Talk:Censorship in Taiwan

message: This article was horrible.  Now, thanks to my improvements, it is merely awful. :) --Jimbo Wales 09:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no move —Mets501 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Jimbo's opinion

message: moved. The common name argument is strong. --regentspark (comment) 03:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How does mainland China belong under the title "Taiwan"? -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would actually - that material would simply be background to where we are now, just as the main "Taiwan" article has information about ROC history, including when it was not even limited to Taiwan. We generally name articles about things that reach into the present day by contemporary references and don't automatically have to revert to an archaic or technical name at the the first whiff of any history. Also, as noted below, if there was significantly distinct material about censorship during mainland rule that could warrant an entirely separate article, under the ROC name with dates/"History" or whatever added. N-HH talk/edits 07:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

text: My opinion is that the situation in the modern ROC is different enough from the pre-1949 ROC such that given the way the article is structured (i.e. breaking down by aspects of current censorship and not chronologically), extensive coverage of censorship in pre-1949 ROC should really be broken into a separate article. Should the article be refactored to be organised by chronology (and there's a case to be made for that), with sufficiently comprehensive description of each time period, I would probably be fine with the current title. wctaiwan (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, rereading the article, I think it isn't so much the organisation that is the issue, but rather the lack of detail in the pre-democratisation parts. As it is, I still think the move should happen, but if someone is up to the task of expanding the pre-democratisation sections, I'm okay with that too. Striking my "vote". wctaiwan (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My rationale was based off current content. As for future articles, I think a split would be valid, as the post-1949 situation with martial law and sometimes draconian rule of the KMT on Taiwan was no doubt very different from the issues that would've affected censorship before then, which were probably maintaining control and giving the image of maintaining control over the huge mainland. CMD (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move (2012) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Censorship in Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619040057/http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/CompAdminLaw/Yeh_CompAdLaw_paper.pdf to http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/CompAdminLaw/Yeh_CompAdLaw_paper.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified