Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC

message: Move to Demographics of the Republic of China 
Votes: 7
Support: 29%
:Note: Statistics and contents in this article are about the entire territory currently administered by the Republic of China government/regime/State, i.e. Quemoy and Matsu included. 
Support
#Instantnood 12:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
#Node 02:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Demographics of Taiwan]]

message: Move to New Party (Republic of China) 
Votes: 7
Support: 29%
:Note: This party contests for Legislative Yuan seats in Quemoy and Matsu as well. 
Support
#Instantnood 12:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
#Node 02:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[New Party (Republic of China)]]

message: Move to Communications in the Republic of China 
Votes: 7
Support: 29%
:Note: Statisitcs and content of this article are about communiciations in the Republic of China, with Quemoy and Matsu included. 
Support
#Instantnood 12:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
#Node 02:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Communications in Taiwan]]

message: Move to Highway system in the Republic of China 
Votes: 9
Support: 33%
:Note: The highway system of the Republic of China includes township highways. Kinmen County (Quemoy) is divided into several townships too. 
Support
#Instantnood 12:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
#Node 02:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Highway System in Taiwan]]

message: Move to Transportation in  the Republic of China
Votes: 7
Support: 29%
:Note: This article deals with transport in the entire Republic of China, including Quemoy and Matsu. 
Support
#Instantnood 12:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
#Node 02:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Transportation in Taiwan]]

message: Move to :Category:Political parties of the Republic of China
Votes: 8
Support: 38%
:Note: Parties in this category take part in elections of a government/regime/State with the official title "Republic of China". 
Support
#Instantnood 12:03, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
#Jiang 02:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that relevant?  It is established that a significant amount of people in Taiwan think the ROC is legitimate.  You are trying to say TSU holds this position and there are TSU legislators.  Well, you still have to be practical and work from the inside even if you think the ROC is illegitimate, and also the point is, some people think this and it's important we recognize it.  They would be pissed as hell to be called political parties of the ROC.--160.39.195.88 07:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked if that's a fact or not. And no matter of that the Legislative Yuan is still an organ of the ROC.  — Instantnood 13:04, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
#cherico 11:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Category:Taiwanese political parties]]

message: #:Can you cite something that would say that?  They certainly don't have membership in mainland China.  Pro-unification or not, the question is still about Taiwan... Taiwan is a most neutral term as their is no dispute of its existence, only the ROCs existence as an independent state.--160.39.195.88 22:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is that relevant?  It is established that a significant amount of people in Taiwan think the ROC is legitimate.  You are trying to say TSU holds this position and there are TSU legislators.  Well, you still have to be practical and work from the inside even if you think the ROC is illegitimate, and also the point is, some people think this and it's important we recognize it.  They would be pissed as hell to be called political parties of the ROC.--160.39.195.88 07:43, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked if that's a fact or not. And no matter of that the Legislative Yuan is still an organ of the ROC.  — Instantnood 13:04, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
#cherico 11:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 160.39.195.88's comment to Ran's remarks

message: For the sake of NPOV, every single vote for supporting this vote should be automaticaly counted into the future supporting votes for changing politics of China into politics of the People's Republic of China.--Mababa 04:37, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Mababa's comments

message: Please do not delete the following comment unless you can show that I'm lying, and even then, you should probably respond and not just delete.  I would not be lying purposely if what I say is inaccurate.  In any case, it's easily verified by anyone, and I think it's relevant.  Please take a look if you're suspicious.  Notice the disputed tag on the NPOV section.  Notice the long, long discussions with nothing changing.  Notice the time stamps and how long the discussion has been going on.  Instantnood is really pushing it here between running polls multiple times in less than a month, setting arbitrary rules like so-called "enforcement" of naming conventions.--160.39.195.88 15:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree w/ 160.  Any way we can vote out Instantnood??  Kidding of couse, but maybe we should put him in the same category as Jiang and Mababa--DINGBAT 20:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Further comments by 160.39.195.88

