Talk:Taiwan (island)/Archive 6

Infobox

{{mandarin|eng=Formosa|trad=臺灣|simp=台湾|pinyin=Táiwān|wg=T'ai-wan|bopomofo=ㄊㄞˊㄨㄢˉ}}

It is so sad. You can't say your name out.

What's wrong with this anyways?

"Facing tremendous pressure from the PRC, the ROC uses the name Chinese Taipei in the Olympic Games and other international events, usually of which PRC is also a party. The ROC is also barred from using its national anthem and national flag in international events due to PRC pressure. PRC's pressure goes even further by barring Taiwanese spectators attending events such as the Olympics from bringing ROC national flags into Olympic venues." This entire paragraph is POV, insinuating that EVERY country refuses to recognize the ROC claim on the basis of PRC pressure alone - one country dissenting from this renders this POV.

Template:Culture of Taiwan

Can someone please look through this template's history and pick out the bits that are accurate and relevant to this article? It was originally copied and pasted from this one (presumably to be able to cut down on text on this page), and, as such, is a clear violation of the GFDL. It needs to be deleted (and I have nominated it so). But if someone could pick out the useful bits which were added in the meantime, that would be great. Cormaggio ^@ 00:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Ran's reverts

Ran has been stubbornly reverting without examining the edits that I have been making, which have been modifications, clarifications, and compromises. On his side, however, he simply reverts without examination or comment.

On "island nation" POV: - I added that China disagrees with this, as is well known. But Ran reverted anyways.

On "Democratic Transistion": - I changed this subheading because it includes both the period of transition AND the current democratic error. His change to "Democratic Transistion" is erroneous.

On Chen's abolishment of NUC: - I changed the grammar so that it is correct. Neither the original version nor Ran's version was correct. He ignored this and simply reverted.

There are other changes that could be talked about, but overall, you can look in the history and see that I was doing a series of edits that were not simple reverts, yet Ran was simply reverting every time.Moveapage 21:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Other examples of Moveapage attempting to correct my grammar include:

• distrust due to political, cultural and linguistic differences -> distrust due to political, cultural and lingual differences
• with government workers, such as teachers, being required to become KMT members, -> with government workers, such as teachers, requiring membership into the KMT

(from this diff)

Also, Moveapage has been aggressively pushing the POV that Taiwan is an island nation in the intro paragraph, even though multiple editors have already informed him that this contravenes Wikipedia's NPOV policy.

-- ran (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Lingual differences is okay. Language differences is better. Lingual is a valid English word that takes on the same being as linguistic when it is not in the context of meaning "physically near the tongue".

In terms of the second sentence, the point isn't worth discussing--it's not what I later changed it to.

Ask yourself why it is not NPOV. It is because mainly the the PRC recognize this. Ran, did you bother to recognize that I added that into the intro so that it very, very clearly recognizes the PRC POV?? NPOV is not about taking everything out that anyone in the world possibly disgrees with.

Also Ran is pushing POV in many other places in the article, one example being "dangerously provocative" in reference to the abolishment of the NUC. Only China's foreign minister calls it provocative. Only China says that Taiwan "forces" it to invade or do whatever. It is dangerous because China claims it will invade. But it is only from China's POV that it is provocative. --Moveapage 22:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I need to also add that you find Taiwan and "island nation" used in the same breadth all the time either in the US or in Taiwan. You look on google and get 223,000 hits! NPOV is about stating WHO disagrees and WHY, not taking out the common view in favor of one POV. You did not respond at all to my addition of the fact that China does not recognize Taiwan as a nation. I added that and you took it out.--Moveapage 22:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

3RR policy states:

[A]n editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within a 24 hour period.

Moveapage has made four reverts in the past 24 hours. [1] [2] [3] [4]. He claims that the edits are not "wholesale" reverts. However, they are indeed mostly wholesale reverts of this edit made by me. This can be seen by comparing those edits to the version that comes immediately before my edit: [5] [6] [7] [8].

As such, Moveapage has violated the 3RR policy, and his claim that his reverts were not "wholesale" is untrue.

As for the island nation thing: it is disputed whether Taiwan is one side of a divided nation, or a nation on its own right. Taiwan's political spectrum is characterized by this dispute. Thus, saying that Taiwan is a nation in the intro paragraph is POV-pushing. Simple as that.

-- ran (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

on chaotic nature of romanization in Taiwan

The current wording of "most romanizations in other cities still are in Tongyong" makes it seem as if that were an earlier system, and also makes it seem as if this were a pervasive system. The truth, rather, is that this was only recently adopted at the national level; and almost no one knows how to use it properly. Furthermore, the coexistence of all these systems, none of which has been taught to any significant degree in schools here AFAIK, has led to a chaotic mess of mixed and often erroneous romanization. The current wording fails to reflect the ubiquitous errors and confusion here. Dragonbones 12:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've redone that section in line with Dragonbones' remarks and also taken the opportunity to correct some mistakes. --Taibeiren 15:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Taibeiren, your additions are excellent, and dead-on accurate! Dragonbones 15:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Deer hunting

[9]. This sentence about native formosan deer being hunted nearly to extinction has been removed (rather rudely). I have no time or inclination to cite it, but it's well known that deer was an economic mainstay for the dutch. Someone who knows, and can cite it, should re-word and replace this mention of the deer. SchmuckyTheCat 00:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

merci, mon cher. SchmuckyTheCat 05:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

ż

This Article is important

well most people know taiwan but they don't know republic of china. --Jerrypp772000 17:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

On another note, I think it's important to have this article because most people who want to know something about this nation/state/location will type "Taiwan" into the search bar long before "Republic of China." --Kyla (not registered, sorry)

59.114.217.97 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)== Why is this article here? ==

There's already an article called "Republic of China," which already deals with Taiwan. Unless this article only talks about the physical traits of the island and nothing political, it's fine, but otherwise I don't see a reason for this article to be here.

