Talk:Taroko National Park

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Taroko National Park is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a project to improve all Taiwan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Taiwan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

So it's not named after the Truku aborigines? They have the same Chinese name. --Menchi 00:12, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

If I recall my school teachings correctly, the Truku took their name from Taroko itself. Valhallia 11:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] LiuFang bridge

It cannot be that the liuFang bridge is 1666 m above the river bed. The road at this point is less than 500 m above sea level.

[edit] Buluo Bay?

From what I know, the name buluowan came from the aboriginal language, and was transliterated into 布洛灣. I think it's not wise to just translate it into English as Buluo Bay, its not a bay after all. It should stick to the aboriginal name. Kc0616 10:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] inaccurate and off topic

There have recently been attemtps to replace this:

After the Empire of Japan's defeat in World War II, the Republic of China assumed control of Taiwan.

with this:

After the Empire of Japan's defeat in World War II, in line with the Cairo Declaration signed by ROC President Chiang Kai-shek, Japan returned Taiwan to the Republic of China, as it had seized Taiwan from Ching China.

The latter paragraph is both less accurate and off-topic. It is necessary to say that the ROC took over Taiwan to explain that ROC was able to undo the actions of the Empire of Japan. However, the details of the take-over are not that important to this article. Those details are well-covered elsewhere. The latter paragraph is inaccurate because Japan did not return Taiwan to the Republic of China. Japanese troops in Taiwan surrendered to the ROC, but no official return was made. The ROC unilaterally declared a return, but that was an ROC statement, not a Japanese statement, so it is not accurate to say "Japan returned...". In fact what happened was that in the absence of any powerful objection, the RoC assumed control. This assumption of power was indeed in line with the Cairo Declaration, but the legality of the takeover (and there are plenty of arguments on both sides) is not really relevant to the topic of Taroko National Park.Readin (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)