese logic was called Yizhou/Lioqio (spelling needs to be corrected) or various other names in Chinese history. YiZhou was called by the state of Wu during Three Kingdom period. Emperor Wu Da Di (the first Emperor of the state of Wu) did sent a fleet to the island and took back some hundreds of aborigines to China Mainland but Emperor Wu Da Di did not occupy Yizhou because of financial considerations and other reasons.

The following is about modern history of Taiwan.

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-208684

(removed copyrighted material)

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-29995/Taiwan

(removed copyrighted material)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.174.138.240 (talk • contribs)

Do not post copyrighted material here. Linking to it is sufficient. --Ideogram 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This information is really not conclusively supported. Read Emma Jin Hui Teng's "Taiwan's Imagined Geography".

Stylistic Problems (language)

This article is very difficult and slow reading because it is not in a standard of English language style consistent with most Wikipedia articles. I think it would be very helpful for an editor with a sense of English style consistent with other articles to review and improve the flow of the sentences and to remove semantic redundancies and strange colloquial constructions.

Ryvr 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent events

The chinese anti-satellite missile test should be covered here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.114.242.30 (talk • contribs) 05:26, 22 January 2007.

Can you please elaborate on your reasoning for this, notably how it would be better suited for inclusion on this article rather than a dedicated article? -Loren 05:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that incident should be a separate article, since it doesn't only affect Taiwan. I'm not sure if an article already exists for the incident yet...but if there is, please link it. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a few articles [10] [11] [12] [13] concerning the security of Taiwan and the anti-satellite test. Seems to be enough info to warrant a separate page. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

See here for more articles. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Found the wiki page: 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Navigational templates

I hate these things. They spam the reader with links in the remote hope that one of them might be interesting. This is hypertext, people, links belong in the text, in context. There is also a nice little search box on the left that people can type into. I have never used these navigational templates; if anyone else has, please speak up. --Ideogram 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups

The exclusion of immigrants and migrants in the ethnic groups makes this page factually incorrect. Racism has no place on Wikipedia!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taichung Ren (talk • contribs) 04:48, 10 February 2007.

Nor does soapboxing. Please write additions in a neutral tone with proper references. -Loren 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

There are now 13 native aboriginal tribes. I saw it on the official recognition on the news. Does anyone know the name of the 13th tribe? Hobowu 07:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Sakizaya

Taiwanese Aborigines

Taiwan and ROC articles

Hi, I've observed this page for a long time. The Taiwan and much of the Republic of China articles need to be merged. The Taiwan article has been systematically gutted of content and the subarticles have been renamed and the content moved to the Republic of China article. It has not been a coordinated attack per se, but it has been done by a group of people believing in basically the ideologies of Chinese nationalism (pro-PRC and some belief that China is inseparable) and pro-deep-Blue (possibly pro-authoritarianism/fascist, support unification of Taiwan with China and deny that there is any difference between Taiwan and China in language/culture/etc).

New organization of articles:

1. Something about end of Qing and Communists taking power in China could be an article. Most of the historical ROC things should go there.
2. Taiwan should describe the place commonly known as Taiwan include ECONOMY, POLITICS, etc. The history part should include at least a short background on the histories of each of the places that Taiwan is composed of today. This includes regions not historically part of Taiwan such as Quemoy, Matsu, where the Minan came from, where the Hakka came from, where the aboriginals came from, where the waisheng/Chinese KMT came from, etc. Today's Taiwan is the recognizable entity that everyone wants information on, but because it is the confluence of many histories, we can include article summaries and short bits on stuff that wasn't in Taiwan until later.
3. The ROC article needs to be broken up. Part goes in the new article on post-Qing-pre-Communist China and the rest goes in Taiwan. It can then become a disambiguation page.
4. This organization would be taken as standard. Other related articles would be organized around this new organization.

We have to face the facts. Taiwan is the common name yet there's very little information in this article. The official name is Republic of China or sometimes Republic of China (Taiwan) and whatever and should be properly noted. The division between the two names is a false division that takes the POV that either the ROC is the "real" government of all of China (and Mongolia, parts of India, etc.) or otherwise it is merely an illegal government in exile in Taiwan.