The only reason that it is here I assume is because of independence supporters and the like, which in itself is not a good reason and a potential source for bias. I suggest this article be merged with Republic of China or have its political commentaries deleted. --141.213.196.250 12:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think there needs to be "economy" or "culture" sections in both ROC and Taiwan. TastyCakes 00:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, but the articles should be merged under the name "Taiwan". In common english usage "Taiwan" means the state of Taiwan. Descriptions of its physical traits should be included in an article for the state of Taiwan. The official name of the state, "Republic of China", should be mentioned in that article. As it stands now, the Taiwan article and disambiguation is very confusing and not cogent to the word's usage. CarlGH 06:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. gidonb 08:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Taiwan, as a region, has a history beyond that of the Republic of China, and vice versa. A single article will not suffice. As for the "Economy" and "Culture" sections, both sections already point to the correct main articles. Mysterius 04:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I would second Mysterius' opinion. Before Republic of China came to Taiwan, Taiwan already has a history over 300 years. --H.T. Chien / 眼鏡虎 (Discuss|Contributions) 11:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree with a merge. Taiwan is a region with a distinct geography, culture, and history. ROC is the name of the current state in control of the region. These are two distinct topics and hence deserve separate articles. To me insisting that the article exists because of "independence supporters" is idiocy at best, and perhaps hints at the political beliefs of who ever is at 141.213.196.250. It is also difficult (or even impossible) to not talk about the politics of a region since it ultmately effects the people and the "physical traits" of the region. That being said, there is a lot of redundant info between the ROC and Taiwan articles, which could use some cleanup. Sjschen 15:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I could see a real argument for having the primary Taiwan reference to this "land" article if, for example, Taiwan were a continent. I refer you to the Australia article as an example, which directs first to the "state" of Australia in accordance with the common english usage, then there is a disambiguation link at the top for the "land" continent article. So even if Taiwan, as a land mass, had global importance, that would still not necessarily be reason enough to redirect "Taiwan" wikipedia entry to this "land" article first. A direction scheme similar to the one used in the Australia article should be used for this Taiwan article, or better yet, include all the physical land characteristics and other history in a single merged article. The common usage should be the determing factor here. CarlGH 12:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Sjschen and second 141.213.196.250. For one who has read this site before, I recall a time when it was less political and more economic and cultural, like one user here has said. Reading it now though, one gets the impression that subtle pro-independence propaganda is trying to be communicated. Lines like 'The legitamacy of the independence enjoyed by Taiwan is contested by the People's Republic of China' for example, clearly insinuate 1) That Taiwan independence is legitimate 2) That the People's Republic of China is opposing it, in a manner as if it ought not to. I would warn those in care of this article to be mindful of NPOV and facts on the ground. Sjschen's assertion that this 141.213.196.250's claim that it 'hints at the political beliefs' of him reveals as much of Sjschen's own political beliefs as it does his, perhaps even more so. 219.95.30.47 04:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If NPOV is the issue here, then one should be trying to get rid of the so call "subtle pro-independence propaganda" instead of questioning the validity of the article's existence. Suggestions for merging or deleting the entire articles (be it "Taiwan" or "ROC") for the sake of preventing POV are both absurd and counterproductive acts (it's like saying that Canada and Politics of Canada should be one article). This was the orginal point of my argument.

On the hints or insinuation of policital beliefs, NO ONE can be completely neutral, though I would like to think of myself as being more in the middle. My justification to my previous words were that my experiences on this article (and this "site") have sensitized me to blatent POV accusations to the likes of 141.213.196.250's. As well, I also found this discussion's title to be rather ignorant, thus inciting some inflammatory words on my part. We can all try to analyze each other's tone to prove their bias ad nauseam as I can also do with your reply. However, that would be counterproductive to the point I'm trying to make.

As stated, I'm happy with the way the article is right now, thus I am not going to change it. Conversely, since you do not agree with the way the article is showing-off Taiwan, you should edit it and in the process hopefully improve NPOV. That being said, if a merge or a delete is proposed on the article, I already know what my vote is going to be :) Sjschen 07:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah but as contentious as things are, you would have to state your justifications here first before proceeding to edit the article lest someone screams POV. I gather your point though and it seems we are in agreement. Ta for now 219.95.156.61 12:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an discussion going on at Talk:Republic of China on just this topic. Briefly, my proposed solution out of the mess that is these two articles is:

1) Merge the ROC and Taiwan articles

2) Move historic information that is about China and not relevant to Taiwan to History of ROC while preserving Taiwan's connection to both its colonial past and to the ROC (for things that are relevant)

3) History of ROC article will be moved to Republican China. History of ROC will then have to disambiguate between Republican China and History of Taiwan.

This is to resolve all the many confusions that people have every time they read these articles and to rid ourselves of the very un-wiki-like policy of having POVs separated into two different articles. There is so much overlap between the two articles. As people are always saying, some people feel the Taiwan article is too pro-pan-Green or that the ROC article is too-pan-Blue. This only happened because there are two articles. We will have NPOV when the POVs are put on the same page, properly attributed to the right groups. Notice that my proposed solution doesn't involve destroying any information, like conveniently forgetting that the ROC is the formal name of Taiwan or something like that.--DownUnder555 13:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

To explain a little more, but I encourage you to comment on the ROC talk page--the merger will make clear that the ROC is the formal name of Taiwan's government and that there are deep connections with the KMT-ROC that governed China pre-1949, but it will create enough of a separation that will not give preference to the deep-Blue point of view that the ROC before 1949 is the same as the ROC after 1949. A merger would not mean ignoring Taiwan's history, but it would also mean not ignoring the flood of mainlanders that came to Taiwan at 1949, who, through force, for better or worse, had a very big influence of what Taiwan/ROC is today. They brought with them a connection to the pre-1949 ROC state, just as benshengren carry to this day the history of Japanese colonization and 300 years of relative disconnect from the Mainland. The point is to show all the major POVs in order to end up with something relatively NPOV.--DownUnder555 13:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The ROC was not destroyed in Mainland China and recreated in Taiwan; there is an unbroken continuity between the ROC government that existed in Nanjing before 1949 and the ROC government that fled to Taipei in 1949. In fact, if we were to split the pre-1949 Nanjing government and the post-1949 Taipei government into separate articles, we should also split the pre-1937 Nanjing government and the 1937-1945 Chongqing government into separate articles: just as the Nanjing government relocated to Chongqing in order to flee the Japanese invasion in 1937, the very same government relocated to Taipei in order to flee communist takeover in 1949. This is not a "deep-blue POV", it is simply what happened at that point in time, regardless of the fact that it may well have been against the wishes of the benshengren in Taiwan at the time.

