Talk:Taiwan/Archive 7

message: Does anyone have any ideas where to put the  template?  I think it should go at the top, but it collides with the Country infobox there.  --Ideogram 22:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. It seems that in other articles with Chinese text, the  template is put in one of the bottom sections like See also, Notes or External links. --GunnarRene 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to put ChineseText box? 

message: The trade surplus is substantial, and foreign reserves are the world's third largest. 
Do you have guys some sources for that? Cheers, Noisettes 11:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{Talkfact}}

message: This article should be reverted to Taiwan, it is a more common usage for this subject.
71.138.114.200 10:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already a seperate article named Taiwan, and ROC is the offical name of the country. Until that name changes, I don't see a reason why this article should also. There are also de facto countries not recognized by UN that have articles here as well (See Unrecognized Countries). Please take your personal politics elsewhere outside Wikipedia. This is not the proper forum for them. --24.82.221.45 06:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Indeed. That would offend both the PRC and the ROC. --GunnarRene 09:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What? --GunnarRene 18:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whether is it illegal or not for a particular government to occupy a particular territory is not up to us to manupulate, to debate and to decide. What we should be interested in is to document facts into wikipedia. 'Republic of China (ROC)' is/was an entity that exist(ed), and this article is written for the purpose of documentating this entity. 'Taiwan' has its attributes and shouldn't be mixed up with 'ROC'. My suggestion for this problem is to amend the article to describe 'ROC' more than on 'taiwan'. Informations related more towards 'taiwan' can then be moved to other respective articles. --Trueblues 12:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a personal soapbox, nor is it an appropriate forum to decide the status of a nation or a vehicle for jingoistic nationalism. You're reeeeaally going to get more consideration if you calm down a little. Luna Santin 09:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taiwan is the island on which the main government of the Republic of China is situated on. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  The article will remain Republic of China.  This is consistent with the Manual of Style which clearly states that entities are named by however they name themselves (Self-Identity).  This is regardless of the fact that very few countries recognise Taiwan as the 'Republic of China'.  Wikipedia is not the United Nations, and calling or not calling a country by a particular name has nothing to do with what is right or legitimate.   If the government on Taiwan chooses to unify with the mainland or rename its country to "Wizzle-Wozzle" we can revisit the question   Kransky 09:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The Republic of China holds much history on mainland China as well. To move everything in this article to Taiwan would therefore be inappropriate, where would ROC on mainland China fit in Taiwan's article? Leave ROC's article to describe the political entity, and leave Taiwan's article to describe the island's geography and culture. Further... don't you think moving all of this information to Taiwan's article would result in an excessively large page? Think twice, type once, no problem. Vindictive Warrior 13:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree changing the name to Taiwan! It is the most common name for the Republic of China. See Wikipedia:Use common names--Jerrypp772000 23:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: To Vindictive Warrior: If the whole article is going to merge into the article of Taiwan, then you won't have to worry about it. There won't be any missing information!--Jerrypp772000 22:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to Taiwan

message: The first paragraph of the article is apparently acceptable to all, and it does a better job of explaining the situation to the lay reader ("Two Chinas?  Huh?") than the disambiguation blurb ever will.  That's why I proposed the "see below for details" variant:  it avoids effectively duplicating the first part of the article, keeps mention of "the other China" to a minimum in order to placate those editors who apparently hate to see it referred to at all, and still prevents the page from looking at first glance like it says "China:  Not to be confused with China," as the most minimal of the texts unfortunately did.
I fear that we're now going to start fighting over the little flag.  There's some value to putting it there, just as there was some value to mentioning that the RoC is colloquially referred to as Taiwan 90% of the time, but, also like references to Taiwan, it seems to be unacceptable to some editors.  Or maybe that's just my pessimism talking, and we've finally settled on something.
—Eric S. Smith 20:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel the flag is not very useful. Anyone who needs the disambiguation to point them to the right "China" would have no idea what the flags mean. --Sumple (Talk) 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation text battle 

message: Think we need a semi-protection for the article? We get little "John Smiths" coming and adding "Taiwans" every day to the title (and I'm not referring to the specific user, rather as a whole). How about a semi-protection until Western media stops its propaganda and Chinophobia? Comments? Aran|heru|nar 12:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehheh, I think the word is Sinophobia.  --- Hong Qi Gong 16:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection? 

message: Gosh, this is childish. I can't even update stuff about Taiwanese aborigines, etc. Taiwan is what it is, and not what (whomever) wants it to be. --Ling.Nut 15:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: According to a consensus with Jiang, we decided that we would call the Republic of China simply as a state rather than to add adjectives such as "disputed," "multidemocratic," "de-facto," or "de-jure."  There was a consensus I had with Sumple and Loren that if the use of the labels "de-fato" and "de-jure" is an extreme controversial issue itself, we should simply throw away those terms and let the reader decide whatever he or she wants to believe in the subseqent paragraphs regarding the different point of views about the state known as the Republic of China.
Allentchang 03:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole issue is brought up by the use of the contentious word 'sovereign'.  I think we should stick to 'country' and avoid all references to sovereignty. Cripipper 09:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think state is better than country, because a state does not imply independence or lack thereof either way. --Sumple (Talk) 09:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The [country|definition of country]] is 'In political geography and international politics a geographical territory', whereas a state 'is a set of institutions that possess the authority to make the rules that govern the people in one or more societies, having internal and external sovereignty over a definite territory'.  It seems to me that use of the word 'state' invokes the issue of sovereignty and its nature, whereas to state that it is a country avoids this as its usage may mean either 'nation', which is satsfactory to those who adhere to the 'One China' principle, or 'state' which appears to satisfy those with 'Republic of Taiwan' sympathies. That's my reading of it anyway. Cripipper 11:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again, we should avoid using de-jure or de-facto 

