Talk:Taiwan (island)/Archive 6

message: Can someone please look through this template's history and pick out the bits that are accurate and relevant to this article? It was originally copied and pasted from this one (presumably to be able to cut down on text on this page), and, as such, is a clear violation of the GFDL. It needs to be deleted (and I have nominated it so). But if someone could pick out the useful bits which were added in the meantime, that would be great. Cormaggio @ 00:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Culture of Taiwan]] 

message: The current wording of "most romanizations in other cities still are in Tongyong" makes it seem as if that were an earlier system, and also makes it seem as if this were a pervasive system. The truth, rather, is that this was only recently adopted at the national level; and almost no one knows how to use it properly.  Furthermore, the coexistence of all these systems, none of which has been taught to any significant degree in schools here AFAIK, has led to a chaotic mess of mixed and often erroneous romanization. The current wording fails to reflect the ubiquitous errors and confusion here. Dragonbones 12:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redone that section in line with Dragonbones' remarks and also taken the opportunity to correct some mistakes. --Taibeiren 15:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Taibeiren, your additions are excellent, and dead-on accurate! Dragonbones 15:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  on chaotic nature of romanization in Taiwan 

message: .  This sentence about native formosan deer being hunted nearly to extinction has been removed (rather rudely).  I have no time or inclination to cite it, but it's well known that deer was an economic mainstay for the dutch.  Someone who knows, and can cite it, should re-word and replace this mention of the deer. SchmuckyTheCat 00:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: merci, mon cher. SchmuckyTheCat 05:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deer hunting 

message: The dablink is highly misleading and confusing to the average reader, since "the state commonly known as Taiwan" is not the Republic of Taiwan but the Republic of China. Please amend this. Only people with intimite knowledge of the political situation benefit from this. It smacks of soapboxing.
Peter Isotalo 09:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad dablink 

message: Before we get into an edit war over which terms to use to describe the nature of TECRO, might I suggest that you read the policy on weasel words? Excessive wordiness should be avoided. Would it not be sufficient to simply refer to TECRO as an unofficial diplomatic office? Mentioning the unofficial status of the offices should be sufficient to convey the fact that they are not official embassies or consulates, while providing most of the functions of the former in an unofficial and diminished capacity. -Loren 04:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with that, but it will depend on what 219.74.207.12 thinks about it. Sjschen 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TECRO dispute 

message: I have cleaned up this article and removed the cleanup tag.
This is an excellent article and can easily achieve Featured Article status once you fill out the two stub sections.  Ideogram 17:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: The last two edits had no edit summaries.  Ideogram 01:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please put something in your edit summaries 

message: I noticed that between two anonymous users, a large number of mentions of "Taiwan" were replaced with "Republic of China (Taiwan)".  Which sounds weaselly to me, and I reverted it.  For one, it looked horrible with the straight up text replacement, even in sections headings.  I hope some more people more closely assoicated with this article can resolve this, because I mearly noticed it while monitoring Recent Changes. Kevin_b_er 02:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same issue again, I was checking a link to this article from one that I am creating which mentions the Episcopal Church in Taiwan, and saw more anon POV-pushing. The anon edits (which I reverted here) also removed all mention of Christianity on the island. Perhaps this is getting to a point where this page needs semi-protection, but I will leave that discussion to those of you who have spent more time here. --Wine Guy Talk 20:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's only a few reverts a day it doesn't warrant semi-protection.  Ideogram 20:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert some changes 

message: I thought Republic of China was for referering to the political entity, rather than the island, and Taiwan was the island.  If this article is about the island known as Taiwan, please revert the anonymous editor's edits to change the article into an article about a state known as Taiwan.  They've already been reverted twice by me.  Kevin_b_er 23:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct.  I have reverted and warned the user about 3RR.  --Ideogram 23:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Several of these edits have been coming from the 167.7.39.* shared IP block registered to the State of South Carolina. -Loren 21:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article is about the island not the political entity, correct? 

message: : Edit: You can also vote for the portal name at Portal talk:Taiwan#Vote for portal name.. This issue has also been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China — Nrtm81 12:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan vs. Taiwan Island 

message: Taiwan is where my parents come from. Felix 19:28, 18 July 2006
: *Notes that down in User:FelixCheng's CIA file* --Sumple (Talk) 06:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth 

message: At the Volokh Conspiracy, one of the contributors, a law professor, wrote: In 1683, China's government did establish some control over western Taiwan, and this control lasted for two centuries. For almost all of this period, the Chinese explicitly denied that they were sovereign over eastern Taiwan. One purpose of the denial was to avoid taking responsibility for the pirates who operated from eastern ports; and the Chinese's government's inability to suppress the pirates is one indication that China was correct in claiming not to exercise sovereignty in the east.
Only for 17 years (some other historians say 8 years) in the late 19th century did China actually declare sovereignty over all of Taiwan. 
Is this correct?  (And if so, or if not, are citations available?)  
By comparison, the existing wikipedia article says:  "In 1683, the Qing dynasty defeated the Zheng holdout, and formally annexed Taiwan".  But it also says that in 1871, "When Japan sought compensation from Qing China, the court rejected compensation on the grounds that parts of Taiwan were outside its jurisdiction."  So was the "annexation" of Taiwan in 1683 only for PART of the island?  John Broughton 01:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1683-1895 

message: No mention in the article is even made of China's claim of sovereignity  over Taiwan. It seems that such mentions have been deleted. I suggest that there's heavy "POV" abuse - even censorship. If it keeps up, moderators should get involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.157.45 (talk • contribs) 
This is because information related to Taiwan's political status are found in the articles Republic of China and Political status of Taiwan. -- ran (talk) 13:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The equation that "Taiwan = ROC" is debatable, and there are too many interpretations of this for us to make such an equation without qualification. Certainly the ROC constitution or ROC laws do not make such an equation explicitly; that's why we have legal terms like "Free Area of the ROC". From the POV of the ROC's laws, there is a big difference between what the ROC is, and what the ROC actually administers. Of course, there are also those who feel that the ROC consists or should consist of just its present zone of control (and whether to call that zone "Taiwan" is yet another question with no single answer); and there are those who feel that the ROC is no longer legitimate anywhere. And also, there's the problem of whether Quemoy and Matsu are a part of "Taiwan", and this depends on whether you equate Taiwan with just Taiwan Province of ROC, or with all of the ROC.
In short, the reason why we have separate ROC and Taiwan articles is because of these issues. If we're going to say that "Taiwan is ROC" in the Taiwan article, then we might as well just merge them.
-- ran (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avoiding the equation "Taiwan = ROC" without qualification 