-- ran (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Spoken like a true han-chauvinist. Your words in plain-speak: "Despite what some idiotic minority of our great nation thinks, they were and have always been ruled by a Chinese government".

China from already 1900 or so was not a single unified entity, so if you want to argue "official government" and continuity across time, you're going to have a hard time when there isn't even continuity across space. The best way to describe China 1900s-1949 is just as a period in time. Trying to pretend that there was one China government is ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.70.98.28 (talk • contribs)

1. I'm not a Han Chinese chauvinist and do not ever wish to be one.
2. I did not say and do not think that Taiwan has always been ruled by a Chinese government. Before 1945, Taiwan was ruled by Japan.
3. I know that China from the 1910's on was never truly unified, and I did not pretend at any point that there is one single official Chinese government.
4. If you want to have more fruitful discussions on Wikipedia, please refrain from smearing your opponents.

-- ran (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't understand why it says China (Taiwan) on the article. China claims Taiwan as their own country but that has not been concluded. A "Republic of China" is enough. Good friend100 01:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan has their own currency, laws, and own language/way of writing..ect...how is it a part of China? This is like claiming the USA as Republic of Englands still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Yeah, most Chinese people just say that, and they don't really have an acceptable reason that proves Taiwan as a part of China. Even those born in the US, their parents would teach them the wrong information and they would not even know.--Jerrypp772000 19:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

'== THE TRUTH ==''''

59.114.217.97 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Jason: I do not know if anyone else is reading this, but I would like to mention that "Wikipedia" is just another online media that promotes the "One China Policy". My conclusion came about when I realised there are two individual articles that are dedicated to Taiwan. For the majority of people living in Taiwan (more than 80% of the population), we see ourselves as Taiwanese, since we (our ancestors) had long rooted our livelihoods centuries ago. Taiwan's History did not just begin in 1912, that history from 1912 is the history of "Republic of China". The China Man that escaped to Taiwan and then forced its authority on the peasants masses, have claimed Taiwan as their own. Through these last 50 years the Taiwanese and Chinese populations intermixed and as a result of the Authoritarian Regime, we are made to believe that our National heritage are those from the Republic of China<<<<originated in China. It is simple to define those that are born in Taiwan and rogue political escapees from China through the ways that they speak. (personally I can not tell the difference between the accents a rogue Republic of China man and people from Mainland China)

Amongst the definitions of a legitimate Nation State is: -A proper Nation State requires neighbouring countries to validate and acknowledge the Nation State's existence. I believe this is what Taiwan lacks at the moment because China is molesting our allies to confirm to the belief that Taiwan is not a country. Since each country only vies for its own benefits, it will seem to us that they are lacking balls or moral ethics. "One Great Britain Policy" = "One China Policy" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.114.217.97 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 13 November 2006.

Bad dablink

The dablink is highly misleading and confusing to the average reader, since "the state commonly known as Taiwan" is not the Republic of Taiwan but the Republic of China. Please amend this. Only people with intimite knowledge of the political situation benefit from this. It smacks of soapboxing.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

TECRO dispute

Before we get into an edit war over which terms to use to describe the nature of TECRO, might I suggest that you read the policy on weasel words? Excessive wordiness should be avoided. Would it not be sufficient to simply refer to TECRO as an unofficial diplomatic office? Mentioning the unofficial status of the offices should be sufficient to convey the fact that they are not official embassies or consulates, while providing most of the functions of the former in an unofficial and diminished capacity. -Loren 04:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but it will depend on what 219.74.207.12 thinks about it. Sjschen 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have cleaned up this article and removed the cleanup tag.

This is an excellent article and can easily achieve Featured Article status once you fill out the two stub sections. Ideogram 17:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please put something in your edit summaries

The last two edits had no edit summaries. Ideogram 01:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

"state" vs "country"

There seems to be a disagreement over the term "state" vs "country". I suggested "political entity" but that apparently is not acceptable either.

Rather than edit it back and forth, we need to discuss this. That is the Wikipedia way. Ideogram 02:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The reality is that there exists two China governments, both are legitimate although the PRC controls more land than the ROC. The only difference is the PRC is using diplomacy to isolate the ROC and lessen ROC's legitimacy. 25 nations recognize ROC as the sole government over all of China, whilst 180+ nations recognize the PRC. Hence the idea of maintaining the "status-quo" to avoid instability in the Asia/Pacific region. Very complicated stuff because although the USA recognizes the PRC, it is bound to protect ROC against invasion by the Taiwan Relations Act (Passed by Congress in 1979 to ensure ROC's safety after switching diplomatic recognition from Taipei (ROC) to Beijing (PRC). Originally USA under Truman was resigned to the defeat of the ROC to PRC, the Korean War changed American policy to protect ROC against communist invasion. In January 1953 the chargé d'affaires (established in Taipei on July 28, 1950) was elevated to ambassadorial rank and a mutual defence pact was signed in December 1954 (which expired in 1980) (Source: The Rise of Modern China (Fifth edition) by Immanuel C. Y. Hsü (1995 Oxford University Press))

So, the truth is that PRC and ROC are political entities both claiming the same thing (i.e. we are the sole legitimate government of China including Taiwan). ROC cannot renounce it's claim over the PRC territory because it's official capital is Nanking in China (Taipei is the temporary capital until ROC "recovers mainland China".

This is just the PRC vs. ROC background that I understand. Taiwan is only a part of ROC territory, so you cannot call Taiwan a state or country as it is only a Province of the ROC. The status-quo will only change if PRC invades ROC, ROC renounces claim to mainland territories, or ROC invades PRC and eliminates the PRC. Either way, unless PRC or ROC ceases to exist, there exists two legitimate China government. — Nrtm81 13:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

This depends on how you view legitimate. ROC is not recognized in many countries, including the UN. So saying ROC is/is not a legitimate government of Taiwan violates WP:NPOV. We should follow Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese)#Political NPOV in situations like this. --WinHunter ^(talk) 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks WinHunter for the NPOV link. By your comment then, the PRC cannot be called legitimate/illegitimate government of China because that violates NPOV as well. 25 sovereign nations (about 1/7 of the world) do not recognize the PRC. Anyway, "state commonly refered to as Taiwan" works because this is used on China article as well when refering to PRC and ROC disambiguation. — Nrtm81 08:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

1/7 of the world? don't you think it would be fair to mention that these countries have a total population of 88 million, divided by 6500 million of the entire world population makes it about 0.014% "of the world".