The reality is that everyone in Taiwan calls Taiwan Taiwan, though we also know we have this other official name of Republic of China. There is no exclusiveness between the two like Wikipedia attempts to make. No maps (except really old ones) show our official borders past Taiwan the island and Penghu, Quemoy, Matsu, though that is another odd assertion that the ROC article tries to make. The government is democratically elected and though not a perfect democracy, it is working and seen by everyone here as legitimate. Sure, there is no public formal declaration of independence, but that's only because China threatens to blow us up. I don't see how you can have your own army, your own economy, your own president, your own legislators, your own customs, your own taxes, your own passports and people will say that Taiwan not only is not a country but that it's a region and separate from ROC (which implies somehow that ROC controls a lot more).

Do you have an article that is geographic region of America and country America? No. If you people want to call Taiwan almost-a-country-but-not-recognized-by-most-other-countries, fine. But what is the deal with having two articles?-MarkJohanson 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Naming conventions. --Ideogram 11:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You have already proposed this multiple times. We're all still here and this is nothing new so it's unlikely to happen. Let's keep all the discussion at Talk:Republic of China. --Jiang 02:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Having two articles for the same country is confusing and mis-leading. There is not a separate article called "America" that just decribes the geography of the US and a seperate article "United States of America" describing its government. In English and common use, the term "Taiwan" denotes the country in its entirety. In hundreds of conversation I have had with suppliers in China and Taiwan, I have never heard anyone refer to the "ROC" as such. Instead, BOTH my Chinese and Taiwanese contacts always refer to "Taiwan" . I recommend merging the articles and having a seperate section on the "ROC". Lucid-dream 19:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Energy

There are a lot of vague figures thrown around in this section with no citation for any of them and, quite frankly, they don't add up. My inclination is to believe that some of the information is dated, and needs to be updated to reflect current usage and recent pushes toward renewable energy. If someone is able to find a reliable source of energy information for the island, or to corroborrate the existing information with other sources please do so.--Apotheosis247 08:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

How come the energy production rates are different on this page from the Energy policy of Taiwan page???

Legal status of Taiwan

This link is not that important; only a fringe element of the Taiwan Independence movement believes these arguments are important. This link is highly political and does not belong in an article that is trying to avoid politics. Even if it is to be put here, it certainly isn't a main article for the history of the ROC, and doesn't deserve such prominent placement; at best it should be a see also link. --Ideogram 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Chinese/Han Chinese

Currently the article says that Taiwanese are 98% Han Chinese. That seems too high to me. The only source cited is the CIA world book, which just says 98% Chinese, presumably a mix of Han and others? Regards, Ben Aveling 12:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe they're the same thing. The Hoklo and Hakka both came from Han Chinese stocks. I don't think there are many "non-Han" manchus or a muslims in Taiwan. Blueshirts 03:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a significant group of Muslim Hui in Lukang, whether they are Han or not is a matter of behavior. Whether they are Chinese or not is a matter of identity. I also know a few Jurchen (Manchus), but they regard themselves as ethnic Taiwanese. The GIO claims Taiwan has 60 ethnic minorities, matching the pre-1949 estimate from places in the R.O.C.'s version of China, but they are in the process of revising this.Maowang 04:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A very interesting problem is whether Han and Chinese are mutually exclusive, and if so, then what are the markers of Chinese, if not what happens when a person does not demonstrate Han traits? Can this classification system be done from a NPOV? Is this system chauvinistic? Dru Gladney had some interesting findings in his book about the Muslim Hui. I prefer splitting the two words as there are many Han who are not Chinese and many Chinese who are not Han. Even the meaning of Han has problems as it is a behavior pattern based on Confucian Culturalism. With globalization and socio-political differenced between regions where Han lived, many people of those areas are nolonger practicing the customs that marked Han. Conversely, what about people who, only recently, were classed as non-Han because of their behavior as acculturated and assimilated peoples, but they had formerly been ethnic minorities and were returned to being a minority despite their cultural change? Maowang 08:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Han Chinese, the Han Chinese "constitute about 92% of the population of the mainland China". I can believe that it would higher in Taiwan, but I'm sure it's not going to be 100.00%. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's for the entire PRC (think autonomous regions), not just China proper, so the numbers seem entirely reasonable. There are more Mongols living in the PRC than in the independent state of Mongolia.--Jiang 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Good enough for me. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up. I am beginning to see the term "Taiwanese Han" appearing in academic writing regarding Taiwan as the result of recent research on Han and Chinese ethnic and cultural identities. This may be a future option for naming protocols.Maowang 07:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think we could avoid a lot of confusion if we started using Han instead of Chinese in cases when are talking about the diaspora, at least in situations where there can be confusion about whether we mean ethnic Chinese or Chinese nationals. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "Han" is inaccurate and causes a lot of confusion as well. Han have many different meanings and it is currently a disambiguation page. We should use Han Chinese, instead of Han unless the page Han Chinese is moved. LionheartX

