Talk:Taiwan (island)/Archive 3

message: I've read pretty much all of the debate now, and I don't think the facual dispute-sign has much merit. I can't see that 160.39.195.88 or 205.174.8.4 have any proper argumentation to support their complaints. That I keep seeing comments like "I think Jiang and Mababa work for the PRC." doesn't exactly convince me...	 
I'm taking the sign down and I'm asking that the people questioning the factual accuracy of this article to be a bit more civil in future discussions. Right now this all seems more like bickering over very minute details than reasonable doubt and constructive criticism. Maybe even bordering POV-pushing.	
If you're going to put it back up, you need to stop engaging in pointless personal attacks and clearly define what you're disputing. Like maybe using  instead of the general template. Peter Isotalo 09:41, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
205.174.8.4 , stop deleting the following comment. Please do not associate me with 205.174.8.4 See his/her history to see his/her edits very pro China on the Republic of China article and very pro Taiwan on this article. I don't know what the agenda is, but clearly those kind of changes are not the ones that I have made. Further, I've been trying to start a real discussion about the organization of the articles and have not acted to implement it without more consensus. Do not delete comments without good reason.--160.39.195.88 08:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: One-sided dispute

message: It appears that Jiang is not following proper protocol and is adding his POV causing mass changes.  Reading through the discussion pages, it appears that there was consensus prior to Jiang's mass deletion.  Mababa, I apologize, but thought that 160's edits prior to Jiang's mass deletion was correct. This paragraph contributed by User:24.0.31.146.
It's alright. However, your revert missed the disambiguity lines which has been hanging there forever and I think it should be placed back. Since I do not know which version the current edit has been reverted to, I will have to leave it to you to sort out. Also, acts of reverting usually are based on NPOV and accuracy reasons. I think it would be better if the next reverting has some better reason; otherwise people might regard it as vandalism. Meanwhile, Jiang is a really really nice guy. If you talk with him, he will response and reason with you. Please keep him and do not vote him out. BTW, he won't be removed out any way. :) Let's all behave and be civilized.--Mababa 23:34, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote to remove Jiang from editing this page (3/25/2005) 

message: "Because of pressure by the PRC, the ROC sometimes uses the name Chinese Taipei in the Olympics and other international events."
What do you mean by international events? In what international events does the ROC not use "Chinese Taipei"? Can you provide examples?
This is entirely relevant in the "political status" section because when a country is not allowed to use its official or common name, this fact is being used to dispute this country's sovereignty. --Jiang 19:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese Taipei 

message: The statement that Taiwan is a state is so biased that I don't think I need to elaborate. The political entity is discussed at Republic of China, not here. --Jiang 21:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dont call Taiwan a state 

message: There appears to be strong sentiment that this article should cover more than just Taiwan Island as it does not reflect usage of the word Taiwan.  In my view, limiting Taiwan to Taiwan Island from the encyclopedic point of view also creates a hole in the coverage of the geographical and cultural features of the lands governed by the Republic of China.  Let's measure exactly how strong the sentiment to change the scope of the article is.
I think this is the most appropriate place to conduct a poll as there is an inability to create consensus on the Wikipedia Talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV on many issues, probably due to the huge size of the discussion and the number of issues that are covered.  A decision on the scope of this article should have minor ramifications for other articles, if any.--Amerinese 08:03, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The above opinion was added after changes were already made.--Amerinese 00:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on Scope of Article

message: I'm not sure what expanding the scope of this article to the "geographical and cultural aspects of the lands controlled by the Republic of China" would change in this article. What would be added? Can you elaborate? --Jiang 09:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jiang, seems like he means Quemoy and Matsu right?  Because right now the article says it's only about Taiwan dao.--BlueSunRed 01:58, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Quemoy and Matsu are not very big. What would be the content additions? --Jiang 05:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for the hiatus.  For one, the little used (I can't even remember ever hearing anyone use Taiwan in this way in either Mandarin or English) reference of Taiwan as the island will be dropped.  Economy is a section that is sorely lacking for this article as is demographics.  The idea is to recognize that the government's name is controversial as its jurisdiction, and so leave information about the government often referred to as Taiwan under the ROC article, but for geographical, cultural things, leave them at the Taiwan article.  Taiwan is the most neutral name for the area given that it is disputed and under either independence or unification, it would remain "Taiwan".  Quemoy and Matsu should be included because they have been part of the ROC on Taiwan for 50 years and share the same culture and political unity.  Penghu as well.  This is to say that in many ways they have reason to be included together with the main island, along with Penghu, because of political unity--however, these unities themselves are not the political ROC itself.  Plenty of people from Quemoy and Matsu have grown up and moved to the main island, especially for university, and today there is a single cultural unity.  Laws apply universally across this area.  You don't need a passport to go from any of the minor islands to Taiwan Island and back.  There is one currency.  These are all effects of the single government, but it is not the government itself (i.e. it's not foreign relations or somehting).Amerinese 21:46, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: For a good example of what I mean, see 160.39.195.88's comments at Talk:Cinema of China/Archives/2012#Undid disambiguation.  While I do not condone his combative tone, I do think he makes quite a few good points.  Taiwan as an entity, regardless of its political status, is very clearly identifiable and palpable.  This is exemplified in the tradition of Cinema of Taiwan.  Chinese Cinema has taken a very interesting and peculiar path that differs greatly from Cinema of Hong Kong and Cinema of Taiwan.  These separate traditions exist regardless of HK's recent return to Chinese control or Taiwan's contentious de jure status.  So it would be completely inappropriate to call it Cinema of ROC, as 1) it's confusing since it has nothing to do with the ROC on China and 2) even with unification, as with HK, it is highly likely Taiwanese cinema would be completely different from Chinese cinema and even if it were to merge with mainland cinema, it would take quite a bit of time for it to happen.  That is the kind of thing I'm talking about.  If it's not about capitals, governments, foreign relations, Taiwan is the most neutral word and it exists apart from political status.Amerinese 03:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: So everyone knows, what I did was reverse Jiang's delete of the disambiguation notice that stated that "This article is on the geographical island" along with the disputed tag and the notice that there is a poll to settle this dispute.  Jiang did not explain what he did either in the edit summary or in the discussion section.  Nor has he voted in this poll.  Further, even though he deleted that notice, which he was previously a champion of, he proceeded to replace any edits towards country or nation (which may be inappropriate) back to ISLAND.  Why is he enforcing the scope of this article as the island but deleting the very disambiguation notice he had previously advocated?  This is not a personal attack but his actions I think are harmful, and even shameful, for someone that has made a lot of edits to Wikipedia.  I have no idea what question he's talking about but if he has something worthwhile to add to the discussion that has not yet been brought up, I would be willing to talk about it.--160.39.195.88 02:08, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I specifically cite the policy: "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party." Yes, you are making personal attacks and if you won't cut it out I will take further action. I have not voted because I am still trying to figure out what I will be "voting" for - what would this change in the article? --Jiang 02:50, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Show me where I called YOU a name.  I certainly expressed plenty of attributes regarding your unjustified, unexplained, controversial changes, but you still won't respond to any of that.  You are accusing ME of calling you names, which is just another sneaky way of attacking MY character.--160.39.195.88 17:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't call me a name and I didn't accuse you of doing so. My point being: You are not supposed to discuss the the attributes of other editors here. Period. If you have a problem with my edits, then discuss with me privately and I will respond. Let's not pollute this talk page with endless bickering. --Jiang 07:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll on Scope of Article Discussion