message: There is an inaccuracy in the first section, which reads "...the late 1940's, and since then has only administered the island groups of Taiwan (Formosa), the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu."
In fact the ROC also controlled the Dachen or Tachen Islands until 1955. See Wikipedia article on Tachen.61.171.225.175 07:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Correction Required to First Section

message: Sorry, we have a backlog and so when the current dispute is resolved, please renominate. GA articles have to be stable (criteria #5) --plange 00:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  failed GA 

message: It's been 10 days of protection. Are we ready to unprotect now? -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unprotect 

message: Add "* Support", "* Oppose", "*First choice", "*Second choice", etc. followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ and discuss below.
*Support (Second choice). -  AjaxSmack   02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ***Still, on that very specific point, Wikipedia has a pretty firmly established policy, enshrined in the Wikipedia:naming conflict, that we we go ahead and use names that are self-applied (or, even better, ones that are most common in English)—provided that it is not readily confused with something else—and we don't care what other people think about that. So, we call the Republic of China "Republic of China" because that's what it calls itself. I think this is quite a separate question as to whether the current "Republic of China" is the "same thing" as other governments that have previously called themselves "Republic of China".—Nat Krause(Talk!) 05:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split into two articles: '''Republic of China (1912-1949)''' and '''Republic of China (1949-Present)'''

message: Add "* Support", "* Oppose", "*First choice", "*Second choice", etc. followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ and discuss below.
*Support (First Choice). -  AjaxSmack   02:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Split into three articles: '''Republic of China (1912-1927)''', '''Republic of China (1927-1949)''', and '''Republic of China (1949-Present)'''

message: I look at the box on this page and I think to myself, why oh why are we using Tongyong pinyin in bold under the country name?  Is this not supposed to be a wikipedia entry meant for an average English speaker to read?  If so, chances are that, assuming they've learned pinyin, its almost doubtlessly going to be Hanyu pinyin.  While I know that in Taiwan Tongyong pinyin is used in some localities, there is no reason to go against the style guide on pinyin for wikipedia here, which promotes using Hanyu pinyin whenever possible, so I think it should be right there in the box. Thoughts? Koira 13:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if you're missing the point? We are discussing the infobox not the article. The article is fine. The question is, whether Hanyu Pinyin or Tongyong pinyin should be in the infobox. I agree with Koira here, we should stick with Hanyu for the infobox... Nil Einne 13:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, but there's no pleasing some people. --Sumple (Talk) 03:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Cf. KO: Revised romanisation is used for ROK-related topics, while McCune-Reischauer is used for DPRK-related topics. (Stefan2 17:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pinyin Usage 

message: There are three agendas apparent in the discussion about splitting articles:
# The article is "cumbersome"
# Splitting is more historically accurate.
# Political agendas (which masquerade as (2) above).
The answer to those three in succession is:
# Trim the existing version. Many section are too long, since they already have existing "Main pages."
# Historical facts should drive the organization of the History pages , not that of the top-level page.
# Wikipedia is not the U.N. Nothing can be resolved here. Political partisanship has already killed the Good Article nomination.
--Ling.Nut 14:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article split: three agendas 

message: Can someone please add the Bosnian version :bs:Tajvan of the article to the interwiki section. Thank you, Kseferovic 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done --   Netsnipe  ►  11:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bs (Bosnian version) 

message: It is requested that the  template be moved onto the main article. Mar de Sin Talk to me! 19:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --   Netsnipe  ►  11:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested edits

message: The Republic of China (Traditional Chinese: 中華民國; Simplified Chinese: 中华民国; Hanyu Pinyin: Zhōnghuá Mínguó; Tongyong Pinyin: Jhonghuá Mínguó; Wade-Giles: Chung-hua Min-kuo) is a country in East Asia. 
shouldn't that be Chunghwaminkuo?
if it is, please fix that minor mistake.
:AFAIK, "hua" is correct. "Hwa" is used in some alternate transliterations, but not in Wade-Giles. Kusma (討論) 06:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Got the Wades-Giles phonix wrong on the 2nd line 

message: As it is not UN-recognised and has not declared independence, why does ROC have a country infobox while nearly all of Category:Unrecognized or largely-unrecognized states have "home-made" boxes? (North Cyprus and Western Sahara the exceptions) All of these states are de facto independent just like ROC. EamonnPKeane 22:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike these places, the ROC was a founding member of the United Nations. It also never needed to declare independence, as China was already independent when it started to be called "Republic of China" after the 1911 revolution. Taiwan declaring independence would be a different thing, though. Kusma (討論) 08:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: Would it be under Economy or "See also"?
I'm referring to this article.  -Daniel Blanchette 05:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd think it would fall under Culture of Taiwan or related section. BlueShirts 04:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What section would "Media in Taiwan" fall under? 

message: See also History of Taiwan. 59.112.56.214 20:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History