message: How is it that this keeps sneaking into the article? Is Hartzell editing Wikipedia to put forward lies and POV about Taiwan? When Japan normalized relations with the PRC (See Point #3 in that document), it said that they respected the PRC's view on Taiwan but stood by Article 8 of the Potsdam Declaration which states ...all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China
Who keeps writing that MacArthur/USA has jurisdiction over Taiwan? The only source that spreads this view is by "Richard W. Hartzell" who thinks Taiwan is the same as Puerto Rico. If he uses the logic that the San Francisco Peace Treaty supercedes all other treaties, then by the same logic the Treaty of Peace between Japan and the Republic of China ratifies what Japan had already stated, that Taiwan and Chinese territories go to the ROC. -- — Nrtm81 08:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't tell us, we agree with you.  The only way to prevent this kind of POV-insertion is to patrol the article and revert on sight.  --Ideogram 08:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Francisco Peace Treaty 

message: Does anyone care about that merge notice or can I remove it?  --Ideogram 08:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: lol hi2u :) — Nrtm81 08:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge notice 

message: "Some 1.3 million refugees from Mainland China, consisting mainly of soldiers, KMT party members, and most importantly the intellectual and business elites from the mainland, arrived in Taiwan around that time"
Intelluectual? elites? I think we should change some words to make it less of an attack to the mainlanders when editing is allowed.
::I'm not sure who wrote that, how about add the word, "many" before "intellectual and business elites from the mainland", since its obvious that not all of them came here —The preceding --65.88.88.155 19:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: We need to do something about that to pass GA.  --Ideogram 12:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source  used in the disputed section is an essay written by the Chairman of "World United Formosan for Independence", a politically motivated organization. Using his essay is a violation of Wikipedia's policy on no original research. (to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas.) — Nrtm81 08:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute tag 

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) 00:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Taiwanese people]]  

message: Why: factual accuracy dispute needs resolved, citation needed tag needs a ref, there should be no space btwn punctuation and refs, a 48K article needs more than 21 refs. Rlevse 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA failure

message: I seriously think we should redirect this to Republic of China. In 80% of probably all cases involved, people writing "Taiwan" into Wikipedia's search want the damned government establishment on the island, not the geographical piece. --84.249.253.201 10:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good god, NO.  For one thing, finding out that Taiwan is the name of the island and the RofC is the political body is a learning experience.  More importantly, Taiwan has a history that proceeds the RofC and (presumably) will continue to be an island long after the RofC stops existing; it has geography and climate and flora and fauna and other things that have nothing to do with the RofC.  John Broughton  |  Talk 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

text: See how the "Republic of China" can be confusing? He/She think the ROC=China (PRC).--Jerry 23:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirection

message: I've added a "main" link to Geography of Taiwan.  Would an editor more interested in the subject than me (I've just wandered in here because of a content dispute that I may or may not actually be helping with) please (a) move a lot of the information in the "Geography" section of this article to that separate article (while there is some overlap, there isn't that much); and (b) then sharply reduce the amount of text in this article pertaining to geography - the section should become just be a summary of what's in the main article about Taiwan's geography.  Thanks!  John Broughton  |  Talk 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: I think there is a name in Three kingdoms period of Taiwan -- YiZhou (). Although there is an issue on whether the name have been referred to Taiwan, we should add this name to the prehistory section for fertilizing this article. Any suggestion?--Peachwa & Neversay(talk) 14:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Taiwan 

message: This article is very difficult and slow reading because it is not in a standard of English language style consistent with most Wikipedia articles. I think it would be very helpful for an editor with a sense of English style consistent with other articles to review and improve the flow of the sentences and to remove semantic redundancies and strange colloquial constructions.
Ryvr 00:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistic Problems (language) 

message: The chinese anti-satellite missile test should be covered here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.114.242.30 (talk • contribs).
: Can you please elaborate on your reasoning for this, notably how it would be better suited for inclusion on this article rather than a dedicated article? -Loren 05:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that incident should be a separate article, since it doesn't only affect Taiwan.  I'm not sure if an article already exists for the incident yet...but if there is, please link it.  Jumping cheese Cont@ct 00:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a few articles     concerning the security of Taiwan and the anti-satellite test.  Seems to be enough info to warrant a separate page. Jumping cheese Cont@ct 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See here for more articles.  Jumping cheese Cont@ct 01:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent events 

message: I hate these things.  They spam the reader with links in the remote hope that one of them might be interesting.  This is hypertext, people, links belong in the text, in context.  There is also a nice little search box on the left that people can type into.  I have never used these navigational templates; if anyone else has, please speak up.  --Ideogram 16:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navigational templates 

message: The exclusion of immigrants and migrants in the ethnic groups makes this page factually incorrect. Racism has no place on Wikipedia!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Taichung Ren (talk • contribs).
: Nor does soapboxing. Please write additions in a neutral tone with proper references. -Loren 04:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are now 13 native aboriginal tribes. I saw it on the official recognition on the news. Does anyone know the name of the 13th tribe? Hobowu 07:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Groups 