Political status

Quote: (Edit: Quoting from the sentence in the article) Technically, documents and treaties left legal sovereignty of the island with the USA, which granted stewardship of the island to the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) of the Republic of China. However, the validity of this stewardship is disputed by the ROC, as well as by the PRC.

Can anyone tell me to which document is this statement refering to when claiming "Technically, documents and treaties left sovereignity of the island with the USA"?

From Wikisource:

• wikisource:Japanese Instrument of Surrender (July 26, 1945) — these are the terms under which the Empire of Japan surrendered: "accept the provisions in the declaration issued by the heads of the Governments of the United States, China, and Great Britain 26 July 1945 at Potsdam" (i.e. accept surrender under the terms of "Potsdam Declaration")
• wikisource:Potsdam Declaration (July 26, 1945) — terms set for Japan's surrender: "(8) The terms of the Cairo Declaration shall be carried out"
• wikisource:Cairo Declaration November 27, 1943 — "all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China." This clearly states that the sovereignity over Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores will be with the Republic of China. These are documents at the end of World War II which are the conditions for Japan's surrender. All other documents signed afterwards are invalid because Japan had already relinquished it's sovereignity over Taiwan & Pescadores to the Republic of China.

• wikisource:Treaty of Peace with Japan (a.k.a. San Francisco Treaty) (8 September 1951) — This treaty was signed in 1951, 5-6 years after the end of World War II and so cannot be used to determine the status of Taiwan & Pescadores, as it had already been given to the ROC in 1945 under the terms of Japan's surrender.

(Note: Neither the Republic of China nor the People's Republic of China were invited to the San Francisco Peace Conference, and neither were parties to the San Francisco Treaty. The Republic of China concluded a separate Treaty of Peace with Japan in 1952.)

• wikisource:Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China (April 28, 1952) — this treaty is invalid because Japan no longer has any authority over Taiwan & Pescadores. It only serves to state they recognize ROC's sovereignity.

• wikisource:Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China — Likewise PRC's attempt to justify jurisdiction over Taiwan & Pescadores using this treaty is invalid because "The Government of Japan fully understands and respects this stand of the Government of the People's Republic of China, and it firmly maintains its stand under Article 8 of the Postsdam Proclamation." which confirms Japan's recognition of the terms of surrender in which Japan gave up Taiwan & Pescadores to the ROC. Hence, Japan's stance is they understand PRC's situation but cannot change the fact that the sovereignity of Taiwan & Pescadores are under the ROC.

So... where is this mysterious document that points to Taiwan & Pescadores being technically under USA sovereignity? — Nrtm81 09:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha... I see, User:HKT removed the "citation needed" tag (6 June, 2006 edit) from the above quotation and pointed to Legal status of Taiwan which...

Quote: When the 228 Incident erupted in February 1947, the U.S. Consulate-General in Taipei prepared a report in early March, calling for an immediate intervention in the name of the U.S. or the United Nations. Based on the argument that the Japanese surrender did not formally transfer sovereignty, Taiwan was still legally part of Japan and occupied by the United States (with administrative authority for the occupation delegated to the Chinese Nationalists), and a direct intervention was appropriate for a territory with such status. This proposed intervention, however, was rejected by the U.S. State Department.

Sounds like a load of BS. Claiming Taiwan was still part of Japan in 1947 because there wasn't a formal transfer of sovereignity? In the same article: The Japanese troops there subsequently surrendered to ROC military forces as directed, and Chief Executive Chen Yi soon proclaimed "Taiwan Retrocession Day" on October 25, 1945. Not formal enough a transfer of sovereignity? I think the "technically left sovereignity with the U.S." should be deleted. It is groundless and there is no evidence to support this claim. — Nrtm81 09:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Just removed it. "Technically" sounds really weaselish. BlueShirts 21:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I skimmed the reference provided and don't really understand how it says that "technically, documents and treaties left legal sovereignty of the island with the USA, which granted stewardship of the island to the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) of the Republic of China:" Can you quote and explain? Ideogram 09:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Ideogram, I was quoting the sentence in the article. But thanks to BlueShirts for removing the sentence.

The article is mainly focused on how legal sovereignty over Taiwan is uncertain. I think it's better to just change it to reflect that instead of saying the USA "granted" stewarddship to the KMT? BlueShirts 18:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to read a short editorial about Taiwan belonging to the USA, check out this editorial at the Taipei Times (2004) Personally, I think that guy's reasoning doesn't hold any water. Check out this funny sentence from the piece: at the present time, Taiwan is still under US administrative authority, and should be enjoying "fundamental rights" under the US Constitution, as in all other US overseas territories. :-) — Nrtm81 11:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I know this Hartzell guy. His Chinese name is He Rui-yuan, and he has been in Taiwan from a long time. He's pretty famous for writing columns comparing chinese and western cultures. I didn't know he had this kind of opinion. BlueShirts 18:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The idea that the United States still has administrative authority over Taiwan in the present era makes a lot of sense. Alternatively .... there are no international legal documents which definitively show that the territorial title of Taiwan has ever been transferred to the Republic of China government. Here is a selection of Hartzell and Lin's writings on the subject -- http://www.taiwanadvice.com/ustaiwan/lettcomm.htm Hmortar 09:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have readed what Nrtm81 provided you shouldn't say "there are no international legal documents which definitively show that the territorial title of Taiwan has ever been transferred to the Republic of China government." 163.28.81.2 04:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert some changes

I noticed that between two anonymous users, a large number of mentions of "Taiwan" were replaced with "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Which sounds weaselly to me, and I reverted it. For one, it looked horrible with the straight up text replacement, even in sections headings. I hope some more people more closely assoicated with this article can resolve this, because I mearly noticed it while monitoring Recent Changes. Kevin_b_er 02:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Same issue again, I was checking a link to this article from one that I am creating which mentions the Episcopal Church in Taiwan, and saw more anon POV-pushing. The anon edits (which I reverted here) also removed all mention of Christianity on the island. Perhaps this is getting to a point where this page needs semi-protection, but I will leave that discussion to those of you who have spent more time here. --Wine Guy Talk 20:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If it's only a few reverts a day it doesn't warrant semi-protection. Ideogram 20:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Article is about the island not the political entity, correct?