message: I think it's pretty clear that no consensus will ever be reached on this matter. Both "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" are POV in this case, and there is no NPOV way out of this. In this case, we have to compromise, rather than cram the opinion of the slim majority down the throats of the minority, which is not the spirit of NPOV.
I propose that the following compromise be made:
#Put a disambiguation at the top of every page. This disambiguation will probably read:
#:This article is about the _______ of the Republic of China, which currently administers Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy, and Matsu. See also xxx of the People's Republic of China, xxx of Hong Kong, xxx of Macau.
#Put a disclaimer at the bottom of every page. This will be in a smaller sized font. It'll read something like:
#:The location of this article should not be taken as an endorsement of the equivalency of "Taiwan" with "Republic of China" or of the legitimacy of the ROC government.
#Leave the articles where they are. The fact is, both moving them and leaving them are POV. In this case we can only take the lesser of two evils. Moving is more troublesome and the current names are more comprehensible to hapless confused foreigners. The current name is not more NPOV. It's just that we have no NPOV choice to fall back to.
-- ran (talk) 16:58, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with the direction of moving towards compromise. But I don't think accuracy for an encyclopedia can be a trade-off and be sacrificed. Quemoy, Matsu, etc., have never been part of Taiwan, in whatever meaning of "Taiwan" (except "Taiwan Area", which is used in place of "Free Area" in trade and tourism matters). It's not compromise, but submitting, if common but inacurrate usage rules.
::And what does this accomplish? It is quite clear that many people feel "Taiwan" to be a term good enough to substitute for "Taiwan, Penghu, Quemoy and Matsu", i.e. the "Republic of China". Either you convince most of them of your views, or you compromise. I don't see any other way out of this.
::I should also add that the very idea of "POV" is that people have different views on what accuracy and fact are. In our situation, the definitions of terms are volatile and vary from political camp to political camp. You can't cram the definition of Taiwan that you have down the throats of others (and nor can they do it to you). -- ran (talk) 17:25, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
:::I am interested to know from when Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu, Pratas and Taiping has become part of Taiwan. :-D  — Instantnood 18:13, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
::::In the minds of lots of people here, apparently, many of whom aren't ignorant about the subject. If you make the equation that ROC = Taiwan (which a lot of people make), then by extension all of those are a part of Taiwan. You don't have to agree that ROC = Taiwan, of course, but lots of people do. -- ran (talk) 23:28, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
:::::I would be interested to hearing from proponents of ROC = Taiwan that when the equation started to become valid, and when did the islands become part of Taiwan.  — Instantnood 06:28, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
::I think this campaign to insert references to the "Republic of China" everywhere has gone on too long, and has already put lots of noses out of joint. It's time to let things rest where they are for now - reconsider things in six months' time, if necessary - but for now, keep the status quo, jguk 17:24, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: When there is no consensus, we need to compromise

message: It seems that Instantnood now agrees with Whispertome - all the oppose votes should be discounted as they are made by people who are misguided. He's even appealed to Jimbo (in a disingenuous manner too given his past record on Taiwanese matters) . At what point will Instantnood recognise that he has failed to gain a consensus for his views and allow us all to return to more productive editing? jguk 21:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Instantnood tries for a change to the rules 

message: The above is not agreed upon.  The NPOV page that is cited is heavily disputed.  See discussion below.--160.39.195.88 23:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 160.39.195.88's comment

message: The above is not agreed upon. The NPOV page that is cited is heavily disputed. See discussion below. Instantnood, stop moving this comment to somewhere people won't see. You are attempting to censor dissent. Setting the terms of the vote in an absolute way without allowing people disagree creates an unfair vote. I'm sure I could make up a poll if I set the parameters just right to get whatever result I wanted. But that doesn't help the validity of the poll. Again, stop trying to move this comment. It disputes the very terms of the vote, and you can't try to make it so that people will not see it before they vote.--160.39.195.88 23:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 160.39.195.88's comment

message: I believe that the result of this kind of vote based on the very same reason could be foresee from the previous votes. The nature of POVness on this topic makes a consensus almost impossible to reach. I believe the status quo is the best we can get. There should be a limit on initiating similiar kind of votes for the sake of everybody's time and energy. Thus, I have posted a Double Jeopardy on votes|Double Jeopardy on votes] discussion to see if we can come up something to curtail this type of frivolous votes in the future. Please kindly spend some time and participate in that discussion if you have any suggestion and opinion on in this regard.Mababa 00:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea, thanks for bringing this up.  --Umofomia 00:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Double Jeopardy Policy on votes

message: Are any polls on this page open, or are they all closed?  I'll remove the pointer from WP:CS if they are closed. Hiding 18:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closed or Open