Agree with Maowang. Han is more of a direct translation from Mandarin than Han “Chinese” which is hopelessly POV.--Certified.Gangsta 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

References

A big problem with the many Taiwan related projects is the lack of references. I would like to encourage everyone to hit the library and follow up on their posts with proper citations from reliable sources NPOV. I sometimes wonder where the information is coming from, is it opinion, hearsay, faith in a particular narrative or political agenda, CNN, ????? I really don't know. Any time Taiwan is mentioned it has the potential to get people fired up, especially when so many people have a predetermined viewpoint on Taiwan's status. If we, as a community, would do our homework and read before we post, or follow up referenced sources, we can avoid a lot of conflict and concentrate on making good pages that maximize their informative value. Thanks!Maowang 09:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

I can't edit this article, but I was wondering why it says ROC is a "sovereignty" in one place but "state" in another. Calde 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it's a sovereign state.--Jerrypp772000 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

For consistency wouldn't it be better to use the same term in both places? --Calde 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed :)--Jerrypp772000 19:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it necessary to say Taiwan is located in East Asia twice? --Calde 01:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think so, they are in two different paragraphs.--Jerrypp772000 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ROC as a de facto state

Under PRC law and under United Nations policy, the island of Taiwan is the 23rd province of the PRC. This is also the official policy of the US, as well as all the major world powers around the world. If you look at the List of unrecognized countries page on Wikipedia, it is a partially unrecognized state and therefore the sovereignty of ROC is only de facto and not de jure. --Nat.tang 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What about under ROC Constitution? ROC should be a de jure independent sovereignty.--Jerry 23:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be, but unfortunately it isn't. I understand your point, but the reality is the ROC is not a de jure sovereign state in the eyes of the UN and the major nations around the world, as well as the majority of nations around the world. --Nat.tang 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And from the your user page i can see your bias on this issue. I myself am more or less a supporter of the KMT and the ROC, but we must present the facts, and that is that the PRC has de jure sovereignty over the island of Taiwan, even if the sovereignty is exercise by the ROC. --Nat.tang 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I can tell too that your probably a KMT supporter from your user name. But I still think that ROC is a de jure independent state. Under the UN policies, Taiwan is part of China (PRC), so the UN policies aren't even de facto accurate.--Jerry 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The Republic of China is a sovereign independent republic that was founded in 1912. It has older than any illegitimate Communist Chinese government. The ROC has de facto and de jure sovereignty over Taiwan. That is an uncontestable fact. The PRC has never succeeded the ROC. The PRC is actually the rebel government. TingMing 00:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way Nat.tang, here comes the ROC nationalist.--Jerry 00:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

PRC is ... the rebel government, wow.--Jerry 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