I thought Republic of China was for referering to the political entity, rather than the island, and Taiwan was the island. If this article is about the island known as Taiwan, please revert the anonymous editor's edits to change the article into an article about a state known as Taiwan. They've already been reverted twice by me. Kevin_b_er 23:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. I have reverted and warned the user about 3RR. --Ideogram 23:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Several of these edits have been coming from the 167.7.39.* shared IP block registered to the State of South Carolina. -Loren 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This article was about Taiwan as in "Taiwan (ROC)" or "ROC (Taiwan)" and a dozen other names, but because there are too many deep-Blue (supporters of the KMT who believe the ROC is the "real" China), they altered this page over a long period of time to create a cleavage between Taiwan and the ROC.

To reduce the confusion of these articles, what should really happen is Taiwan should be a geographical/political/cultural article that of course doesn't remove the heated arguments over its political future, and there should be a historical article (actually there already is--History of the Republic of China) that covers the ROC before they got kicked out of/retreated from China and ceased to be plausibly China.--an American expat observer

Taiwan vs. Taiwan Island

Edit: You can also vote for the portal name at Portal talk:Taiwan#Vote for portal name.. This issue has also been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China — Nrtm81 12:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey everyone. The portal linked from this article is Portal:Taiwan however there are some concerns that using "Taiwan" as the article/portal name will mislead people into thinking that Taiwan is a country.

At the portal page, there's been a suggestion to rename it to "Taiwan Island". However, I believe there should be consistency between the name of both the article and portal. Can I ask that people share their input on this issue? — Nrtm81 09:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of appending "Island" to the name as long as the content remains politically neutral and people follow the naming conventions when referring to the government or government related functions. For example, the Ireland article refers to the island as a whole rather then the Republic or Northern Ireland. -Loren 18:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Birth

Taiwan is where my parents come from. Felix 19:28, 18 July 2006

*Notes that down in User:FelixCheng's CIA file* --Sumple (Talk) 06:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Reunification"

The sentence in the intro says:

In an ongoing dispute, the People's Republic of China (PRC) disputes the legitimacy of the Republic of China's existence, and claims Taiwan to be part of its own territory which should be eventually reunified with the People's Republic of China...

It's neither incorrect nor POV to say that the PRC claims that Taiwan should be reunified. The sentence describes what the PRC claims. It is the anti-reunification groups that claim this is not the right word to use. --- Hong Qi Gong 19:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You are a Chinese nationalist and thus your opinion is biased. Stop attempting to use irregular terminology to weasel your point across.

Unify vs. Reunify vs. Absorption

In reponse to User:HongQiGong on the little edit summary exchange: The sentence in dispute is:

In an ongoing dispute, the People's Republic of China (PRC) disputes the legitimacy of the Republic of China's existence, and claims Taiwan to be part of its own territory which should be eventually reunified with the People's Republic of China under their "one country, two systems"...

The problem with this sentence is the use of "reunified with the PRC" which implies that Taiwan was either previously part of the PRC (in the context of that sentence, not true), or part of a past Chinese state whose soverignty is now held legally by the PRC (not NPOV). "Unify" is a better term to use, which I have no objection to since it makes no assumptions about the past nature of the oft-disputed relationship between Taiwan, the ROC, the PRC, Greater China... whatever. However the use of that term has been disputed in the past as well. Therefore I propose bypassing the debate altogether in this article unless "unify" is considered to be an acceptable replacement. -Loren 20:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've mentioned above, the sentence in question describes what the PRC claims, and it is NPOV to say that the PRC claims that Taiwan should be "reunified" with mainland China. However, I would not be against adding something to the paragraph to say that the use of the word is disputed, even though that dispute is covered in the Chinese reunification article itself. --- Hong Qi Gong 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's made clear that we're paraphrasing the PRC claim, then I have no objections. -Loren 21:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the text to this:

In an ongoing dispute, the People's Republic of China (PRC) disputes the legitimacy of the Republic of China's existence, and claims Taiwan to be part of its own territory and that it should eventually be "reunified" with China...

Most importantly, I put reunified in quotes, and that the reunification claim is with China, not the PRC, as I understand that part of the dispute is that Taiwan was never under PRC rule to begin with. --- Hong Qi Gong 21:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Unify and reunify are just euphemisms for "make Taiwan Communist", "increase Communist power", or "make Taiwan part of Chinese land". China is obviously not reunifieing since Taiwan never was part of the PRC. Unify should not be used because China is more like claiming Taiwan as their land. Unify is more appropiate in situations like S. Korea and N. Korea or during the American Civil War. Good friend100 22:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, firstly, the "reunify" wording is what the PRC claims. We shouldn't be presenting our own ideas of what's the right word, but we can present what each side claims. Anti-reunification groups claim that's the wrong word, and that's covered in the Chinese reunification article itself. And I reiterate that I don't object to adding something in this article to cover that as well.

Secondly, "reunification" basically pertains to having Taiwan and mainland China be parts of the same nation again. The claim does not necessitate that Taiwan was under PRC rule in the past, because the PRC claims to be the inheritted government of China, Taiwan included. But yes, I know that even this can be debated. However, let's let that debate take place on political forums.

Thirdly, going with the logic that Taiwan was never under PRC rule would mean that the Korean situation is not a good parallel. Both the North Korean and South Korean governments were established in 1948. Both have never ruled any of each other's territories, similar to how the PRC had never ruled Taiwan. --- Hong Qi Gong 22:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the wording as it currently stands, "reunified" in quotes. --Ideogram 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Friend 100, If the two lands are unified, and elections are held, the Kuo Ming Dang is going to win much of the votes, considering the prosperity Taiwan gained under its administration. It is the Communist Party which should be worried.Hillgentleman 09:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I see something like Tibet rather then free elections in a communist country. Good friend100 18:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

You guys are getting fleeced by a bad argument. There are two separate claims here. The PRC claims that Taiwan is the territory of the PRC and that Taiwan should be unified with the PRC, peacefully or through war. Fine. But you are not saying "China claims that it is a reunification". You are claiming that what they _SHOULD_ do is do action X. It's not merely a restatement. The claim applies to the SHOULD, not to how they name the action. Thus you should remain neutral and call it unify (and if you want, separately make a note that PRC claims that it is a reunification).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.168.158.179 (talk • contribs) 13:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

Authoritarian rule under Kuomintang

Quote: However, the ROC military administration on Taiwan under Chen Yi was generally unstable and corrupt; it seized property and set up government monopolies of many industries.

