Talk:Taiwan/Archive 8

message: Hi, there's a dispute here involving an anon who is trying to push the POV that the Han Chinese ethnicity does not include speakers of Wu (吳語), Min (閩語), Hakka (客家話) or Cantonese (粵語), with the conclusion being that the Hoklo and Hakka are not Han Chinese. The basis of his definition is genetic: in short, southerners with Baiyue (百越) admixture are not true Han Chinese.
In fact, the entire Taiwanese people article is extremely messy. After several POV-pushing attempts, it now appears to say the same thing three or four times from different angles. The article needs to be cleaned up or merged into Demographics of Taiwan.
Please come take a look if you're interested.
-- ran (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Taiwanese people]] 

message: I appreciate that the status of Taiwan relative to China is a deeply controversial and divisive point, but hope all concerned will have patience with me on this question: The "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu's (Chinese Taipei)" paragraph (currently residing in the Economy section) seems to me to be oddly situated. I came to the article looking for that WTO nomenclature, and found no mention of it under "foreign relations", which is surely where it ought to be? (Adhib) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTO nomenclature 

message: Unfortunately, I have had to fail this article for GA.  Please consider GA criteria:
#Well Written Structure is a minor issue.  I would move the current political situation until after the history section.  Seems more appropriate.
#Factually Accurate and Verifiable This is THE MAJOR issue.  Several sections are unreferenced.  Please add references for ALL assetions of fact or criticism.  Someone has added  tags for a few statements, but there are MANY other problems.  Almost every section is in need of referencing at some point.
#broad in its coverage All good here!
#NPOV Good job on providing a neutral and fair assessment for an article that has a HIGH danger of becoming POV.  
#Stable It is stable
#Images Also some problems.  Several images have copyright issues raised on the image pages.  For example: ROC calendar.jpg is just one.  There are others.  
Please make corrections and feel free to renominate when these corrections are made! --Jayron32 21:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Failed 

message: * I noticed over-detailed information in Political status section.  WP:NOT#PAPER. Please don't put too much detail in this page. Feel free to put it in Political status of Taiwan. Please benefit the general public of wikipedia readers. Tonytypoon 23:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Article_size]] 

message: Hello... I have recently updated (again) that article, the taiwan miracle. It now reads as follows:
If any member erases any paragraph, I's like to know why... Thx
===The Taiwan Miracle===
Note: I have removed the text in this section, which was simply a copy of the (lengthy) text inserted into the article.  Talk pages are NOT the place to duplicate what is in the article.  Any text added to the article is always available via a prior version of the page (accessible via the History tab).  Talk pages should contain article text ONLY (a) if the article is locked, preventing edits, or (b) when arguments over what goes in the article are so strong that editors agree to discuss changes outside of the article first, to prevent edit/revert wars.  Neither is the case here.  John Broughton  |  Talk 00:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Taiwanese economy through the 50's, 60's 70's and 80's. 

message: Note: I have removed the text in this section, which was simply a copy of the (lengthy) text inserted into the article.  Talk pages are NOT the place to duplicate what is in the article.  Any text added to the article is always available via a prior version of the page (accessible via the History tab).  Talk pages should contain article text ONLY (a) if the article is locked, preventing edits, or (b) when arguments over what goes in the article are so strong that editors agree to discuss changes outside of the article first, to prevent edit/revert wars.  Neither is the case here.  John Broughton  |  Talk 00:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Taiwan Miracle

message: ... is the name given in the Constitution of the Republic of China. Government websites do not legal authority over the constitution of the country.
Also, PRC propaganda uses "Taiwan", not the "Republic of China", to refer to the ROC. -- ran (talk) 06:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, technically the PRC uses "Taiwan" to refer to Taiwan, the island; "Taiwan Area" to refer to the areas administered by the ROC, and "the Taiwan authorities" to refer to the ROC. --Sumple (Talk) 10:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  actually i don't see the point as to how it is refered to being a factor to the official name, i can call USA -> america, but that doesn't mean i think or has changed it's official name to America, i just use it because it is easier to indentify, no? -_-" Akinkhoo 14:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But in chinese, shouldn't it be Taiwan Mínguó, not Jhonghuá Mínguó? If it's Republic of Taiwan, then its chinese is Taiwan Mínguó. Plus the flag is ROC's flag, not the proposed Taiwan Republic flag.141.212.51.24 05:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Official name of the Republic of China.... 

message: This article doesn't touch one question I had about this nation ... does Taiwan have nuclear weapon capability?  More specifically, do they have the ability to strike at the PRC with any kind of tactical or strategic nuclear weapon?    --pagemillroad 20:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: see Republic of China and weapons of mass destruction.BlueShirts 22:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear weapons? 

message: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4190295.stm
Says that there are now 26 countries that recognise Taiwan. The article is dated though. Is it out of date? Balfron 14:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many countries recognise this country? 

message: I hate these.  They are huge and contain links of limited relevance.  Would anyone object if I simply deleted them?  --Ideogram 17:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Countries navigation menus at bottom 

message: What is the main difference between the Peoples republic of china and the Republic of China. I see these as two different articles. Could someone please clarify what the differentiation is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.225.94.75 (talk) 04:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you might consider reading the article in question? -Changlc 05:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference? 