lol...well the communists did technically win the civil war, and I know that in the past the ROC had continued the point that the current government on the mainland is a rebel government (especially when General Chang was alive), but if you look at the recent events, the PRC has gained the upper hand in the political, the economic and the military arenas, as well, TingMing, my fellow KMTer, the KMT has made peace with the PRC: In fact, twice - first time, when the martial law was lifted and the second time, when the KMT leadership visited the mainland and their former HQ in Nanjing. --Nat.tang 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I just added a sentence or so to the beginning pointing the reader toward the political status of Taiwan article for the political controversy, and noted that it's the de jure status of the ROC that is disputed. Whether the ROC exists de jure or not, and what are its de jure territories is something that is nicely covered in the political status article and those related to it. Calling the ROC a de facto state has POV problems as noted on the political status page; the ROC has always considered itself legitimate de jure, so we shouldn't claim it is not. Hopefully my edit will satisfy all editors who genuinely desire NPOV. Thanks.Ngchen 00:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...I saw it...it's good --Nat.tang 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The Republic of China was the successor state to the Ching Dynasty. The People's Republic of China never succeeded anyone and is thus illegitimate. The Communists never won the Civil War. There was a temporary cessation. That does not mean it will not continue. Until the Chinese Communists conquer the Free Area of the Republic of China, the PRC is an illegitimate rebel renegade government. I should put on the PRC and China article that the de jure status is disputed. Because that is true. It never officially succeeded the ROC, because the Republic of China (中華民國) continues to exist today! Jerry, clearly we are on the same side supporting the Free ROC on Taiwan in the face of the evil menace Red China. TingMing 03:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

*blink* Now I've seen everything. -Loren 03:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite. --Folic Acid 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to nuke the commie leadership too but what you're saying is just too far off from reality. Blueshirts 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you think about it. What I said is Reality. ROC has existed since 1912. PRC started to exist in 1949. TingMing 07:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I've learned in my history class, the Communists launched a rebellion during the Chinese civil war, almost lost, but eventually drove the Nationalists out. However, the Nationalists relocated to Taiwan and set up the central government there. The ROC was given a seat in the UN, but backed out after a few years. The PRC took control of the seat in UN. After martial laws ended and some reforms later, the ROC (Taiwan) became a democratic state, whereas PRC stayed under Communist party rule. The PRC was lucky in that it got the bigger piece of the land, but that doesn't make the ROC government more of less legitimate than the PRC government. Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 14:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but the ROC has become the loser on the world stage. Think about it, the PRC has the largest standing army in the world, it has nuclear devices and delivery systems, it has become the US's largest trading partner, it has the recognition of every nation but 25, the PRC has taken control of many natural resource corporations around the world, for the first time since the 1830s, China has a stable and powerful government under the PRC, and when the US falls into complete disgrace, the PRC will become the Superpower on the world stage...and we must relize that the PRC has outmanuvered the ROC in every way: political, economically, and in military strength (both conventional and un-conventional). Say the people of Taiwan declare independance, what do you think will happen? the first option will be a full out military assualt by the PRC, with 2 million active soldiers who are currently not involved in any major conflict and since the US is busy with Iraq, there will be no other major force to stop them. and then theres the second option, total and complete blockade of the island, no one gets in, no one gets out. both options would be devestating. so, TingMing, before you critize the PRC and say how the PRC is subordinate to the ROC, think about the ways the PRC could damage the socio-economic elements of the ROC. And I'm shock with your comments, TingMing, I thought as a KMTer, you would have realized that the party has made peace with the communists. Although I may be wrong, and you could be one of those hardliners. Anyways, just think about it... --Nat.tang 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jumping Cheese, the only reason why the Nationalist were able to escape to Taiwan was because of the US military aid General Chiang received. If it weren't for the US military, the communist would have been able to cross the strait and completely destroy the KMT's chance of survival. --Nat.tang 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the communists never had the capacity to launch a cross-strait amphibious operation. To Quemoy yes, to Taiwan island no. Blueshirts 22:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of going even further off target, they already tried that. -Loren 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