Does the text imply that seizing property and setting up government monopolies are due to corruption?

While government monopolies are not nessecarily corrupt, the implication is that many of these government monopolies on common goods in Taiwan at the time (e.g. matches, certain medications... etc) were established by officials who intended to abuse them to line their own pockets. This policy was also carried out by Chen Yi during his tenure as wartime governor of Fujian under the title "Necessary State Socialism", where officials established and abused state run monopolies to enrich themselves. -Loren 18:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, the implication is purposeful and an accurate description of the history.

Loren, sorry to burst your bubble, but it was simply a national policy that caused bad implications, not the other way around. They didn't seized properties and set up government monopolies for their own benefit, but rather following a national directive. The end result was that due to the lack of supervision, corruption occured. (EDIT: Signed with Anno...) -- Finestela 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

1683-1895

At the Volokh Conspiracy, one of the contributors, a law professor, wrote:

In 1683, China's government did establish some control over western Taiwan, and this control lasted for two centuries. For almost all of this period, the Chinese explicitly denied that they were sovereign over eastern Taiwan. One purpose of the denial was to avoid taking responsibility for the pirates who operated from eastern ports; and the Chinese's government's inability to suppress the pirates is one indication that China was correct in claiming not to exercise sovereignty in the east. Only for 17 years (some other historians say 8 years) in the late 19th century did China actually declare sovereignty over all of Taiwan.

Is this correct? (And if so, or if not, are citations available?)

By comparison, the existing wikipedia article says: "In 1683, the Qing dynasty defeated the Zheng holdout, and formally annexed Taiwan". But it also says that in 1871, "When Japan sought compensation from Qing China, the court rejected compensation on the grounds that parts of Taiwan were outside its jurisdiction." So was the "annexation" of Taiwan in 1683 only for PART of the island? John Broughton 01:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Getting rid of romanized Japanese

The following sentences bugged me: Taiwan supplied the empire with rice, sugar, banana, pineapple, and high-class timber, hinoki, which was used by all the major oteras and jinjyas in Japan. It was the first time that poor Japanese & Koreans had the chance to eat sugar. Before annexation of Taiwan, sugar in the form of okashi was for the nobles only.

Why do we have romanized Japanese in an article about Taiwan in the English wikipedia? There are certainly English translations of these words: お寺(otera) and 神社(jinjya) mean temple and shrine respectively, and お菓子(okashi) means sweets in Japanese. I think the English translations are more appropriate in this case. ~~foidulus October 18th, 08:20 Germany time

Bias

No mention in the article is even made of China's claim of sovereignity over Taiwan. It seems that such mentions have been deleted. I suggest that there's heavy "POV" abuse - even censorship. If it keeps up, moderators should get involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.157.45 (talk • contribs)

This is because information related to Taiwan's political status are found in the articles Republic of China and Political status of Taiwan. -- ran (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding the equation "Taiwan = ROC" without qualification

The equation that "Taiwan = ROC" is debatable, and there are too many interpretations of this for us to make such an equation without qualification. Certainly the ROC constitution or ROC laws do not make such an equation explicitly; that's why we have legal terms like "Free Area of the ROC". From the POV of the ROC's laws, there is a big difference between what the ROC is, and what the ROC actually administers. Of course, there are also those who feel that the ROC consists or should consist of just its present zone of control (and whether to call that zone "Taiwan" is yet another question with no single answer); and there are those who feel that the ROC is no longer legitimate anywhere. And also, there's the problem of whether Quemoy and Matsu are a part of "Taiwan", and this depends on whether you equate Taiwan with just Taiwan Province of ROC, or with all of the ROC.

In short, the reason why we have separate ROC and Taiwan articles is because of these issues. If we're going to say that "Taiwan is ROC" in the Taiwan article, then we might as well just merge them.

-- ran (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Taiwan is a common name for the ROC"

Recently User:212.51.199.173 has used this repeatedly as justification to describe Taiwan as a state in the Taiwan article. Well, you see:

• Ireland is a common name for the Republic of Ireland
• Macedonia is a common name for the Republic of Macedonia
• America is a common name for the United States
• Britain is a common name for the United Kingdom
• Russia was a common name for the Soviet Union

and so on and so forth.

However, Wikipedia makes a clear distinction between all of the above, because although many people use the names interchangeably, it is controversial and/or sloppy to say that they are equivalent. That's why we don't say in the Ireland article that Ireland is a country; instead, we say that Ireland is an island, and that the the Republic of Ireland, commonly called Ireland, is a country.

-- ran (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What about South Korea and North Korea?--68.98.154.196 01:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why can't this article start like this:

Taiwan, officially the Republic of China...--68.98.154.196 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Because that statement would not be NPOV. We are not accounting for views that:

• ROC is China, but all of its territory is illegally occupied, except for Taiwan (deep blue)
• ROC is an exile government that has illegally occupied Taiwan since WW2 (deep green)
• "ROC" is an illegal name used by the Taiwan authority, which is a local government of the PRC (mainland)

Nor are we accounting for the fact that officially, Quemoy and Matsu are not a part of Taiwan. -- ran (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

San Francisco Peace Treaty

How is it that this keeps sneaking into the article? Is Hartzell editing Wikipedia to put forward lies and POV about Taiwan? When Japan normalized relations with the PRC (See Point #3 in that document), it said that they respected the PRC's view on Taiwan but stood by Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration which states ...all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China

Who keeps writing that MacArthur/USA has jurisdiction over Taiwan? The only source that spreads this view is by "Richard W. Hartzell" who thinks Taiwan is the same as Puerto Rico. If he uses the logic that the San Francisco Peace Treaty supercedes all other treaties, then by the same logic the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China ratifies what Japan had already stated, that Taiwan and Chinese territories go to the ROC. -- — Nrtm81 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't tell us, we agree with you. The only way to prevent this kind of POV-insertion is to patrol the article and revert on sight. --Ideogram 08:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge notice

Does anyone care about that merge notice or can I remove it? --Ideogram 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

lol hi2u :) — Nrtm81 08:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

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 [10] 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". [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]

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 [18]. 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 (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 [19] [20] [21] [22] 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)

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)

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)

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

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.[23] 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)

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.<<

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)

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).

