Talk:Taiwan (island)/Archive 5

message: Will somebody explain to me why it says the term "Taiwan" refers to a government?  I agree "the government of Taiwan" is a government.  But Taiwan itself is region, a geographical entity, whether it classifies as a nation or not.  But when I changed it somebody rv'd it.  I won't lose sleep over it, but still - 208.181.1.157 22:01, July 6, 2005 (UTC)
:It was a rephrasing from an earlier version. It is true that "Taiwan" is used to refer to the ROC-administered territories. — Instantnood
----
i read somewhere there are 26 countries that aknowledge taiwan as an independant state, i was looking for a rundown of those countries and i couldn't find one, maybe someone could add it..instead of all this lightfooted phrasing and semantics, why not simply state that taiwan and X countries say it's independant and prc and X countries say it doesn't. and mentioning that convincing other contries of their stance is a important part of both entieties international policies.. something ike that.. but a list would be nice... - 84.195.252.25 12:57, October 4, 2005 (UTC)
:You're looking for foreign relations of the Republic of China. --MarkSweep✍ 13:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (section title)

message: I changed "Taiwan has been governed independent of mainland China since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949." back to "They have been governed separately from mainland China since the Chinese Civil War in 1949."
:::Uhhhh, but they have been governed independent of mainland China for quite some time, what is the diff???...
The first sentence is inferior because it a) implies that Taiwan is independent and b) enforces a heirarchy in which Taiwan's "independence" is derived from mainland China. The statement that they have been governed seperately implies no such heirarchy and does not contradict the view that Taiwan has always been governed as a province, whether that of the ROC or the PRC. --Jiang 9 July 2005 05:20 (UTC)
:What about changing to " They have continued to be governed by the Republic of China after the People's Republic of China was established on mainland China at the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949. "? — Instantnood July 9, 2005 08:45 (UTC)
::Ya I like that.  I'll not start the argument again that Taiwan is GOVERNED independently even if it's not considered truly independent...  But I will say I think independent has just become a buzz word for some of you people and you're going to revert it even when it makes sense to use it. I don't agree that independently implies a hierarchy more than seperately, but I see your point that it implies it was Taiwan that changed rather than the mainland.  However I still assert that "governed seperately" would be a good descriptor for HK or Macau's governance but is an inadequate description of Taiwan's situation. 208.181.1.157 July 11, 2005 16:31 (UTC)
::: Governed by the mainland in what sense? The sense of pure fantasy? Do not delude yourself and others with this tripe. Jtrainor 11:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do not imply Taiwan is independent or is part of the PRC 

message: Does Taiwan use the American Style power? (120v) - 167.206.176.233 16:05, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
: Wikipedia is your friend: List of countries with mains power plugs, voltages and frequencies (P.S. talk pages are generally supposed to be used only for issues pertaining to the editing of the article).-Loren 22:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: (section title)

message: To the anon user or anyone else with suggestions on how to improve this article, or where you believe it to be inaccurate; now is the time to make suggestions. A locked article and constant revert wars benefit no one. -Loren 00:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes 

message: I just want to dab Japanese -> Japan in the Culture section. Grika 17:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  minor edit 

message: In the demographics section the information on population is presented as "Taiwan's population was estimated in 2005 as being 22.9 million". Is this figure for the ROC, or specifically for Taiwan? — Instantnood 10:47, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
*Taiwan = all of the ROC according to the Taiwan government, so all of it.  There aren't enough people outside just the island to skew a vague statistic like that anyways. SchmuckyTheCat 15:23, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: Should the subject matter of this article on the island of Taiwan itself, or the larger area that covers the island of Taiwan, Green Island, Orchid Island, and the Pescadores? The Pescadores is basically part of Taiwan in all aspects, including history, culture, demographics, geography. It would also give readers a clearer picture that the Pescadores is part of Taiwan the area, while Quemoy and Matsu are not. — Instantnood 20:53, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
:I am by now familiar with your view that Taiwan means just Taiwan without Penghu and Jinmen and Mazu.  But that is already not a view shared by some articles on Wikipedia as well as sections of the article here.  For example, economy of Taiwan... what does that mean?  What does it mean historically?  What do demographics of Taiwan mean?  I for sure so somewhere that listed ROC as the government and Taiwan as the area controlled by the ROC.  So where is the current definition that Taiwan does not yet include Penghu coming from?  I wonder because I don't think there's a consensus.  I know the intro was written that way, but that's because that was someone else's point of view (or did you write that?).  Also related is the ROC question.  Does ROC refer to the area that the government named ROC controls?  If it does, then shouldn't most of the stuff in the Taiwan article be moved to the ROC article?  But would people be happy if the Taiwan article was a much thinner skeleton of what it is right now?  I don't think these questions are answered very well and they are often answered in contradictory ways on Wikipedia... --DownUnder555 09:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did suggest to rename the titles of some of the titles to better reflect the subject matter of them: whether the entirety of the territories the ROC presently administered, or only Taiwan (and Pescadores). Some titles, say, Taiwanese cuisine, culture of Taiwan, history of Taiwan and history of the Republic of China, give readers a clear picture which place the article is about, while some others, e.g. economy of Taiwan, demographics of Taiwan, education in Taiwan, do not. As per the naming conventions Taiwan should not be used in place of Republic of China when the latter is more correct.As for the subject matter of this article, I would like to know if it should be the narrower definition - the island itself, or the broader one  - the group of islands that include the Pescadores. — Instantnood 13:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[Pescadores]]

message: I have reverted the edits by 210.242.179.102 today because they simply blanked the article. However, I have also reverted the edits by 24.83.39.189. I'm not sure whether they were valid or not as I have little understanding of the politics of Taiwan. Could someone else more knowledgeable make a judgement on this? Thanks. --A bit iffy 07:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted edits (07:08, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

message: By which I mean, of course, "which Westerners" :)
I reverted the edit by 82.70.215.246 who said "The Dutch, not Portuguese, discovered 'Formosa' in 1590". According to this, the Portuguese came across Taiwan in 1544. And anyway, "Ilha Formosa" sounds a lot more Portuguese than Dutch. So, does anybody else know for sure who's right? --A bit iffy 13:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who discovered Taiwan?