and btw, Jerry, the Nat in my username is my name and not a reference to the KMT. --Nat.tang 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No offense to the KMT, but I think you guys probably can tell that the KMT did a good job on educating the Taiwanese people those kind of stuff.--Jerry 19:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And you think the US is gonna sit there when PRC launches an all-out attack on Taiwan? Remember what happened during the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis? Taiwan has already called PRC bluff numerous times, like voting for Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian even when PRC threatened to invade Taiwan if Lee and Chen won the election. Anyways, imagine the US military actually declaring war on PRC. Even with the war on terror, the US can easily redirect the troops to China. Or even better, carpet bomb China with a couple of Trident II nuclear missiles. I can quote statistics about the US military, but everyone already knows that the US military can fart at any country and take it out in a heartbeat. If the Soviet Union couldn't stand up to the US, China sure won't be able to. I'm pretty sure China isn't gonna risk invading Taiwan with full knowledge of the repercussions. The US still hates Communism and that's not gonna change any time soon. The most probable outcome of the whole political status of Taiwan will be that the exploding economy in China will undermine the command economy, leading to a break down of the one-part Communist part system. Democracy will then take root in China and one of the new political party is gonna drop the whole "One China" idea and that will be that. Inevitably, all Communist countries will collapse (or reform into democracy) like the Soviet Union did. Sorry to burst your bubble, but China isn't as powerful it tries to make itself out to be.
Sorry about that, I had to vent. And I agree with Jerry. =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If the PRC starts the war, then the US would certainly help Taiwan no matter what, because remember, the Taiwan Relation Act still exists. Taiwan would possibly get help from Japan also, but I don't expect Japan to help much. Truly, I'm not sure who would win the war, because the PRC has been developing its military strength, it has like hundreds of missiles aiming at Taiwan. Not to mention it might be developing nuclear weapons as well.--Jerry 19:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand that the Taiwan Relation Act exists but the United States cannot risk war with the PRC as it has already pooled its resources into Iraq and the American population does not want another war especially since it could cause a lot more American military deaths, as well as possible strikes against the US homeland if the US attempts to intervene, therefore it would not be logical for the US to redirect troops. And another thing, the PRC's economy is more of a mixed economy than a command economy as they have begun switching their economic system to a capitalist one, although its called something else by the PRC, since the 1980s and really started to develop in the 1990s. Today in the PRC, there are very little state owned corporations, or at least directly owned by the State. the PRC has also begun to open its markets to foreign investors as they are now part of the WTO and required to do so. Also, the PRC is not the Soviet Union as the Central Government is not putting all its resources into the military and has not involved itself in an arms race against the United States. The PRC is a communist/socialist only in name and in reality the PRC is a one party state and an indirect democracy, although most candidates are part of the CPC, there are independent members of the PRC's legislature and it is no longer a rubber stamp legislature for the CPC. Anyways...what im trying to say is that the PRC is not going to fall like the Soviet Union or any other cummunist nation did, so stop comparing them to the PRC. --Nat.tang 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... guys? As amusing as this discussion is, the talk page is reserved for stuff directly related to improving the article. -Loren 22:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Loren. Notice the talk header. As much as I would like to argue about how weak the PRC is and how the US will defend Taiwan, it's not gonna improve the article. Back on topic guys? =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

America is not going to help in the event of a communist attack. America has too much economic stake in China to risk such a move and America also owes a huge external debt mostly to China. Plus China has made it clear that it'll do anything to "liberate" the island. Chinese lives are cheap, but are the Americans willing to send its sons to die for this little island? I think not. The only option left is for Taiwan to keep buying overpriced weapons from America, hold off the Chinese attack for a week, meanwhile watch the island burn, and then hear America say "yep, nothing much we could do lol". Let's play realpolitik please and forget about the Taiwan Relation Act. Blueshirts 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I do want to point out that the People's Republic of China Communist Chinese government in Peking is completely illegitimate. The PRC is not as strong as the propaganda posters show it to be. The Free Republic of China on Taiwan is the only sovereign legal government of China. Jerry, you are wrong. I was not educated under the Kuomintang. Heck, I am not even educated in Taiwan. I am an avid supporter of the Republic of China. I hate the dirty Communists and the Taiwan Independence. I continue to support the free democratic ROC and will not yield to the pressure of the Communists. The KMT still supports the Republic of China. It founded it, for heavens sake. They still dont like the PRC that much, but they hate the Taiwan independence too. One day, the one party Communist state will break down and the ROC government will re-take the Mainland and all Chinese people will be happy and united. TingMing 23:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you TingMing, but the PRC's propaganda posters do not exist in Canada, the information that's fed to me is through a variation of the BBC and the CBC (which are both proven reliable crown corporation news agencies in their respective nations and on the international stage), a variation of Hong Kong news, and by my very very anti-communist relatives, who have seen first hand the change and the growth that China has gone through under the communists. So I think TingMing, my friend, not all that information saying that the PRC is a growing and powerful entity is propaganda. --Nat.tang 00:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