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. nat^tang 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)

Deletion vote

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

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)

China belonged to ROC after the war. So if Japan would have renounced Taiwan, it would've probably gone to China. Once the communists gained control, the ROC fled to Taiwan, which was their last remaining territory. Even if it wasn't their territory they occupied it and now rule over it. It defies all logic to say that that the government that governs over a piece of territory doesn't own it.68.222.85.60 (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I don't agree. I searched Taiwan looking for Taiwan, not PRC. Chexmix53 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Taiwan is notable in it's own right. People looking for Hawaii shouldn't be redirected to the US. They are looking for Hawaii. Chexmix53 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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

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

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)

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)

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, I'm Taiwanese and I don't appreciate that comment, China has only kept Taiwan from declaring independence through force and a seat on the security council at the UN, which it stole from Taiwan in the 1970s.68.192.68.84 (talk) 22:44, 19 July 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Xinhai Revolution National Protection War	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 Chinese Civil War Nationalist China on Taiwan	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:

• Succession of governments: Provisional Government of the Republic of China, Beiyang Government, Nationalist Government (+Reformed Government of the Republic of China, Wang Jingwei Government), Government of the Republic of China
• Succession of eras: Xinhai Revolution, Warlord era, Nanjing decade, Second Sino-Japanese War, Chinese Civil War, Taiwan after World War II
• Succession of states (none): Republic of China

--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)

Infobox

So it means that there will be major changes to these pages?

• Taiwan (island), covers geographical and geological information on the main island only.
• Taiwan, covers information on the country.
• Republic of China, serving as a government article like French Fifth Republic.--Jerrch 19:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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 National Emblem
Anthem: National Anthem of the Republic of China
Capital and largest city	Taipei 25°02′N 121°38′E
Official languages	Standard Mandarin
Demonym(s)	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 (13,972 sq mi) (136th)
• Water (%)	10.34
Population
• 2007 estimate	22,911,292 (47th[5])
• Density	633.12/km2 (1,639.8/sq mi) (14th[5])
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	$16,274 (36th)
HDI (2005)	0.932 very high (23rd if ranked[6])
Currency	New Taiwan dollar (NT$) (TWD)
Time zone	UTC+8 (CST)
• Summer (DST)	not observed
Calling code	886
ISO 3166 code	TW
Internet TLD	.tw
* 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)

"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)

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)

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

• Veterans recall labor-camp hell
• British POWs return for remembrance ceremony
• According to this news item, Jack Edwards wrote a book about his time in a POW camp in Taiwan. The book is Banzai You Bastards

Readin (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"Taiwan" as informal name for ROC vs. Taiwan the island

I guess this issue is well-worn, but, if "Taiwan" is most commonly used to refer informally to the Republic of China, how about:

• all Republic of China/"Taiwan" articles/categories use "Republic of China (Taiwan)", the accurate name ("Republic of China") taking precedence;
• all articles/categories addressing aspects of Taiwan the island that pre-date the ROC use "Taiwan (island)"..?

That way I'd hope there'd be no confusion as to the scope of particular articles/categories.

Example updates

• Template:Taiwan aborigines → Template:Taiwan (island) aborigines (or Template:Taiwanese (island) aborigines)
• Template:Taiwan related articles → Template:Republic of China (Taiwan) topics (assuming emphasis on 1949 to date)
• Administrative divisions of the Republic of China → Administrative divisions of the Republic of China (Taiwan)
• etc.

Sardanaphalus (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan is not just an island. It is also a political and economic entity, so adding "(island)" is unnecessary most of the time. As for the "Republic of China (Taiwan)," I do believe it should be used, but not for everything. For example, the second template you listed above should not be renamed.--Jerrch 21:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"Republic of China" is not the "more accurate" name, it is the formal name.

As for the proposal that articles about Taiwan say "Taiwan (island)", is it clear that they are strictly about the island and not about the whole area commonly called "Taiwan"? The article on Taiwanese aborigines talks about the aborigines on Orchid Island, part of "Taiwan" even if not part of "Taiwan island". Readin (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps, then, the disambiguation might be "Taiwan (island group)" if other smaller neighboring islands are often included when referring to Taiwan in the context of islands and/or pre-1949 history..? Or, if the majority of "Taiwanese" aborigines originate from Taiwan the island, perhaps "Taiwanese (island)" could still be used but the clarification regarding Orchid Island (and any others nearby) made in the opening paragraph..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that would not work either. For instance, Kinmen is not geographically part of the Taiwanese island group, but historically it had been under the same regime as Taiwan during the Kingdom of Tungning rule period and in the present.--Jerrch 18:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you should bring this discussion to WT:TAIWAN.--Jerrch 21:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Have done so here. Thanks for the suggestion. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

renaming by User:Sardanaphalus

..umm, what's with all the renaming by User:Sardanaphalus going on? Anyone have a clue? Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

please use section headers

That 98 % of the Taiwanese population are ethnic Han Chinese is correct. Out of 100% population in Taiwan, only 2% are aborigines who stayed for a few thousand years. Roughly 60% are Hoklo people, which may mean 河洛人(people claiming their ancestry from Yellow River region) or 福佬人 (Fujianese). In either meaning, they are Han people and most are 300 year immigrants, not a long time compared with the stay of aborigines. 25% are Hakka people (客家人, literally meaning guests) who emigrated in the past ~200 years from the border of Fujian and Canton. The newest bunch are the 15% who emigrated to Taiwan ~60 years ago, including an ROC army of six hundred thousand. The term Mainlanders for this group has a diminutive connotation. It would serve all people down there better if the term was to be avoided. What's more, if we call these people Mainlanders, what should we call those who came from China to Taiwan in the past few years?

Han people is a mishmash as a result of thousands of years of mixing. I am not sure if Han can be justified as a race or an ethnic group. - Cooterhu (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that "Han" is an acceptable description of the ancestry and major culture (the culture is a mixture of Han and other influences, but primarily Han) of the majority of Taiwanese. The statement that "mainlander" is diminutive is believable, but what is being proposed as an alternative term for "mainlander"? The majority of Taiwanese whose families have been in Taiwan for hundreds as opposed to thousands of years is a clearly different group from the people who either themselves or their parents or grandparents came from China with Chiang Kai-shek (or even more recently). Readin (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The current grouping, where "mainlander", "Hoklo" and "Hakka" are grouped under Han Chinese misses the importance of the Hoklo-Hakka common identity as "native Taiwanese" as opposed to the mainlander identity as "Chinese". Readin (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What shall we call these third-wave immigrants who moved to Taiwan 60 years ago? This is indeed a proper question but I have no ready answer. The name should be either what they call themselves or what is agreeable to them. Perhaps time will settle an answer. 'Mainlander' seems so alienating.