message: Hi, I've observed this page for a long time.  The Taiwan and much of the Republic of China articles need to be merged.  The Taiwan article has been systematically gutted of content and the subarticles have been renamed and the content moved to the Republic of China article.  It has not been a coordinated attack per se, but it has been done by a group of people believing in basically the ideologies of Chinese nationalism (pro-PRC and some belief that China is inseparable) and pro-deep-Blue (possibly pro-authoritarianism/fascist, support unification of Taiwan with China and deny that there is any difference between Taiwan and China in language/culture/etc).
New organization of articles:
#Something about end of Qing and Communists taking power in China could be an article.  Most of the historical ROC things should go there.
#Taiwan should describe the place commonly known as Taiwan include ECONOMY, POLITICS, etc.  The history part should include at least a short background on the histories of each of the places that Taiwan is composed of today.  This includes regions not historically part of Taiwan such as Quemoy, Matsu, where the Minan came from, where the Hakka came from, where the aboriginals came from, where the waisheng/Chinese KMT came from, etc.  Today's Taiwan is the recognizable entity that everyone wants information on, but because it is the confluence of many histories, we can include article summaries and short bits on stuff that wasn't in Taiwan until later.
#The ROC article needs to be broken up.  Part goes in the new article on post-Qing-pre-Communist China and the rest goes in Taiwan.  It can then become a disambiguation page.
#This organization would be taken as standard.  Other related articles would be organized around this new organization.
We have to face the facts.  Taiwan is the common name yet there's very little information in this article.  The official name is Republic of China or sometimes Republic of China (Taiwan) and whatever and should be properly noted.  The division between the two names is a false division that takes the POV that either the ROC is the "real" government of all of China (and Mongolia, parts of India, etc.) or otherwise it is merely an illegal government in exile in Taiwan.
The reality is that everyone in Taiwan calls Taiwan Taiwan, though we also know we have this other official name of Republic of China.  There is no exclusiveness between the two like Wikipedia attempts to make.  No maps (except really old ones) show our official borders past Taiwan the island and Penghu, Quemoy, Matsu, though that is another odd assertion that the ROC article tries to make.  The government is democratically elected and though not a perfect democracy, it is working and seen by everyone here as legitimate.  Sure, there is no public formal declaration of independence, but that's only because China threatens to blow us up.  I don't see how you can have your own army, your own economy, your own president, your own legislators, your own customs, your own taxes, your own passports and people will say that Taiwan not only is not a country but that it's a region and separate from ROC (which implies somehow that ROC controls a lot more).
Do you have an article that is geographic region of America and country America?  No.  If you people want to call Taiwan almost-a-country-but-not-recognized-by-most-other-countries, fine.  But what is the deal with having two articles?-MarkJohanson 19:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China#Naming conventions.  --Ideogram 11:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You have already proposed this multiple times. We're all still here and this is nothing new so it's unlikely to happen. Let's keep all the discussion at Talk:Republic of China. --Jiang 02:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan and ROC articles 

message: There are a lot of vague figures thrown around in this section with no citation for any of them and, quite frankly, they don't add up. My inclination is to believe that some of the information is dated, and needs to be updated to reflect current usage and recent pushes toward renewable energy. If someone is able to find a reliable source of energy information for the island, or to corroborrate the existing information with other sources please do so.--Apotheosis247 08:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Energy 

message: This link is not that important; only a fringe element of the Taiwan Independence movement believes these arguments are important.  This link is highly political and does not belong in an article that is trying to avoid politics.  Even if it is to be put here, it certainly isn't a main article for the history of the ROC, and doesn't deserve such prominent placement; at best it should be a see also link.  --Ideogram 02:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal status of Taiwan 

message: Currently the article says that Taiwanese are 98% Han Chinese.  That seems too high to me.  The only source cited is the CIA world book, which just says 98% Chinese, presumably a mix of Han and others?  Regards, Ben Aveling 12:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe they're the same thing. The Hoklo and Hakka both came from Han Chinese stocks. I don't think there are many "non-Han" manchus or a muslims in Taiwan. Blueshirts 03:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: According to Han Chinese, the Han Chinese "constitute about 92% of the population of the mainland China".  I can believe that it would higher in Taiwan, but I'm sure it's not going to be 100.00%.  Regards, Ben Aveling 21:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's for the entire PRC (think autonomous regions), not just China proper, so the numbers seem entirely reasonable. There are more Mongols living in the PRC than in the independent state of Mongolia.--Jiang 21:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good enough for me.  Regards, Ben Aveling 01:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes.  I think we could avoid a lot of confusion  if we started using Han instead of Chinese in cases when are talking about the diaspora, at least in situations where there can be confusion about whether we mean ethnic Chinese or Chinese nationals.  Regards, Ben Aveling 21:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "Han" is inaccurate and causes a lot of confusion as well. Han have many different meanings and it is currently a disambiguation page. We should use Han Chinese, instead of Han unless the page Han Chinese is moved. LionheartX
Agree with Maowang. Han is more of a direct translation from Mandarin than Han “Chinese” which is hopelessly POV.--Certified.Gangsta 01:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese/Han Chinese 

message: A big problem with the many Taiwan related projects is the lack of references. I would like to encourage everyone to hit the library and follow up on their posts with proper citations from reliable sources NPOV. I sometimes wonder where the information is coming from, is it opinion, hearsay, faith in a particular narrative or political agenda, CNN, ????? I really don't know. Any time Taiwan is mentioned it has the potential to get people fired up, especially when so many people have a predetermined viewpoint on Taiwan's status. If we, as a community, would do our homework and read before we post, or follow up referenced sources, we can avoid a lot of conflict and concentrate on making good pages that maximize their informative value. Thanks!Maowang 09:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I can't edit this article, but I was wondering why it says ROC is a "sovereignty" in one place but "state" in another.  Calde 19:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's a sovereign state.--Jerrypp772000 19:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: For consistency wouldn't it be better to use the same term in both places?  --Calde 19:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed :)--Jerrypp772000 19:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah I think so, they are in two different paragraphs.--Jerrypp772000 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Under PRC law and under United Nations policy, the island of Taiwan is the 23rd province of the PRC. This is also the official policy of the US, as well as all the major world powers around the world. If you look at the List of unrecognized countries page on Wikipedia, it is a partially unrecognized state and therefore the sovereignty of ROC is only de facto and not de jure. --Nat.tang 23:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about under ROC Constitution? ROC should be a de jure independent sovereignty.--Jerry 23:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be, but unfortunately it isn't. I understand your point, but the reality is the ROC is not a de jure sovereign state in the eyes of the UN and the major nations around the world, as well as the majority of nations around the world. --Nat.tang 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And from the your user page i can see your bias on this issue. I myself am more or less a supporter of the KMT and the ROC, but we must present the facts, and that is that the PRC has de jure sovereignty over the island of Taiwan, even if the sovereignty is exercise by the ROC. --Nat.tang 23:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can tell too that your probably a KMT supporter from your user name. But I still think that ROC is a de jure independent state. Under the UN policies, Taiwan is part of China (PRC), so the UN policies aren't even de facto accurate.--Jerry 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way Nat.tang, here comes the ROC nationalist.--Jerry 00:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: PRC is ... the rebel government, wow.--Jerry 00:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: lol...well the communists did technically win the civil war, and I know that in the past the ROC had continued the point that the current government on the mainland is a rebel government (especially when General Chang was alive), but if you look at the recent events, the PRC has gained the upper hand in the political, the economic and the military arenas, as well, TingMing, my fellow KMTer, the KMT has made peace with the PRC: In fact, twice - first time, when the martial law was lifted and the second time, when the KMT leadership visited the mainland and their former HQ in Nanjing. --Nat.tang 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks...I saw it...it's good --Nat.tang 00:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: *blink* Now I've seen everything. -Loren 03:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite.  --Folic Acid 03:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd like to nuke the commie leadership too but what you're saying is just too far off from reality. Blueshirts 03:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, if you think about it. What I said is Reality. ROC has existed since 1912. PRC started to exist in 1949. TingMing 07:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, but the ROC has become the loser on the world stage. Think about it, the PRC has the largest standing army in the world, it has nuclear devices and delivery systems, it has become the US's largest trading partner, it has the recognition of every nation but 25, the PRC has taken control of many natural resource corporations around the world, for the first time since the 1830s, China has a stable and powerful government under the PRC, and when the US falls into complete disgrace, the PRC will become the Superpower on the world stage...and we must relize that the PRC has outmanuvered the ROC in every way: political, economically, and in military strength (both conventional and un-conventional). Say the people of Taiwan declare independance, what do you think will happen? the first option will be a full out military assualt by the PRC, with 2 million active soldiers who are currently not involved in any major conflict and since the US is busy with Iraq, there will be no other major force to stop them. and then theres the second option, total and complete blockade of the island, no one gets in, no one gets out. both options would be devestating. so, TingMing, before you critize the PRC and say how the PRC is subordinate to the ROC, think about the ways the PRC could damage the socio-economic elements of the ROC. And I'm shock with your comments, TingMing, I thought as a KMTer, you would have realized that the party has made peace with the communists. Although I may be wrong, and you could be one of those hardliners. Anyways, just think about it... --Nat.tang 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jumping Cheese, the only reason why the Nationalist were able to escape to Taiwan was because of the US military aid General Chiang received. If it weren't for the US military, the communist would have been able to cross the strait and completely destroy the KMT's chance of survival. --Nat.tang 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the communists never had the capacity to launch a cross-strait amphibious operation. To Quemoy yes, to Taiwan island no. Blueshirts 22:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the risk of going even further off target, they already tried that. -Loren 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: and btw, Jerry, the Nat in my username is my name and not a reference to the KMT. --Nat.tang 15:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense to the KMT, but I think you guys probably can tell that the KMT did a good job on educating the Taiwanese people those kind of stuff.--Jerry 19:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And you think the US is gonna sit there when PRC launches an all-out attack on Taiwan? Remember what happened during the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis? Taiwan has already called PRC bluff numerous times, like voting for Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian even when PRC threatened to invade Taiwan if Lee and Chen won the election. Anyways, imagine the US military actually declaring war on PRC. Even with the war on terror, the US can easily redirect the troops to China. Or even better, carpet bomb China with a couple of Trident II nuclear missiles. I can quote statistics about the US military, but everyone already knows that the US military can fart at any country and take it out in a heartbeat. If the Soviet Union couldn't stand up to the US, China sure won't be able to. I'm pretty sure China isn't gonna risk invading Taiwan with full knowledge of the repercussions. The US still hates Communism and that's not gonna change any time soon. The most probable outcome of the whole political status of Taiwan will be that the exploding economy in China will undermine the command economy, leading to a break down of the one-part Communist part system. Democracy will then take root in China and one of the new political party is gonna drop the whole "One China" idea and that will be that. Inevitably, all Communist countries will collapse (or reform into democracy) like the Soviet Union did. Sorry to burst your bubble, but China isn't as powerful it tries to make itself out to be.Sorry about that, I had to vent. And I agree with Jerry. =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 19:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If the PRC starts the war, then the US would certainly help Taiwan no matter what, because remember, the Taiwan Relation Act still exists. Taiwan would possibly get help from Japan also, but I don't expect Japan to help much. Truly, I'm not sure who would win the war, because the PRC has been developing its military strength, it has like hundreds of missiles aiming at Taiwan. Not to mention it might be developing nuclear weapons as well.--Jerry 19:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that the Taiwan Relation Act exists but the United States cannot risk war with the PRC as it has already pooled its resources into Iraq and the American population does not want another war especially since it could cause a lot more American military deaths, as well as possible strikes against the US homeland if the US attempts to intervene, therefore it would not be logical for the US to redirect troops. And another thing, the PRC's economy is more of a mixed economy than a command economy as they have begun switching their economic system to a capitalist one, although its called something else by the PRC, since the 1980s and really started to develop in the 1990s. Today in the PRC, there are very little state owned corporations, or at least directly owned by the State. the PRC has also begun to open its markets to foreign investors as they are now part of the WTO and required to do so. Also, the PRC is not the Soviet Union as the Central Government is not putting all its resources into the military and has not involved itself in an arms race against the United States. The PRC is a communist/socialist only in name and in reality the PRC is a one party state and an indirect democracy, although most candidates are part of the CPC, there are independent members of the PRC's legislature and it is no longer a rubber stamp legislature for the CPC. Anyways...what im trying to say is that the PRC is not going to fall like the Soviet Union or any other cummunist nation did, so stop comparing them to the PRC. --Nat.tang 22:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Loren. Notice the talk header. As much as I would like to argue about how weak the PRC is and how the US will defend Taiwan, it's not gonna improve the article. Back on topic guys? =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 00:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: America is not going to help in the event of a communist attack. America has too much economic stake in China to risk such a move and America also owes a huge external debt mostly to China. Plus China has made it clear that it'll do anything to "liberate" the island. Chinese lives are cheap, but are the Americans willing to send its sons to die for this little island? I think  not. The only option left is for Taiwan to keep buying overpriced weapons from America, hold off the Chinese attack for a week, meanwhile watch the island burn, and then hear America say "yep, nothing much we could do lol". Let's play realpolitik please and forget about the Taiwan Relation Act. Blueshirts 22:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry to disappoint you TingMing, but the PRC's propaganda posters do not exist in Canada, the information that's fed to me is through a variation of the BBC and the CBC (which are both proven reliable crown corporation news agencies in their respective nations and on the international stage), a variation of Hong Kong news, and by my very very anti-communist relatives, who have seen first hand the change and the growth that China has gone through under the communists. So I think TingMing, my friend, not all that information saying that the PRC is a growing and powerful entity is propaganda. --Nat.tang 00:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And I think you're the one trying to spread hardline KMT/Nationalist messages, which is propaganda, on this page...so, TingMing, please stop cause its getting kind of annoying. --Nat.tang 00:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I found those comments very offensive, unnecessary, and really rude. I demand that you apologize for the comments, this is not the place to insult people, or to voice a radical point-of-view. Your comments are clearly propagandic and I consider them as a clear insult, as will many other people. Please refrain from using such comments in the future. --Nat.tang 03:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I think what you're trying to say is that there was never an official transfer of power type of document to the PRC, like how the last emperor officially abdicated, and that makes the PRC an illegal state. Blueshirts 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems that there's a number of possible positions on this.  The first position is that the PRC became in 1949 the legitimate successor to the ROC, and the government in Taipei is a renegade de facto government of Taiwan.  This is the official position of the PRC, of the UN, and of most countries around the world.  The second is that the PRC never became the legitimate successor to the ROC, which relocated to Taipei in 1949 and remains the legitimate government of the whole of China.  This is the official position of the ROC government, the KMT position, the position of a few small countries that have diplomatic relations with Taipei, and was the position of the UN until 1972, of the US until 1979, and of various other western countries for some time as well.  Finally, there is the position that the ROC government actually constitutes the legitimate government of the island of Taiwan only, which is now independent of China.  This position is held by the  Taiwanese nationalists, but cannot be espoused officially because it would lead to a serious crisis with the PRC.  At any rate, it seems to me that the first position accurate represents the official legal view of the majority of the world.  The third position would appear to map most closely to the de facto situation, and is more or less the way anybody who doesn't have to take an official diplomatic position views the situation - it's why we call the two "China" and  "Taiwan" in ordinary speech, rather than PRC and  ROC, which are only used in technical contexts.  The second position, on the other hand, is a minority position which corresponds neither to facts on the ground nor to the official legal position of most of the world.  As such, it should be qualified as  being a minority position. john k 03:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with John K's comments...(although this isn't the place to say this but TingMing still owes me an apology for his comments about Hong Kong and about the CBC, which over the many many year it has operated, has employed many correspondants and reporters of chinese background...and I'm seriously taking his comments as a personal insult: an insult to my roots, an insult to my people, and insult to my country) --Nat.tang 04:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry I had to vent like that but sometimes TingMing goes too far with his comments. --Nat.tang 04:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't believe this guy. Let me make it very clear to you: I AM NOT OF COMMUNIST ROOTS. I take that as a furthering of insults and propanganda. Let me tell you something, my grandfather fled twice from China, the first time was from the Japanese, the second time was from the communists. Both times, the family farm and land was taken from him, AND NEVER did my family go back after the communist takeover. I am going to continue to demand a FULL apology, to be written on my talk page. You have 24 hrs. If you do not comply I will carry out the appropriate actions, as defined by any Wikipedia policy, to campaign for the blocking of your user. I have made myself very clear, TingMing, and I don't back down easily. ***if any other user has found this disruptive I apologize. --Nat.tang 04:37, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: TingMing - this talk page is not the place to argue the merits of different theories of international law.  Whatever the merits of the KMT case to be the legitimate government of the whole of China, that case is one which is only accepted as valid by a small minority.  That is all that matters in terms of how we characterize the issue on wikipedia. john k 15:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank You. Apology Accepted. --Nat.tang 06:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awwww...it's great when we all learn how to work together. A little heavy handed in demanding an apology, but I guess it all worked out. Anyways, John brings up a good point. So, how should Taiwan be labeled as or should we not label it at all? =) Jumping cheese Cont@ct 07:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ROC as a de facto state 

message: I would like to know the population of Taiwan. B4rr4g3
:I believe that it is at about 23 million. See Demographics of Taiwan.--Jerry 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: Naval and troop forces of Southern Fujian defeated the Dutch in 1662, subsequently expelling the Dutch government and military from the island. They were led by Lord Koxinga (Traditional Chinese: 鄭成功; Simplified Chinese: 郑成功; Pinyin: Zhèng Chénggōng). 
- I really doubt a Chinese guy in the 17th century had an English title of nobility and also the article about him doesn't mention this. So maybe edit it. (i would like to do it myself but meh, anonymous users can't do this anymore) --83.128.20.166 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  chinese dude with english nobility? 

message: So is it classed as a developed or a developing country?Tourskin 23:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  developed? 

message: How about a section that addresses the relationship (economic and political) between China and Taiwan, especially China's attitude towards Taiwan (as a rebel province, I believe).  Are there military implications?  etc... I'm not an expert, but it's something I would like to read about.  ;-)  /Blaxthos 16:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For that material, see the artlcle Cross-Strait relations. Also, the political stuff is spread over several articles that you might be interested in. They include but are not limited to the following Political status of Taiwan, Legal status of Taiwan, and Republic of China. Ngchen 10:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwan-China relations 

message: more and more young people started to call the Mainlanders Sin Jhùmín (Traditional Chinese: 新住民), or "new resident"
This pinyin is spelled incorrectly. It should be Xīn Zhùmín. Could someone with the ability fix it?
18.140.1.233 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  small typo 

message: Among the Traditional Chinese, Simplified Chinese, please consider to add the Japanese language version of Taiwan, since Taiwan took part on Taiwan colonization from 1885-1945(60 years), which is not a short period of time.
75.18.212.37 05:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add japanese characters of "Taiwan" in the first sentence

message: I'm really not sure where this word "Hoklo" is from, but everyone in Taiwan just uses the word "Taiwanese" to refer to both the ethnic group and the language.  As this is standard practice among English speakers in Taiwan, I think the inclusion of the word "Hoklo" is a bit irrelevant.
Also, if you're going to mention Ang Lee you ought to mention Wang Chien-ming, who may be even more popular!
--210.240.107.30 (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture and Language Sections 

message: I don't know what you were thinking when you added so many different languages in order to say the word Taiwan. It takes away a lot of space in the article. Please reconsider.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevennelly11 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So many languages...

message: The paragraph is ambiguous:
Inhabitants wishing to remain Chinese subjects were given a two-year grace period to sell their property and remove to mainland China. Very few Taiwanese saw this as plausible.[6]
I don't understand what it means.
:Dear Anonymous Person: It is a well-written paragraph. It means that, after winning the war, the Japanese gave the people on Taiwan two years to either go to mainland China or stay on Taiwan as Japanese subjects. This was very difficult for most of them to do. Writtenright (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan's Conquest 

message: "In addition, as part of its retreat to Taiwan, the KMT brought with them literally the entire gold reserve and foreign currency reserve of mainland China. This unprecedented influx of human and monetary capital laid the foundation for Taiwan's later dramatic economic development." This statement exaggerates the importance of the influx represented by the KMT reserves and the KMT elite on Taiwan's economic miracle. Since it is entirely undocumented, I can't see how it should be kept as such. 
The KMT had been engaged in a horrific war first with Japan and then with the CCP for some 20 years (not that things were so rosy in the 1920s). What little the KMT invested in Chinese infrastructures during the 1920s was wiped out. The economic situation of the country was in complete shambles! Gold and foreign currency reserves were extremely limited: Finance Weekly Vol 19, No 17, Nov. 1948 estimates the total reserves of the bank of China (foreign currency, gold, silver...everything) at $168 million...and, even if they were enough to jumpstart the Taiwanese economy...and i really doubt they were, the KMT was notorious for corrupt officials who did not invest substantially in the Taiwanese economy.    
Here is a more plausible account (although also scant in references): The US government invested some $4M (M stands for billion in American Englsih) in Taiwan (financial aid alone--military equipment and food would represent even more) in the twenty year period following the end of WWII. Admittedly, most of this came in the 1950s, but that is when the economic recovery started, not the 1940s. Further, Allied bombings of Taiwan were relatively limited, meaning that the infrastructure the Japanese had built up over the preceding 40years was still largley intact. Taiwan--unlike the war-ravaged regions of mainland China--had an industrial infrastructure. Thus, it seems more likely that the previous Japanese investments in the island--to say nothing of American post-war investments--played a more substantial role in Taiwan's economic recovery than the paltry investments the KMT could manage.
:I agree with this.  The story that the KMT took all the gold and foreign reserves from China sounds like something made up by the Chinese Communist Party to explain why Taiwan prospered while China remained poor. The inaccuracy of the wording shows the bias of the writer.  "KMT brought with them literally the entire gold reserve". The word "literally" means that it happened exactly as written.  In this case, it would mean that "the entire" meant everything, ever last speck of gold. Not a single piece of gold could be found in the entire land of China after the KMT left?
:I'm not enough of an economist to say why Taiwan prospered, but the story that it was based on gold and foreign reserves from China doesn't pass the smell test and shouldn't be in this article without some solid citation. Readin 16:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agreed. I've removed the more controversial statement that the "influx" laid the foundations for Taiwan's growth. How could it have done - things took off decades later. As for the gold, etc I tweaked it as from what I understand the KMT only took what they could get - it is a bit of propaganda to suggest they got every penny. I've also put a citation request up. John Smith's 18:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  KMT 

message: "Ilha Formosa" is Portuguese for one of the major islands in the Bijago Archipelago, off the coast of Guinea-Bissau. As far as I know, it has no relation to Taiwan. The "Ilha Formosa" page should not have an automatic link to the page for "Taiwan".
Wilhamo 21:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At one point, Taiwan was also known as Formosa. Taiwan is one of a number of places to have discarded names given to them during times of European expansionism. That may be the connection. Not sure of the "Ilha" part.--Coro 01:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Taiwan was named "Ilha Formosa" by the Portugese, meaning beautiful island. "Ilha" means island.--Soccerking344 13:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formosa

message: Please see the deletion vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Taiwanese Americans. Badagnani 02:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion vote 

message: If it is possible to rename articles, it might be a good idea to change the title of the article to "Republic of China," because that is the complete name of the state.  There is a difference between the "People's Republic of China" and the "Republic of China." --Iluvmesodou 18:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Republic of China is already an article.--Jerry 19:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: China belonged to ROC after the war.  So if Japan would have renounced Taiwan, it would've probably gone to China.  Once the communists gained control, the ROC fled to Taiwan, which was their last remaining territory.  Even if it wasn't their territory they occupied it and now rule over it.  It defies all logic to say that that the government that governs over a piece of territory doesn't own it.68.222.85.60 (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic of China 

message: There may be some confusion as to whether Taiwan and the Republic of China are the same. It might be better to merge the two articles (Republic of China and Taiwan) into an article called "Republic of China (Taiwan)".Futureunwritten 03:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This proposal has been previously considered and rejected for the following reasons (list not inclusive). (1) Taiwan the geographic island is not the Republic of China, which historically encompassed all of present-day mainland China and then some, and interestingly excluded Taiwan island initially, (2) the article would be too long, (3) the POVish nature of the expression "Republic of China (Taiwan)." The article Republic of China on Taiwan I had nominated for deletion, but it was kept. I am all in favor of making a deal that would clearly specify what material goes where with all of these partially overlapping articles.Ngchen 12:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger? 

message: Please copy the country box template from the Republic of China to Taiwan please, this can help orginize some of the issues with the merger. Thanks,CMonkey111 02:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy please! 

message: When alot of people, or atleast in america, search for taiwan, there looking for the entity known as republic of chinaand probly not the island, i suggest this be renamed taiwan(island) and the word taiwan itself be redirected towards ROC, with the ussual added to that page about looking for taiwan
-Cody6  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.202.203.233 (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't agree.  I searched Taiwan looking for Taiwan, not PRC.  Chexmix53 (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  a change 

message: It would be worthwhile to mention that it's common in Taiwan to call the year by it's "year since the founding of the Republic" (e.g. 2007 is 自民國96年 (or year 96 of the Republic). I came to the Taiwan page looking for this information, but couldn't find it. Should it be here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.12.182 (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates system (years from foundation of Republic) 

message: Hi, if anyone can help expand Taiwan Confucian Temple, possibly by examining Chinese-language sources, that would be great. It isn't clear why the website says the temple was built in Tainan while the address is listed as Taipei. Badagnani (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need assistance to expand [[Taiwan Confucian Temple]] 

message: The following paragraphs were copied from the aricle (Yu Bin, "America's Rogue Ally," (Washington, DC: Foreign Policy In Focus, November 1, 2007). I notice the author gave a citation of the source. But is a word-by-word copy of thousand words from a copyrighted article acceptable by WIkipedia? If not, I suggest we  need to either remove them or to re-write the part. Mccwiki (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this an acceptable etiquette? 

message: It depends on what you mean by sovereign. According to the free dictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sovereign one definition of sovereign means: "Self-governing; independent" which you could argue, despite claims of PRC to the contrary, Taiwan/The Republic of China is both self-governing and is independent from control of PRC.  I think it would be useful to use the term "de facto" in this type of situation, because the term is usually used to indicate that the official policy is one thing, but in fact, the situation is different.   It is "de facto" an independent and sovereign state, but officially most governments refuse to recognize it.  And, by the way, several governments do, in fact, recognize Taiwan as an independent country.  As of 2007, 25 countries recognize the Republic of China as the legal government of all of China, while most other countries recognize PRC as the legal government of all of China ( http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/taiwancountry.htm ).  If you actually look at history, one could argue that the Republic of China was the legal government of all of China before the Communist Revolution, and that both PRC and ROC have equal claims to all of China. --WisTex (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You have references but the almost all come from a single source, the US government. Further, about your statement that "there are no international legal documents... ", it is POV to say such documents are necessary. Readin (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: HappyFishinwater, you have a POV, but we are here to disucss the article, not to state our POVs. Readin (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

text: There is no evidence that Taiwan was ceded to "China", but the Japanese did surrender to the "Republic of China" and the "Republic of China" took over.  While the "Republic of China" used to be commonly known as "China", it is now commonly known as "Taiwan".  That the Republic of China underwent such a change from governing one place to governing another is why we have a separate article for "Republic of China" and "Taiwan".Readin (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What Sovereign Means

message: There has been tension over this topic for quite some time however competing documents from various recognized authorities still conflict.  I'm surprised that this article doesn't contain a mention of the Taiwan Relations Act.
http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/Archive_Index/Taiwan_Relations_Act.html
"(3) to make clear that the United States decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China rests upon the expectation that the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means;"
Taiwan is clearly not sovereign or there would be war between the mainland and the Taiwanese.  However just because they are not sovereign does not mean that they are a province of the Peoples Republic of China.  The US created the TRA to ensure that the decision is made peacefully.  It is interesting to note that a recent survey shows half of the island is in favor of declaring independence.(i'll see if i can find the citation)  The long time enemy of the Chinese Communist Party (the KMT) are actually the ones who are fighting the most against this decision.  Whether or not Taiwan reunites with the mainland remains to be seen.
Zeroday (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taiwanese identity section could use more but makes the NPV difficult to maintain  

message: Instead of having the ROC and PRC people constantly fighting to change the article to their POV, I would suggest simply stating the fact that the legal status of Taiwan is disputed, and provide sections showing the PRC view and the ROC view (and perhaps other major views if there are any).  I think it would be very educational and informative to see ROC's and PRC's claims compared side-by-side in a manner than gives respect for each side's point of view, but does not endorse either point of view.  i.e. The ROC and 25 countries say X, and the PRC and the rest of the nations say Y, and the UN says Z.  I think the only way to have a neutral point of view is to air both sides in a fair and neutral matter, because they are not going to agree on it. --WisTex (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have other articles for arguments over the Legal Status of Taiwan and the Political Status of Taiwan.  This article is supposed to focus more on the land and people, not the nation-state.Readin (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: To Stay Neutral, You Have Give Both Sides Equal Time

message: Was Taiwan colonisied after japanese conquest? How many japanese migrated to there? What happened with that population after WWII? Is there still any Japanese (apart from tourist and recent expatriates) in the island today?. Rocha 201.6.91.122 (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was simply giving a description as to what a colonizer typically does to the colonized; besides, the Chinese and Taiwanese shared the same ethnicity and culture while Japanese influences were considered foreign to Taiwan at the time of the respective takeover. Your argument would be more convincing if Taiwan and Japan shared the same cultural background prior to the invasion. However, I personally prefer to call that period of time Japanese administration era, as Japan did in fact tried to assimilate the local population. --K kc chan (talk) 02:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Colonisation and Ethnic Cleansing 

message: The text claims that there are still many speakers of Hakka. But what I heard is that Hakka is declining rapidly, because of the dominance of Mandarin and Minnan in the media, and mixing through marriage between Hakka, Minnan and former Mainlanders.(talk) 12:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hakka? Revival? 

message: Are there any actions for declaring a sovereign state in 2008? Simplicius (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sovereign State?? 

message: I have retooled additions to the History section added by Aznassassin for length and neutrality (diff. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions. -Loren (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV to recent updates 

message: Administer suggests something done on behalf of another.  administer Etymology: Middle English administren, from Anglo-French administrer, from Latin administrare, from ad- + ministrare to serve, from minister servant — more at minister Date: 14th century and administer 1: to manage or supervise the execution, use, or conduct of <administer a trust fund> (notice the usage is an example of managing something owned by someone else). 
This use of "administer" is reminiscent of the PRC's habit of refering to the Taiwan government as the "local Taiwan authorities".  
"Govern", on the other hand, implies neither national nor local authority. We talk about national governments and we talk about state governments. 
"Administration" is sometimes used for the national government of democratic countries, but it refers to the currently elected leadership, not to the government over time.  That is, when we talk about the "U.S. administration", we are talking specifically about the "Bush administration" (or whoever is president at the time).  This is because we see the elected leadership as governing on behalf of the voters.  "Administration" is rarely used for dictatorial regimes (we use "regime" instead) who see themselves as owning the people and the state.  We can say "Chen adminstration", and soon we can say "Ma administration", but we should not be saying that the ROC "administers" Taiwan because 1. The Taiwanese never chose to have the ROC as their government - so the democratic thing doesn't apply. 2. the ROC is not universally accepted as a local government.
We can use "administer" to refer to sub-parts of the ROC government also.  For example, we can say the Taipei City government administers Taipei because it is doing so either on behalf of the ROC or the PRC, depending on your position.Readin (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Administer" versus "Govern" 

message: it should be added to the article that the tsjeng-ji (a daoist cult) is present at this island.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.166.163 (talk) 09:14, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  cults in taiwan 

message: I see the term "native Taiwanese" being used in the article a couple of times to describe those Taiwanese people who claim Han Chinese ancestry from the southern part of Fujian province of China or the Hokka people.
My view is that the term "native Taiwanese" is not an appriproate term to describe any individual group of Taiwanese people. Anyone who calls Taiwan home is native Taiwanese. But if the term is used I think it should be used to more correctly describe the indigenous Taiwanese people "原住民", namely those peoples who have lived in Taiwan for apparently thousands of years. Similarly, I believe in the US the term "Native American" is used to describe indigenous Americans.
I have noticed in the last couple of years, the Taiwanese media (and to a lesser extent the Taiwanese general public) have been using the term "Native Taiwanese" a lot less. Instead, they use the term Hakka people to describe people with Hakka ancestry or the term "福佬人" (Hoklo people) to describe people with Fujian ancestry.
As the term "Native Taiwanese" may be offensive, I would like to suggest that maybe we can consider replacing the term with a more correct term. I think the categories used in the Taiwanese peoplearticle (the history of the major socio-cultural groups section) are good starting points.--Pyl (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native Taiwanese? 

message: Is it really necessary to link common words like island?  --Wo ai taiwan (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There, fixed that for you. Readin (talk) 14:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overlinking 

message: The link to the Spanish Wikipedia links to "Republic of China" instead of the island "Isla de Taiwán". As the article is protected, I cannot change it. 84.58.60.75 (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish Link 

message: ..umm, what's with all the renaming by User:Sardanaphalus going on? Anyone have a clue? Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 02:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  renaming by [[User:Sardanaphalus]] 

message: I don't think PRC has ever made such a claim. As far as I know, PRC claims that it is the successor of the ROC which no longer existed after the KMT lost the Chinese civil war.
If PRC has ever stated that it has claim over Taiwan because it is the successor of Qing, please quote the source.--Pyl (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I've modified sentence to say that PRC succeeded ROC. Readin (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Until the above is verified by credible sources, it will be removed. The ROC is still very much in existance today, and the Chinese Civil War has never officially ended, so based on what is the PRC making its claim?--Huaiwei (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The PRC makes its claim based on "replacement of the old regime by a new one" upon the PRC's proclamation, and the fact that the ROC regime has essentially been confined to Taiwan. So, from the PRC perspective, the ROC regime is only fit to be a local one these days. I just added the source from the PRC white paper to the Political status of Taiwan article.Ngchen (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you are expecting a wikipedia article to basically echo the views of the PRC whole-scale, and accepting their POV as fact? The ROC has never accepted itself as a "local authority in Chinese territory", so there is absolutely no nuetrality in attempting to allege that the ROC ceases to exist in any sense.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:14, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, the article clearly notes that the POV in question is from the PRC, and further notes clearly that the PRC does not actually control the island. Stating the PRC's POV when noting its source does not violate NPOV.Ngchen (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRC claimed that it was the successor of Qing 

message: Under 'Economics':
: The Republic of China has its own currency, the New Taiwan dollar.
I believe this should read
: Taiwan has its own currency, the New Taiwan dollar.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.103.186 (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, when referring to non-state related aspects of the country, "Taiwan" is used, while for state-related aspects "Republic of China" is used.  Since currency is issued by the government, "Republic of China" is correct.  If the fact that "Republic of China" is in the state commonly known as "Taiwan", then we can clarify by writing "The Republic of China (Taiwan) has its own currency, the New Taiwan dollar"  I'm assuming that the New Taiwan Dollar is used in all parts of ROC (including the Pescadores, Kinmen, Matsu, etc.).  If the New Taiwan Dollar is only used in a portion of the ROC, then you're right that we need to reword it. Readin (talk) 02:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: The New Taiwan Dollar is legal tender throughout the Taiwan Area of the Republic of China.--pyl (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake to be fixed please: 

message: 1. Separate the Free Area of the Republic of China article into two parts, one for the modern area only, and one for either the entire history or for specifically the pre-1949 history.
2. Name the article for the modern area, "Taiwan".
3. Rename the current Taiwan article "Taiwan (island)".  Limit this article to talking only about things that apply only to the Taiwanese mainland.
4. Move parts of the current Taiwan article to the new Taiwan article. 
Pyl has been recently using "Taiwan Area" in places were we traditionally used the current Taiwan article.  However this traditional usage has always been a problem because the current Taiwan article says Taiwan is an island, while in most of the references more than just the big island is being referred to.
For dicussion, please see the Talk:Taiwan Area page. 
Readin (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: Is it legitimate to use Communist Chinese News as an authority on footnotes?  I find it rather alarming that some of the claims in this article use Communist Party propaganda as a source. What's the frequency, Kenneth? (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In at least one of the instances, the source is provided to show what the Chinese say about Taiwan.  That seems reasonable to me. Readin (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist Chinese News as authority 

message: There is a discussion going on here.--pyl (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirecting "China" to the "PRC" 

message: An editor is proposing to remove from Diplomatic missions of Ireland details of Ireland's unofficial Government office in Taipei, on the grounds that Ireland does not have diplomatic relations with the Republic of China/Taiwan.
Current practice is that we include these quasi-official offices, as they perform the de facto responsibilities of a diplomatic mission and these offices are usually run (albeit at arms length) by a sending state's foreign affairs ministry.  
In line with Wikipedia's policy on consistency, a change to this article would necessitate us to eliminate details of all foreign Government offices in Taiwan which do not recognise the Republic of China/Taiwan.
Could we also ascertain if receiving states should be named according to how they name themselves, or how the sending state calls it.  
Please enter your comments here:  Talk:Diplomatic missions of Ireland.  Kransky (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign government offices in Taiwan 

message: please add this link in Hebrew(עברית) under languages: http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%98%D7%90%D7%99%D7%95%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9F
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipnp (talk • contribs) 17:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Hebrew Link