message: Please correct me if I am wrong here, but to my knowledge, both the UNGA and UNSC have never officially recognized/acknowledged that Taiwan is part of China, much less that the PRC is the legitimate government Taiwan. If someone has a different viewpoint or additional knowledge in this matter please state them here. For now, I will remove the statements in question and keep them here:
Under the framework of international law, the decisions of the UN General Assembly may constitute pursuasive authorities and arise to the level of customary principles of international law, while the decisions of the UN Security Council may constitute a definitive pronouncement of international law. Given this framework for international law, and the fact that most members of the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council officially recognize/acknowledge that the PRC government is the sole, legitimate government of China and Taiwan is part of China, -- Sjschen 16:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The position of the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council on Political Status 

message: The mutual defense agreement between the US and ROC was allowed to expired.  The closes thing to any sort of assurance that the US might have agreed to give the ROC military assistance is through the Taiwan Relations Act, and even there it's only states the US will consider military actions against Taiwan to be of "grave concern". --BenjaminTsai 03:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that your current objection is based upon a misinterpretation of "support". If you read my previous objections you will see that I clearly stated that "military support" is not "military intervation". "Military support" entails mutual exchange programs, training as well as transfers and sales of weapons, both of which do presently occur between the US and the ROC. If you feel that "support" is too strong a word, I'm willing to consider alternatives, however it must take into account the exchanges that presently occur.  -Loren 03:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've clarified that section a bit, your comments would be appreceated. -Loren 03:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, yes I did misinterpret "support" to necessarily equate "direct intervention", however in the context of the paragraph it does seem natural to assume that. =P  In any event, the clarified version of the paragraph is a definite improvement.  However, I think the US has gone slightly further than "[stopping] short of stating whether or not it would actually intervene in the event of a cross straits conflict."  The US has warned that it does not support unilateral changes to status quo by either party, and it is this policy that helps maintain the status quo across the Taiwan Strait by toning down rhetorics of extremists on both sides of the strait. --BenjaminTsai 04:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  No problem. I've rephrased it a bit further per your comments. Let me know what you think. -Loren 04:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've revised it slightly to highlight the stabilizing factor of the United States.  I believe this is slightly more accurate, let me know. --BenjaminTsai 03:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it looks good, however I am slightly concerned by the last sentence. (This diplomatic and military policy of the United States helps ensure stability across the Taiwan strait region.) Personally I have no objection to the idea that the US plays a stabilizing role, goodness knows that I believe it myself; however I can think of quite a few people from various groups who might dispute that for their own reasons. As much as you and I might disagree with their assesments, I'm not sure that we should state that in the interest of neutrality. Consequently, I'd suggest removing the last sentence, and letting people decide for themselves what the end result of everyones actions and positions is. Other then that, I'm good with everything else. -Loren 03:24, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pledge of US Military Support 

message: Also placed on your talk page just to make sure you read it .
Please explain exactly how my edits make it look as if there is a clear consensus for TI or are "pro-US" in nature? I never made such claims and I resent your unsubstantiated allegations. Show me where you think my edits favor TI. I made clear my objections to your edits on the talk page, pointed out my reasoning and gave you plenty of time to respond, though you choose not to. Obviously other editors with long histories here thought the same, as I was not the only person rolling back your edits. If you have concrete evidence that my edits are inaccurate or in error then, please by all means let me know and I'll be the first to change them. All you have done so far however, is fling insults and unsubstantiated accusations. 
Second, explain to me how I am "abusing my admin privilege"? Despite your clearly confrontational, unilateral behavior you were never blocked nor prevented from editing. I issued a 3RR warning when you had reached 3 reversions in a 24 hour period as you may see for yourself in the article history, but did not take further action as you did not make a fourth.
Third, I have done my best to up hold what I consider to be a neutral POV when editing this article, meaning that I do not make speculations either way as to what the ultimate fate of Taiwan should be in the article. Perhaps you consider this to be TI. I know for certain that zealots on the opposite side of the issue from you have called me a commmie sympathizer and a KMT stooge for it. From my experience working with Taiwan related articles, extremists almost always consider neutrality to be diametrically opposed to their own position, reagrdless of which side they're standing on TI or reunification. So quite frankly, being bashed by you from the other side makes me think that I must be doing something right as far as remaining neutral goes. I don't claim to be 100% unbiased (no one is), but before you accuse me of trying to advance an agenda, perhaps you should take a careful look at yourself.
Finally, as it seems that you are clearly uninterested in working with other editors or discussing changes on the article talk page, this will be the last time I respond to your unsubstantiated allegations and personal attacks until you do. Your are welcome to contribute to the article in a constructive manner, and to discuss objections and proposed changes with other editors, however rest assured that any inaccurate or POV information you insert will be removed by myself or other editors. -Loren 17:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the allegations by 66.65.45.83 

message: I realize Taiwan's sovereignty is disputed, but it does have a flag; there isn't one in the article.  I don't know how to post pictures on articles myself, so...
: All government related stuff is at Republic of China. -Loren 01:57, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag?