Talk:Taiwan/Archive 4

message: What a load of POV this article has become. I don't have a stance on this issue and I simply don't care who governs Taiwan, but I would expect a bit of neutrality regarding this subject. This article, and the whole treatment given to the Taiwan/Republic of China issue throughout Wikipedia takes the shape of: "Oh, the poor people of Taiwan!"/"Bad, bad PRC!". It's laughable. I'm not even going to try to attach the POV tag to the article, as it would be removed after 1 milisecond. —Cantus…☎ 08:39, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
:perhaps it would help if you were a bit more specific... --Jiang 09:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Erm... Why isn't there one in this article? Those things are kind of standard in the nation articles...--71.112.234.168 09:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a regime/state article, not a nation article... that could be why. --Sumple 03:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics subsection 

message: The Republic of China: "...is a multiparty democratic state that exercises sovereignty over the island of Taiwan and the island groups of the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu." ---> "...is, since 1949, a disputed state in East Asia that is effectively composed of the island groups of Taiwan, the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu..."
The method of governance of the state, per wikipedia convention, is not usually stated in the first sentence of the article. This can be found elsewhere in the lead. However, the status of the Republic of China is in dispute and must be presented up front. This is really important. According to the PRC, the Republic of China no longer exists. To ignore this viewpoint is to violate npov.
Taiwan is labelled an island group here to avoid having to list Green and Orchid islands. --Jiang 23:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, we are NOT ignoring the PRC's viewpoint.  This viewpoint is expressed in the following two paragraphs (in your own words, this can be found elsewhere in the lead).  To suggest that the ROC's status is disputed is more important than everything else about the ROC can also be considered to be a POV.  Therefore to be totally fair, I suggest that we place NO ADJECTIVES in the first sentence with regards to the Republic of China being a state.  We'll just simply say that the ROC is a state that exercises soverignty over certain regions.  Everything about the ROC's characteristics of being a multiparty democratic state or about a disputed state can be expressed elsewhere in the lead. Allentchang 17:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If I were to write an article about Great Britain, would I have to list every single island within the control of Great Britain in the lead section?  If I were to write an article about Canada, would I have to also mention Vanouver Island in the lead section? Allentchang 17:00, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ah, but recall that the National Assembly passed amendments regarding the existence of a communist rebellion and that emergency powers were in place which curbtailed the rights of the citizens.  Even though martial law was abolished in 1987 (and I was there to see it happen), a National Security Law replaced it and in many ways resembled martial law.  All the trampling of the rights of the existing ROC citizens did not end until the National Assembly agreed with the President to end the amendments to deal with by then the so-called "communist rebellion."
Allentchang 03:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The DPP was founded in 1986, and though illegal, the government did not try to shut it down like it would 10 years beforehand. Numerous press freedoms were also gradually relaxed during the 1980s. It was not overnight, via a National Assembly vote, that people got freedoms to speak out. During this period of time the opposition was constantly testing the regime and people were still getting jailed for opposing the government, but more people walked out of jail than they walked in. Lee's accession as Chiang Ching-kuo's successor was also a significant step since Lee was 1) native Taiwanese and 2) a technocrat unconnected with the old mainlander faction connected with the military. Isnt the National Security Law still in effect?   Theyve never been able to revive the Taiwanese Communist Party. --Jiang 09:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: I do not think we should be splitting the culture section off to a template in order to have identical content with the Taiwan article. Part of the reason Taiwan and Republic of China are separate articles, rather than the same article with one name being a redirect, is so that we can have different focuses. The "culture of Taiwan" in this article is only relevant since 1945, when Taiwan became part of the ROC, and the focus on culture here has a lot to do with the interaction between government and culture (such as by supressing local Taiwanese culture and later encouraging it). Naturally, since the culture section here must share space with discussion of 1912-1949 republican Chinese culture, it should be less detailed than the culture section in the Taiwan article, which needs to also view culture from a broader perspective with government taking a less prominent role. This article is already 39 kilobytes long. Having a whole section on "convenience store culture" (with the same with the same content being duplicated at Convenience_store#Convenience_stores_in_Taiwan, Taiwan#Convenience_store_culture, and Culture_of_Taiwan#Convenience store culture is not needed. The ubiquity of convenience stores has much to do with Taiwan, but little to do with the Republic of China. In addition, some changes to the neutrality of the wording and the accuracy of the content that I made was lost. --Jiang 10:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  splitting of "culture" section to template 