And I think you're the one trying to spread hardline KMT/Nationalist messages, which is propaganda, on this page...so, TingMing, please stop cause its getting kind of annoying. --Nat.tang 00:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to spread propaganda. I'm merely pointing out the Truth and defending my country. I am not committing treason. Foreigners, let alone foreign broadcasting companies, know crap about China. They have little understanding of the country or the Communists. The Hong Kong news agencies are now all diseased by Communism. They cant report independently anymore. They all toady to the Hu Jian-tao in Peking. The Republic of China continues to exist! Face it! TingMing 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I found those comments very offensive, unnecessary, and really rude. I demand that you apologize for the comments, this is not the place to insult people, or to voice a radical point-of-view. Your comments are clearly propagandic and I consider them as a clear insult, as will many other people. Please refrain from using such comments in the future. --Nat.tang 03:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what you're trying to say is that there was never an official transfer of power type of document to the PRC, like how the last emperor officially abdicated, and that makes the PRC an illegal state. Blueshirts 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing raises an interesting point. Why should we qualify statements about the ROC and its de jure existence and such and not do the same for the PRC? Honestly, I have to say that the only reason would be to conform to the situation de facto, and applying the rule against fringe theories being represented as mainstream ones. The notion that the PRC is wholly illegitimate , and that the ROC is the legitimate government of all China is one that is held, but I would argue is definitely a minority view, and in its most extreme variants, a fringe one worthy of qualification. To qualify the PRC page in an analogous manner would be to promote a fringe position. Would appreciate input. Ngchen 03:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems that there's a number of possible positions on this. The first position is that the PRC became in 1949 the legitimate successor to the ROC, and the government in Taipei is a renegade de facto government of Taiwan. This is the official position of the PRC, of the UN, and of most countries around the world. The second is that the PRC never became the legitimate successor to the ROC, which relocated to Taipei in 1949 and remains the legitimate government of the whole of China. This is the official position of the ROC government, the KMT position, the position of a few small countries that have diplomatic relations with Taipei, and was the position of the UN until 1972, of the US until 1979, and of various other western countries for some time as well. Finally, there is the position that the ROC government actually constitutes the legitimate government of the island of Taiwan only, which is now independent of China. This position is held by the Taiwanese nationalists, but cannot be espoused officially because it would lead to a serious crisis with the PRC. At any rate, it seems to me that the first position accurate represents the official legal view of the majority of the world. The third position would appear to map most closely to the de facto situation, and is more or less the way anybody who doesn't have to take an official diplomatic position views the situation - it's why we call the two "China" and "Taiwan" in ordinary speech, rather than PRC and ROC, which are only used in technical contexts. The second position, on the other hand, is a minority position which corresponds neither to facts on the ground nor to the official legal position of most of the world. As such, it should be qualified as being a minority position. john k 03:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John K's comments...(although this isn't the place to say this but TingMing still owes me an apology for his comments about Hong Kong and about the CBC, which over the many many year it has operated, has employed many correspondants and reporters of chinese background...and I'm seriously taking his comments as a personal insult: an insult to my roots, an insult to my people, and insult to my country) --Nat.tang 04:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I had to vent like that but sometimes TingMing goes too far with his comments. --Nat.tang 04:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not insult you at all. Clearly, you are not supportive of the KMT like you claim you are. Rather, you are a supporter of the Communist Chinese and have Communist Chinese roots. There is nothing wrong with that. I did not insult you at all. You are mistaken. If you guys look at the situation logically and reasonably, you will find that the ROC is the only legal government of China. The ROC was the successor to the Ching Dynasty. It was unrivaled. Everyone knew that. It controlled all of China until 1949. A rebel group, the CCP, decided to revolt against the central Chinese ROC government in Nanking. It rebelled and took the whole Mainland. However, the ROC government continued to exist and operate on Chinese society. It merely relocated to another base, this time in Taipei. Just like it had relocated to Chongquing during the War with Japan in WW2. The CCP established a rival government. But this never succeeded the ROC at all since it continued to exist/function. Many people would still hold that view point. Look at it logically and you might understand and begin to hold that view. Because that is the flat out truth if u reason it correctly. The ROC cannot just become a renegade government. It preceeded the CCP. If anything, the PRC is the renegade government/provinces. TingMing 04:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this guy. Let me make it very clear to you: I AM NOT OF COMMUNIST ROOTS. I take that as a furthering of insults and propanganda. Let me tell you something, my grandfather fled twice from China, the first time was from the Japanese, the second time was from the communists. Both times, the family farm and land was taken from him, AND NEVER did my family go back after the communist takeover. I am going to continue to demand a FULL apology, to be written on my talk page. You have 24 hrs. If you do not comply I will carry out the appropriate actions, as defined by any Wikipedia policy, to campaign for the blocking of your user. I have made myself very clear, TingMing, and I don't back down easily. ***if any other user has found this disruptive I apologize. --Nat.tang 04:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing - this talk page is not the place to argue the merits of different theories of international law. Whatever the merits of the KMT case to be the legitimate government of the whole of China, that case is one which is only accepted as valid by a small minority. That is all that matters in terms of how we characterize the issue on wikipedia. john k 15:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am sympathetic towards your grandfather, you, and your family. I give my condolences because your family was oppressed by the Communists. I apologize to you if I offended you in any way. I understand what you are saying, but I do not like Communist China. They may appear strong or whatever. But you have to understand that in Communist China, information is very censored. It can be falsified, etc. They still have their downfalls. Under the Chen Administration, the Republic of China has gone backwards/down in the past 7 years. I agree with that. Under KMT rule, Taiwan was flourishing. When Ma Ying-jeou retakes the presidency in 2008, Taiwan will be better. TingMing 06:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You. Apology Accepted. --Nat.tang 06:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Awwww...it's great when we all learn how to work together. A little heavy handed in demanding an apology, but I guess it all worked out. Anyways, John brings up a good point. So, how should Taiwan be labeled as or should we not label it at all? =) Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 07:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan is an inalienable part of the Republic of China. However, Taiwan is not and will not be part of the PRC ever. The PRC is part of the Republic of China (ROC) legally,technically. The PRC is an illegitimate rebel entity. TingMing 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Population

