Talk:Taiwan (island)

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Infobox

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)

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)

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.

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)

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

The Chinese Civil War divided and separated the two independent sovereign countries known officially as the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (Taiwan). The situation is similar to that of North Korea and South Korea or the United States of America and the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. Both the PRC and the ROC (Taiwan), regardless of what Communist propaganda is being spread by the PRC to confuse the public, are indisputably independent sovereign countries each with their own President, National Governent, and military forces. To try to reduce the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the same low status of "[Special Administrative Region]]" like Hong Kong or Macao, or turning the ROC (Taiwan) into a so-called "province" of the People's Republic of China is simply showing great disrespect towards the national pride of the Taiwanese citizens of the Republic of China (Taiwan), and will be perpetually UNACCEPTABLE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE ROC (TAIWAN)! Unification between the two countries: People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (Taiwan) is ONLY possible if it is based on mutual respect and equality of both countries on opposite sides of the Taiwan Strait. The unification model should be similar to that of the European Union. Any other method or so-called "One-China Policy" would be completely UNACCEPTABLE. And should war break out between the PRC and Taiwan both countries will be mutually destroyed, that is guarenteed!!!!!!! For confirmation that the Republic of China (Taiwan) is an independent sovereign country please visit: http://www.president.gov.tw and http://www.gio.gov.tw both are the official websites of the Presidential office and the National Government of the Republic of China (Taiwan).

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)

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)