message: While the Minnan Dialect is not an official language of the Republic of China, the Republic's government has elevated Hokkien's status.  On Taipei's subway and Taiwan's rail system, stops and instructions are required by law to also be announced in Minnan.  In the new language competency test now required for immigrants who wish to become ROC citizens, the Minnan exam (besides Hakka) is offered as a flexible option to pass the exam.  Minnan is the de facto language of the open-air marketplace in Taiwan.  Finally, the reason that the government does not mandate a Minnan only cable channel (there are mandated Hakka and indigenous people channels), is because there is well enough Hokkien language programming avaliable.  Given Taiwan's special relationship with the ROC, the Minnan word for the Republic of China should be presented.
Allentchang 23:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. To be fair, I should point out that simplified Chinese characters have no official status in the ROC either and would also have to be removed if we went strictly with what was official. ;) -Loren 23:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minnan Dialect 

message: ok, according jiang
:"intro is too long. this is covered elsewhere, see "...its current form as a localized, multi-party democracy where in practice only people in the island groups of Taiwan...")"
now i understand what jiang's up to here.  first of all, "intro is too long" is obviously a bullshit reason, so let's put that aside and examine the second bit.  "in practice only people in the island groups of Taiwan..."... wow... so jiang's claim is that the roc means something like china + taiwan and china is not democratic, so the ROC is not a democracy!  holy shit!  do you think you can find people in taiwan that don't think the ROC is a democracy?  so what the honorable mr. jiang is really saying is that we either IGNORE what the political system of the ROC is even though we proceed to describe the government of the ROC OR we say that the ROC is a multiparty democratic state with territories currently occupied by the CCP under communist/authoritarian rule.  just wow.  i mean, POV if i've ever seen any.  look, we devote plenty of space (in my opinion too much) to this historical controversy of who's supposed to be "legitimate" but the fact is, under NPOV, we should be talking about what the reality is.  and the reality is that the ROC is a democratic state.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.59.83.208 (talk • contribs) 
:The intro is too long. There's no need to state that the ROC is a multiparty demoracy twice.--Jiang 17:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it'd be best to mention the multiparty pan-green presidency and pan-blue legislature/local level in teh politics section. I don't think you see that kind of detail in the intro of any national profiles. BlueShirts 20:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: take your head out of your ass and read my profile a bit more closer, please, Chen supporter. BlueShirts 21:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: you completely ignored my point. There is no reason why we should state the same thing, in the same amount of detail, within the introduction itself. why call it a multiparty democracy twice when one time will get the message across? and please start an article on strong-man politics if you are so inclined.--Jiang 00:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  holy shit, i would've never thought, explanation of why jiang keeps removing the bit about democracy 

message: Additionally, although the ROC has not constitutionally renounced sovereignty over Mainland China (including Tibet), outer Mongolia, and Tannu Uriankhai, though in 1991 President Lee Teng-hui it stated that his government does not dispute the fact that the Communist Party rules mainland China. The DPP government under Chen Shui-bian has made moves to ignore such claims, including removing outer Mongolia from the ROC's official maps and the establishment of a representative office in Mongolia's capital, Ulan Bator. One reason the ROC has never officially dropped its claims is fear that the PRC would use such a move as a pretext for invasion, calling it a move towards Taiwan independence.
I have some problems with the bolded text. To me, this sentence sounds like a rather bad justification for ROC's territorial claims to be actually bigger than PRC's. Also, a statement like this would be rather difficult to substantiate, since it's really just the editor's own take on why the situation is what it is, rather than any concrete, verifiable claim. (Like PRC saying "We will invade if you dare to become independent.") 
Thoughts?
-- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, were you replying to my message? I'm not saying it's not factual or it's POV, I just think it's a selective choice of words to subliminally imply something. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 04:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some stuff about ROC claim area 

