Talk:Taiwan (island)/Archive 4

message: :This entry is particularly informative to people who believe that Taiwan is the Capital of Indonesia
Excellent! Moved to Wikipedia:Valley of the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Spudtater 23:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  And now for something completely different... 

message: User:50stars mass reverted this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&diff=12929345&oldid=12915374. You are editing from an outdated version. Please incorporate edits that were lost through the mass revert. --Jiang 06:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: anyone want to clean this up? --Jiang 03:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  You guys are editing an outdated version of the page 

message: I really don't see how this is true:
:Historically, the People's Republic of China has claimed Taiwan as an integral part of the PRC.  However, starting in 2005, the PRC position seems to have shifted to insisting that Taiwan is part of China without explicitly identifying China with the People's Republic. Both of these positions are contraversial.
The Constitution hasn't been changed. --Jiang 03:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRC still claims Taiwan 

message: Where did the previous beautiful map go? I kind of like it.--Mababa 05:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Beautiful map

message: Couldn't we just put the back and forth going on in the talk page into the article under a section called "disputes" or something?  OF course we'd have to smooth things out a bit--- but it would seem rather silly to decide definitively whether Taiwan is a "nation" or at this point when there is no real consensus and is still an onggoing, extremely controversial, and interesting, issue.
--thevizier 12:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with the current approach is trying to call Taiwan an island and referring to a geographical feature instead of the thing that I think is clearly a nation.  If we then dispute nation, why does it revert to a geographical feature?  If we think it's not quite a nation yet, then we should talk about something that is like a nation, that is about people, culture, history, etc., etc., but not just pretend, okay well, we're having some trouble here, let's think about an island instead.--Amerinese 15:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discourse and Discussion 

message: Taiwan is clearly listed under island nation.  For consistency's sake, I am changing it to island nation and we will include the discussion on why it is disputed in the introduction (laying out all the issues honestly up front).  Topically, it does not make sense to introduce Taiwan as an island for many already mentioned reasons, including that this article is not about a geographical feature.--Amerinese 15:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: if it is disputed then we can't call it that, can we? We already told you - the island nation article 1) lists ROC, not Taiwan, and 2) defines nation as state. You are not defining it as such. Please show me one reputably and "neutral" source that calls Taiwan a nation. Every other encyclopedia calls it an island. --Jiang 22:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jiang, you just painted yourself into a corner.  Show me one reputable neutral source that separates Taiwan into Taiwan and ROC the way Wikipedia does!  Every other encyclopedia calls it an island nation! =) --Amerinese 05:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: Uh... Why was the entire section removed?  It was mentioned that it was too long, but a complete removal?  I suspect it was Jiang, but see no explanations here.--Amerinese 15:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Political Status Section 

message: Coudln't we just introduce Taiwan as an island (Becuase it is at least geographically an island) and say there is debate and controversy about the status of TAiwan (its people, the political entity, the word itself) as a nation and its relationship to mainland China etc and then have a few sections talking about the various sides of the issue and arguments on each side, rather than try to create a definitive definition of something that is changing and evolving.  What Taiwan is is changing everyday so why not accept that, and accept the controversy, and present all sides of the issue (which may be impossible, but instead of deleting, why can't we have sections for each side?)  With a subject this controversial you'll never have any real consensus-- it doesn't even seem the people on Taiwan are entirely sure, and the idea of a TAiwanese nation is developing/evolving, perhaps coming into place, but it is not universally accepted by the people on the island or elsehwere--  but there is a debate, a change going on, so why can't we write about that, instead of trying to pigeon hole Taiwan as this or that so that it can conveniently fit our ideological scheme of the world?  
It seems that the only thing that people can agree on is that Taiwan is at least an island.  Some would say it is just an island, some would say it is a nation, a state, a people etc etc.   
Besides, the word "Taiwan" has various levels of signification.  One is the island Taiwan, the other is the political entity ruled by the what is called the "ROC" that includes various islands off the coast of Fujian and the main island of Taiwan. It also connotes nation to same, a province to others etc etc etc.  Anyone who wants to fix only one connotation to it is blatantly ignoring the scope of the word.  --thevizier 18:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  about nation. 

message: explanation for this edit:
*first sentence needs to define what Taiwan is (a island) instead of just stating where it is located.
*country of the Republic of China (ROC) does not make sense. The Republic of China cannot objectively be a "country". It can be called a state, but who calls it a country?
*"The country commonly known as "China" is administered by another nation officially known as the People's Republic of China (PRC)." Two POV claims here: 1) "China" is a "country" that only includes what is administered by the PRC and 2) the PRC is a nation. The latter point is really supported by no one.
*Removal of "Since 1945, Taiwan has been governed by the Republic of China, which had previously existed on mainland China since 1912." why? it's good historical context, otherwise, we dont know where the ROC came from
*"The PRC routinely uses biased rhetorical propaganda to portray the ROC government on Taiwan as an illegitimate political entity." calling it "biased rhetorical propaganda" is certainly not neutral
*"This is in contrast to the reality that the ROC has never been administered or controlled by the PRC. " Again, a violation of NPOV. Does the "biased rhetorical propaganda" claim that the PRC already controls Taiwan? I didn't think so... --Jiang 00:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section POV