message: Ideogram, I think the phrase "Whereas the Republic of China administers themselves as an independent sovereign country with a democratically elected President and government" does have a place in the article. I think it is one point both the green and blue camps agree upon. I think it should be left in to balance the argument from the PRC. Wenzi 04:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really have an opinion on this.  Whatever consensus is is fine with me.  --Ideogram 04:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No objection here, though I'm betting that line is likely to become a future flashpoint. -Loren 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah go ahead and add it, as it's one major difference between us and the commies. BlueShirts 08:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Political Status

message: I hate these.  They take up a huge amount of room and display tons of links in the hope that they will interest the reader.  They are just like spam.
You know, Wikipedia already has a solution to the navigation problem.  They are called Categories.  Down at the bottom there is a nice neat list of category links that the user can click on to go to lists of articles related by category.
I have no idea why Categories aren't used.  Everything you want to do with a navigation template can be done by creating a Category with the contents of the template and placing the article in that Category, or placing "see also" links to those Categories in the article.  If the Category you want to use is poorly maintained and has a lot of junk, clean it up.  --Ideogram 06:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple, with a navigational template, you don't have to navigate away from the article itself to see what other article are related.  The templates provide quick information that's already displayed on the article on how an article is related to other articles.  Plus, can you navigate to multiple categories on the same browser window?  No.  Well, you can see multiple navigational templates on the same article.  They basically act as menus.  And a category can't nearly compensate for the information that a template like Template:Buddhism might provide without ever browsing away from the article itself.  Let's say you're reading about Buddha, the template actually shows you that there are some articles about notable Buddhist texts, and you can just click right on it to go read it.  With categories, you'd be blind-clicking on one of the categories, not knowing what's actually contained in the categories, hoping that it might suggest somethign you're actually interested in, and you won't even be able to do that unless you keep clicking around on sub-categories.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't bother me if the nav templates didn't take up so much space.  But if you aren't interested in Buddhist texts then all that space is wasted.  And it gets much worse in this case where we have nav templates for all the countries that could possibily be connected to ROC.  You need to seriously consider the fact that these things take up too much space and usually are not interesting to the reader.  --Ideogram 22:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree it can be a space issue.  But in the context of this article, all those nav templates are stuck at the bottom, and they are all shrunk in size unless the reader presses "show" (at least that's how it shows up on my screen).  How much of an inconvenience can that be?  You don't want to read it, then don't press "show".  You need more space at the bottom?  Just insert more text there.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 22:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even a full horizontal line per template is too much space.  And look at some of those templates:  who is going to be interested in other "Sino-Tibetan-speaking countries and territories"?  Most of this information can be easily seen by anyone looking at a map.  Somebody has gone too far.  --Ideogram 23:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I said, if you're not interested in any of it, don't press "show" on them, and don't click on any of them.  But there are readers that might be interested and could use them.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 23:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the claim is not that I am not interested in them.  The claim is that most readers won't be interested in them.  Throwing up junk that most readers won't be interested in to reach the ones who will be interested is called spam.  --Ideogram 23:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me make this clear.  You have to balance the likelyhood that information will be interesting to the reader against the space it takes up.  You clearly cannot just throw everything that some readers "might" be interested in in the article.  If there was a single button or link (like the category list at the bottom) that readers could click on to show this information, that would be fine.  --Ideogram 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Templates are often useful, but many new WP editors seem to think creating new templates is a way to get recognized and we get lots of useless ones. It's an interesting navigational/organizational method but it isn't how WP is designed. SchmuckyTheCat 02:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Be sure to check out the solution I implemented and let me know what you think.  --Ideogram 02:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work.  I like what you've done.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 02:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Ditto, nice solution. But I would vote to remove the Sino-Tibetan template, after reading this. mceder (u t c) 15:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigation templates 

message: It seems that once in a while, some people just keep raising the same question about the ROC over and over again, so I think we should reorganize the archived discussion by topics so people can see that the question they raised had been asked before numerous times. --Will74205 21:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganize archived discussion by topics 

message: In the [ Taiwan Relations Act], it did not say that "The United States has provided military training and arms sales to the ROC." as in this article (Republic of China). The original law says, "It is the policy of the United States to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character; and to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan." The replacement of the term "Taiwan" with the term "Republic of China" twists the original TRA's words.--Morphi 19:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Taiwan Relations Act 

message: It would be very helpful if someone could draft geography section. It's a pretty standard feature in articles on countries for a reason. Thank you.--Pethr 15:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The geography section is located at the article Taiwan, which covers it, as opposed to the political mess. Ngchen 19:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is geography section? 

message: "Three Principles of the People" is really the philosophy that the ROC Government runs on, but it is NOT a "motto". The ROC Government never adopted any mottoes. See Chinese Wikipedia: 國家格言：無 (National Motto: None). --Jitcji 03:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Motto 

message: The first sentence currently reads:
:The Republic of China is a Island in East Asia.
But that's hardly true; the island itself is named "Taiwan" (all sides agree on that), not "Republic of China". A better stab at a definition would be something like: The Republic of China is one of two governments claiming to be the legitimate government of China, although since 1950 it only controls the island of Taiwan. Of course better wordings are encouraged, but the point is that "Republic of China" is an abstract entity; its precise status is the subject of great controversy, but it isn't a geographical feature. --Delirium 06:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Relax. See the history. The word "island" is just of vandalism by an anon user. Don't be surprised by anything strange in the article. I'd bet it is one of the most frequently vandalised articles. --supernorton 12:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  first sentence is misleading