message: this language is a political term invented by the PRC and used by those that support unification with china.  many people would take offense at "two sides of the strait", with the implication being that it's not two states that people are talking about (china and taiwan).Moveapage 19:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: it's politically neutral languauge, like "mainland China" (refer to article). it does not imply that both sides are party of China. I don't see your point. --Jiang 19:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 海峽兩岸/海峡两岸. Tell me how it's PRC propaganda. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In English language media, this is almost always rendered as "cross-straits talks/relations/etc.", for exactly the same reason: people want to avoid characterizing the political relationship between the two sides. It is completely neutral: a person who believes that the ROC is an autonomous state can use it without contradiction, as can a person who believes the opposite. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: the origin of the term is to use a geographical-spacial description avoid characterizing either side, as doing so would almost automatically reveal prejudice. It is not to avoid recognizing the ROC/Taiwan. It is not political propaganda. If you think it is, just dont say so. prove that it is. --Jiang 23:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  err... they *aren't* two states on each side of the straits. that is the point... "two sides of the strait" is neutral. --Sumple 03:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "two sides of the strait" 

message: Since there are different views on the ROC, they must be recognized.  You can't eliminate just because the lead section is long.  Republican China is recognized as a period that has ended by the PRC, Western academia, and people in Taiwan.  There is actually only a small minority of people, consisting mostly of mainlanders, that like to emphasize the ROC historical link to China because they want Taiwan to unify with China.  There ethnic identity, of course, isn't Taiwanese because they were merely refugees in Taiwan, with many only having had planned on staying in Taiwan for a few years, but ended up never returning to China.Moveapage 19:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: please provide concrete examples on how the current wording is not NPOV. I have provided reasons above on how the longer version inserted POV (rather than removed it). please back your statements with evidence so we can make any changes. of course we all want the article to be NPOV. now where's the problem? --Jiang 19:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: How is the ROC generally regarded as having ended? Regarded by whom? Last time I checked the country's name is still ROC. Saying otherwise is pushing a pov. BlueShirts 19:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You're not making any sense at all. It's not just the name. It's also about the Constitution which specifies the name, national anthem, and all sorts of government bodies and regulations that all support the ROC. Unless a referendum or the legislative yuan decide to have the constitution amended to include the change of ROC to ROT, then whatever points you bring up just don't hold up. BlueShirts 20:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A state doesn't move per se, but its boundaries and borders can change, even decrease. The ROC ruled all of China (including Taiwan since 1945) all the way up until 1949, when it gave up on the mainland. The truth is that the ROC has been in existence since 1911. And when most historians study Republican China, they don't include Taiwan because Taiwan was a Japanese colony, retrocessed in 1945 when Japan surrendered. Saying that most historians don't include taiwan in the ROC doesn't realy bring anything to the discussion. BlueShirts 20:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: You gotta be kidding me. How is it POV? The constitution and the government serve the ROC. There is no ambiguity as far as official records are concerned. If you want in later sections, you can say that pro-independence folks regard the ROC state as having ceased to exist since 1949, but this view is definitely not the view of mainstream historians, not even the ROC government and Chen himself. BlueShirts 20:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

text: you're not making sense again. What western historians? Most books about Republican China like Eastman's Seeds of Destruction don't even mention Taiwan in detail because Taiwan was a Japanese colony during the majority of ROC's lifetime before 1945. Does that mean the retrocession of Taiwan in 1945 was by any means invalid? I don't think so. Not mentioning it does not mean that it was wrong. The official name of the state that administers over Taiwan is Republic of China, not Taiwan or Republic of Taiwan or anything other than ROC. Can you tell me which historians say that the ROC ceased to exist after 1949? And please don't cite people like Huang Wun-hsiung. BlueShirts 21:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: I have in good faith compromised with Jiang, while he has been insistently reverting me.  If you look at the above discussion on revising the intro, you'll see that many of the changes he wanted to implement were already challenged and he is not "reverting" to some kind of previous equilibrium.  I encourage you to look at the history of revisions to verify this, but wanted to point it out for people first.Moveapage 20:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: While I do not wish to pass judgments hastily, from what I've read of your comments, they have been quite confrontational. Also, I believe you have been in violation of the 3RR, while more than 1 editor have disagreed with your edits. Perhaps you should resolve your differences on the talkpage before just reverting. -- Миборовский U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai! 00:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Several reverts by Jiang 

message: "country" refers to the geographical entity. "state" refers to the political entity. "state" should be used here as the article is on a political entity, while the geographical entity is subject to a bunch of interpretations/definitions. It is also bad form to be starting the article with an adjective to decribe the main subject. Just which FA does this? Adding "contemporary" in front of "Republic of China" implies that the non-contemporary "Republic of China" wont be mentioned. "Political divisions" should not be renamed "Regional political divisions". Refer to the template used at wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. Why should there be an exception? --Jiang 07:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I think it's ridiculous to be too rule based and inflexible.  Second, that template doesn't even apply since that template applies to countries and the ROC is not a country.--140.112.185.129 09:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

text: well, the next sentence says the ROC currently has jurisdiction over Taiwan and some islands, so I don't see how it adds to the article besides being ugly. BlueShirts 19:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  country vs. state etc 

message: I am still waiting for a response from 61.59.83.208 on why 1) mention of Japanese colonial rule is so important that it deserves a place here 2) how removing note that the official borders havent been changed while leaving in that these borders aren't being pursued is npov 3) why we should ignore the manual of style and have one paragraph sections and 4) why some minor and irrelevant reference about young people singing karoke and playing majong deserves mention here. --Jiang 15:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unresolved issues 

message: For some awkward reason, this article is linked consistently to disambiguation pages and redirects with the name Republic of China (where the name is Taiwan and a redirect was located). This incorrect conduct. Even if one gives preference to the name Republic of China, we should be respectful of the decisions made by the editors of each Wikipedia. gidonb 12:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On one hand I agree the decisions by the editors of other language versions of Wikipedia must be respected. But at the same time we have to recognise the fact that the NPOV and other relevant policies of the English-language version of Wikipedia regarding the ROC are among the strictest, although consistently challenged by some certain users. — Instantnood 13:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Instantnood, since I do not follow what is happening here, I cannot comment on your last statement. I did notice, however, that this talk page is well filled and that in addition there are three archives. I am glad that we agree on all principles. Regards, gidonb 13:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unbelievable, all the interwiki's returned to what they were before I fixed them! gidonb 02:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elaborating on this first impression, few returned to the disambig pages, none to the redirects, many were plainly deleted. They all returned to link to the articles that are named China, which is disrespectful of the fact that some Wikipedia's call the political entity Taiwan. Please note before trying to convince PRC or Taiwan are correct, that this does not interest me. I am interested in good connections between the languages and the preservation and continuous improvement of Wikipedian information. gidonb 02:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to foreign languages

message: Blue Shirts in this article needs to remain NPOV and because it's controversial, sources need to be well-cited and they need to say why it's okay to write something counter to conventional wisdom.  Conventional wisdom is that they were a secret police/fascist force within the KMT-ROC under authoritarian rule.  If you want to prove it's not, you have to prove a lot of people wrong, but since most people don't think that they weren't fascist (at least not yet), you'll have to let it sit as just another point of view.  As, just another point of view, you will have to write it in an appropriate manner, instead of deleting what you please.--Moveapage 11:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Blue Shirts was not fascist and was not founded by Chiang. Its official name was Three People's Principles Implementation Society (Sanminzhuyi Lixingshe), and the term "Blue Shirts" has only appeared once in an internal party document calling for KMT reform. However, the name Blue Shirts has been used extensively by faulty Shanghai Municipal Police intelligence and the Japanese, who tended to portray the Lixingshe as a terrorist fascist group responsible for most anti-Japanese activity in the 1930s. The term Blue Shirts also has nothing to do with Black Shirts or Brown Shirts. Blue Shirts in Chinese is lan (blue) yi (clothes) she (society), and Chinese translations of German Brown Shirts is he (brown) shan (shirt) dang (party), Italian Black Shirts is hei (black) shan (shirt) dang (party) and Irish Blue Shirts is lan (blue) shan (shirt) dang (party). Yi(clothes)/Shan(shirt) and She(society)/Dang(party) are different, and it's wrong to think that the Lixingshe was modelled after European fascists just because their english translation is the same, albeit inaccurate. One book I read points out that if the Lixingshe has anything to do with fascists, then it must have been more influenced by the Japanese Black Dragon Society, which the founders of the Lixingshe had knowledge of when they studied in Japan. And the Chinese site is not a POV site. It's a book review by the University of HOng Kong BlueShirts 19:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Blue Shirts]] 

message: The section titled Economy of Taiwan, history and current situtation (sic) has largely been lifted from the CIA world factbook page on Taiwan.
Wikipedia Article:
The Republic of China on Taiwan has a dynamic capitalist, export-driven economy with gradually decreasing state involvement in investment and foreign trade. In keeping with this trend, some large government-owned banks and industrial firms are being privatized. Real growth in GDP has averaged about eight percent during the past three decades. Exports have provided the primary impetus for industrialization. The trade surplus is substantial, and foreign reserves are the world's third largest.
...
Today, agriculture constitutes only two percent of the GDP, down from 35 percent in 1952.
...
Because of its conservative financial approach and its entrepreneurial strengths, Taiwan suffered little compared with many of its neighbors from the Asian financial crisis in 1998–1999. Unlike its neighbors South Korea and Japan, the Taiwanese economy is dominated by small and medium sized businesses, rather than the large business groups. The global economic downturn, however, combined with poor policy coordination by the new administration and increasing bad debts in the banking system, pushed Taiwan into recession in 2001, the first whole year of negative growth since 1947. 
CIA Article:
Taiwan has a dynamic capitalist economy with gradually decreasing guidance of investment and foreign trade by government authorities. In keeping with this trend, some large government-owned banks and industrial firms are being privatized. Exports have provided the primary impetus for industrialization. The trade surplus is substantial, and foreign reserves are the world's third largest. Agriculture contributes less than 2% to GDP, down from 32% in 1952. Taiwan is a major investor throughout Southeast Asia. China has overtaken the US to become Taiwan's largest export market. Because of its conservative financial approach and its entrepreneurial strengths, Taiwan suffered little compared with many of its neighbors from the Asian financial crisis in 1998. The global economic downturn, combined with problems in policy coordination by the administration and bad debts in the banking system, pushed Taiwan into recession in 2001, the first year of negative growth ever recorded. Unemployment also reached record levels. Output recovered moderately in 2002 in the face of continued global slowdown, fragile consumer confidence, and bad bank loans. The essentially vibrant economy pushed ahead in 2003-05. Growing economic ties with China are a dominant long-term factor, e.g., exports to China of parts and equipment for the assembly of goods for export to developed countries.
--128.103.29.10 07:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In all likelihood you are correct, and the majority of this section was taken from the CIA source.  However since the World Fact Book is produced by the CIA, (a branch of the US Gov) it is within the public domain.  See also Work of the United States Government for more clarification.  Hence there is no copyright issue to be concerned with for this work, however there is the matter of citing this as a source.  While the Factbook is listed as an external link, it might be more appropriate to list it as a source.  -- malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 18:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism in Economy part 

message: Moved to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). -Loren 16:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   — Instantnood 19:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category changes