I would like to know the population of Taiwan. B4rr4g3

I believe that it is at about 23 million. See Demographics of Taiwan.--Jerry 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

chinese dude with english nobility?

Naval and troop forces of Southern Fujian defeated the Dutch in 1662, subsequently expelling the Dutch government and military from the island. They were led by Lord Koxinga (Traditional Chinese: 鄭成功; Simplified Chinese: 郑成功; Pinyin: Zhèng Chénggōng).

- I really doubt a Chinese guy in the 17th century had an English title of nobility and also the article about him doesn't mention this. So maybe edit it. (i would like to do it myself but meh, anonymous users can't do this anymore) --83.128.20.166 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed.--Jerry 22:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

developed?

So is it classed as a developed or a developing country?Tourskin 23:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan-China relations

How about a section that addresses the relationship (economic and political) between China and Taiwan, especially China's attitude towards Taiwan (as a rebel province, I believe). Are there military implications? etc... I'm not an expert, but it's something I would like to read about.  ;-) /Blaxthos 16:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

For that material, see the artlcle Cross-Strait relations. Also, the political stuff is spread over several articles that you might be interested in. They include but are not limited to the following Political status of Taiwan, Legal status of Taiwan, and Republic of China. Ngchen 10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

small typo

more and more young people started to call the Mainlanders Sin Jhùmín (Traditional Chinese: 新住民), or "new resident"

This pinyin is spelled incorrectly. It should be Xīn Zhùmín. Could someone with the ability fix it?

18.140.1.233 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Add japanese characters of "Taiwan" in the first sentence

Among the Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, please consider to add the Japanese language version of Taiwan, since Taiwan took part on Taiwan colonization from 1885-1945(60 years), which is not a short period of time. 75.18.212.37 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.