message: There has been a dispute about Chinese discovery and Han settlement.  
DINGBAT claimed that:
#Taiwan was discovered by Chinese during the "Three Kingdom period";
#Taiwan was then under the uninterupted control of China for about 212 years between (1683-1895) during the Qing Dynasty.
Number one is disputed, there is no actual proof of this discovery.  Unless DINGBAT is able to prove this, which would be a great discovery for himself and the Chinese, I will revert this so that the article here would be consistent with the article of "History of Taiwan".Tp kde 19:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The following article is one source detailing the recorded discovery in a specific year.--DINGBAT 20:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/asia_pac/04/taiwan_flashpoint/html/history.stm
Number two is wrong.  Qing Dynasty never had control of the entire Taiwan island.  The settlement beyoned Taiwan's western plains was prohibited until 1870s -- which was too late for Qing to gain control of the entire island.  By 1890s, most of the mountainous central and eastern Taiwan were still out of reach of Han settlers.Tp kde 19:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: The Qing Dynasty had full control of Taiwan during that time.  Yes, there were uprisings, etc., but no other entity controlled Taiwan during that time.--DINGBAT 20:51, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text:  I agree w/ Dingbat.  Also, in reference to contention #2, there is no dispute over the settlement, just the extent of the settlement.--205.174.8.4 14:42, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Dingbat, hide in your cave and don't touch that part of the article unless you can backup with evidence.  You are not convincing anyone by multiple reverts of the same passage.--160.39.195.88 23:22, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: So lame 160...  The BBC article was convicing to me.  I think it counts as evidence!--205.174.8.4 14:38, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not good evidence.  Newspapers are not good sources for ancient events.160.39.195.88 03:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Please practice your English before using the English page.  Perhaps you should be editing another page.  Clearly you need help.--DINGBAT 19:14, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Please point me to your source.  The Qinq controlled the whole island.--DINGBAT 19:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: If you are using sources written in Chinese, perhaps you should be editing the Chinese page...--DINGBAT 19:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that his English is good.160.39.195.88 03:34, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: How can you say that news is not credible.  Just because in China you get the news directly from a bunch of liars doesn't mean that news sources around the world are not credible.  And if you speak Taiwanese (which you probably don't since you are a lower class Mainlander), Lee jia wa-e SIE!
How do you know who I am? I am sorry that I am not a Chinese, but a Taiwanese. Maybe you should learn some POJ before you try to talk with me in Taiwanese? You have personally attacked me, please be aware of what you write here.Tp kde 20:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

text: Only in your wildest fantasies.  Perhaps before reverting me 3 times in a row (You could be blocked for 24 hours for that, btw), you should take that POJ and stick it where the sun don't shine.--DINGBAT 19:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed discovery and settlement 

message: Added the obvious to the start of the article (start with aboriginal or pre-aboriginal settlement of Taiwan).  Also I think that people in the cited article are mistaking settlement with control.  The fact that the Qing court was able to (rather effectively) prohibit Han settlement in parts of Taiwan indicates political control.
Made a change that hopefully completely side steps the issue of control and the definitional issues regarding what constitutes "Chinese."  The concept of Chinese is remarkably complex and you can get into long interesting discussions over whether the Qing, Taiwanese aboriginals, or Min-nan settlers are "Chinese."  
Its best in these sorts of arguments to try to minimize interpretation and stick with basic facts. 
Roadrunner 23:23, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The ROC troops were initially hesitant to accept the surrender of the Japanese garrison and undertake military occupation of the island.
Also removed statement on Koxinga's motivations.
Roadrunner 23:56, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding the obvious 

message: The articles involved in the vote posted above by Instantnood have been voted exactly one month ago. I belive that 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 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. Best regards. --Mababa 00:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Double Jeopardy Policy on votes