While we are at it, let me relate this. One time, anyone who fled to Taiwan after 1949 was called 義胞(righteous comrade) by the ROC authority when it was still a one-party regime. No doubt the term is a highly political one. Newcomers to Taiwan since 1949 are sporadic and have not seemed to form a cultural group yet, most of whom I am aware of are celebrities or at least a high caste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooterhu (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So where's the source for these figures? I need something to whip out when Taiwanese friends BAWWW about Taiwan not being anything like China.  Esper  ^rant  03:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Awesome. The Hoklo ARE Chinese. This opens up a whole new realm of trollability.  Esper  ^rant  03:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

PRC claimed that it was the successor of Qing

I don't think PRC has ever made such a claim. As far as I know, PRC claims that it is the successor of the ROC which no longer existed after the KMT lost the Chinese civil war.

If PRC has ever stated that it has claim over Taiwan because it is the successor of Qing, please quote the source.--Pyl (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I've modified sentence to say that PRC succeeded ROC. Readin (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Until the above is verified by credible sources, it will be removed. The ROC is still very much in existance today, and the Chinese Civil War has never officially ended, so based on what is the PRC making its claim?--Huaiwei (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The PRC makes its claim based on "replacement of the old regime by a new one" upon the PRC's proclamation, and the fact that the ROC regime has essentially been confined to Taiwan. So, from the PRC perspective, the ROC regime is only fit to be a local one these days. I just added the source from the PRC white paper to the Political status of Taiwan article.Ngchen (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you are expecting a wikipedia article to basically echo the views of the PRC whole-scale, and accepting their POV as fact? The ROC has never accepted itself as a "local authority in Chinese territory", so there is absolutely no nuetrality in attempting to allege that the ROC ceases to exist in any sense.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the article clearly notes that the POV in question is from the PRC, and further notes clearly that the PRC does not actually control the island. Stating the PRC's POV when noting its source does not violate NPOV.Ngchen (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Mistake to be fixed please:

Under 'Economics':

The Republic of China has its own currency, the New Taiwan dollar.

I believe this should read

Taiwan has its own currency, the New Taiwan dollar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.103.186 (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

In general, when referring to non-state related aspects of the country, "Taiwan" is used, while for state-related aspects "Republic of China" is used. Since currency is issued by the government, "Republic of China" is correct. If the fact that "Republic of China" is in the state commonly known as "Taiwan", then we can clarify by writing "The Republic of China (Taiwan) has its own currency, the New Taiwan dollar" I'm assuming that the New Taiwan Dollar is used in all parts of ROC (including the Pescadores, Kinmen, Matsu, etc.). If the New Taiwan Dollar is only used in a portion of the ROC, then you're right that we need to reword it. Readin (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The New Taiwan Dollar is legal tender throughout the Taiwan Area of the Republic of China.--pyl (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

1. Separate the Free Area of the Republic of China article into two parts, one for the modern area only, and one for either the entire history or for specifically the pre-1949 history. 2. Name the article for the modern area, "Taiwan". 3. Rename the current Taiwan article "Taiwan (island)". Limit this article to talking only about things that apply only to the Taiwanese mainland. 4. Move parts of the current Taiwan article to the new Taiwan article.

Pyl has been recently using "Taiwan Area" in places were we traditionally used the current Taiwan article. However this traditional usage has always been a problem because the current Taiwan article says Taiwan is an island, while in most of the references more than just the big island is being referred to.

For dicussion, please see the Talk:Taiwan Area page.

Readin (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Communist Chinese News as authority

Is it legitimate to use Communist Chinese News as an authority on footnotes? I find it rather alarming that some of the claims in this article use Communist Party propaganda as a source. What's the frequency, Kenneth? (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In at least one of the instances, the source is provided to show what the Chinese say about Taiwan. That seems reasonable to me. Readin (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

redirecting "China" to the "PRC"

There is a discussion going on here.--pyl (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Foreign government offices in Taiwan

An editor is proposing to remove from Diplomatic missions of Ireland details of Ireland's unofficial Government office in Taipei, on the grounds that Ireland does not have diplomatic relations with the Republic of China/Taiwan.

Current practice is that we include these quasi-official offices, as they perform the de facto responsibilities of a diplomatic mission and these offices are usually run (albeit at arms length) by a sending state's foreign affairs ministry.

In line with Wikipedia's policy on consistency, a change to this article would necessitate us to eliminate details of all foreign Government offices in Taiwan which do not recognise the Republic of China/Taiwan.

Could we also ascertain if receiving states should be named according to how they name themselves, or how the sending state calls it.

Please enter your comments here: Talk:Diplomatic missions of Ireland. Kransky (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Island or group of islands

I have very little knowledge about this, but the article seems to contradict itself: Taiwan [...] is an island in East Asia and later: The main island of Taiwan, also known as Formosa [...], is located in East Asia off the coast of mainland China.... So Taiwan is not one island but a group of islands, with one main island much bigger than the others? Lerichard (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed an issue. "Taiwan" is an island, but "Taiwan" also a country in the sense of a region of multiple islands with common history and to a lesser extent common culture. It is also a "province" that covers an area containing multiple islands. It is also the common name for a nation formally called "Republic of China".

In its most common usage, "Taiwan" refers to the nation. However, due to political considerations (see Political status of Taiwan) it is impossible to get agreement to have the "Taiwan" article talk about the nation. Readin (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO political considerations / nationalism should not interfere with the content of the encyclopaedia. If, in its most common usage, "Taiwan" refers to the nation, the "Taiwan" article should be about the country, not the island. But I guess you already have discussed about this for years and are fed up about the controversy? :) Lerichard (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. :) Readin (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Add Hebrew Link

please add this link in Hebrew(עברית) under languages: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%98%D7%90%D7%99%D7%95%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9F

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipnp (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)