Talk:Censorship in Taiwan

Jimbo's opinion

This article was horrible. Now, thanks to my improvements, it is merely awful. :) --Jimbo Wales 09:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I fixed your edits so that it was up to snuff (just minor stuff, fixing references, spelling errors, revising date links). I didn't do any research of my own and I know very little of this topic, so I didn't really add anything. --Cyde Weys 23:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move —Mets501 (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (2006)

Censorship in Taiwan → Censorship in the Republic of China — Accuracy (this isn't just about the island of Taiwan, but all islands controlled by the ROC), consistency with PRC equivalent page, etc. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

• Weak oppose How much censorship is there is Quemoy and Matsu, anyway? Septentrionalis 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support The "censorship in..." series is about censorship done by a particular government, in this case the RoC. Ashibaka tock 16:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think that the other tiny islands are significant enough to justify this move.--Húsönd 16:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Taiwan is shorthand for ROC in English. While this may not include 100% of the country's territory, it's a common practice (cf. Rhode Island for Rhode Island and Providence Plantations) —  AjaxSmack  08:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC) 17:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia's NPOV conflicts with this casual shorthand, thus the non-political articles at Taiwan and China. Ashibaka tock 02:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move to Censorship in the Republic of China Orlady (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Censorship in Taiwan → Censorship in the Republic of China — Per previous reason, this article is about censorship in the ROC as a whole administrative unit, not restricted to the island of Taiwan. And it would be consistent with the page on censorship in the People's Republic of China. The Taerkasten (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Can't agree with you more. Taiwan is not a synonym for the Republic of China, it is merely a region belonging to ROC.--RekishiEJ (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Since nothing appears to have changed since the last similar request above, I'll copy my comments from there. "Taiwan is shorthand for ROC in English. While this may not include 100% of the country's territory, it's a common practice (cf. Rhode Island for Rhode Island and Providence Plantations)." And I'll add that the proposed title implies coverage of 1911-1949 Republic of China rather than contemporary Taiwan. (If Censorship in North Korea is moved to Censorship in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, maybe I'll change my mind.) — AjaxSmack 01:44, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. Since China is the common name for the PRC, why is it's article at censorship in the People's Republic of China? Sometimes WP:COMMONNAME must be overlooked. This is about the ROC, not just Taiwan the island. If you wish, then move the PRC article to simply censorship in China--The Taerkasten (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Since China is the common name for the PRC, why is it's article at censorship in the People's Republic of China?" I don't know and I would wholeheartedly support the move you suggest. "This is about the ROC, not just Taiwan the island." There's not a single word of the article dealing with anything outside of Taiwan. — AjaxSmack 16:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    • When "Taiwan Area" appears, Ajax, it automatically includes stuff outside of Taiwan the island. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support Taiwan is an island, Republic of China is a government. Governments censor; islands don't. That "Taiwan" is a more common name for the Republic of China in certain circles is not a compelling argument in the Republic of China's own article, and most of the articles dealing with that state, so why should it be here? If AjaxSmack is concerned about the lack of 1911–1949 ROC information in the hypothetical article, information could be added after the move. Quigley (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • "Governments censor; islands don't." What about Cuba and Samoa? "...Information could be added after the move." The article title should reflect its current content, not hypothetical future edits that frankly have little relation to the current article. "Taiwan" unambiguously places the article both temporally and spatially, "ROC" does not. — AjaxSmack 16:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
    • We can use shorthand for Cuba or Samoa for a lack of disputes about their names and political statuses. If the title were to really reflect its content, it would be Censorship in the Republic of China on Taiwan (1949–present).You just outlined the Catch-22 of keeping this as Taiwan. The title and scope currently prohibits us from adding 1911–1949 ROC information because that's not Taiwan, but also forbids us from correctly moving it to ROC because that doesn't match the content that we are forbidden to add because of the current title and scope. That's if we accept your reasoning for not moving, anyway. What I was expecting when I came to this article, was also censorship on the island from Dutch and Japanese times (of which I'm sure there was plenty). If this article is to stay named 'Taiwan', that's the only neutral solution I see. Quigley (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
      • No Catch-22 at all. Any material on pre-1949 ROC censorship should be at a different article title anyway due to the gulf in context. If you're eager to contribute, feel free to write as much as you please on pre-1945 Taiwan and put it in this article or write on pre-1949 ROC and create Censorship in the Republic of China (1911–1949). Perfectly clear and no need for page moves to ambiguous titles. As for the content as it currently exists, Censorship in Taiwan is the most unambiguous title and has the benefit of using the common name. — AjaxSmack 18:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support - As the main article is Republic of China, and this article is about the republic, not just the island. Consistency should be the key.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Taiwan is synonymous with the whole country. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 04:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• SupportDespite my personal leanings, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Political_NPOV is pretty clear that where there is a risk of confusion, side-taking, or offense, go with the political name rather than the common name. Ocaasi (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above. JJ98 (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per common use in the English language. Flamarande (talk) 11:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment - With all due respect, sometimes common use must be forgone. Per WP:AT, titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously., as well as for consistency, see Censorship in the People's Republic of China. This article is not about censorship in Taiwan, but in the Republic of China, and should be titled as such. As per WP:NC-CHINA#Political NPOV, "the official political terms "People's Republic of China" or "PRC" and "Republic of China" or "ROC" should be used in political contexts (that is, to describe the existing governments or regimes) rather than the imprecise and politically charged terms "China" and "Taiwan."--The Taerkasten (talk) 16:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2012)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. The common name argument is strong. --regentspark (comment) 03:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Censorship in the Republic of China → Censorship in Taiwan – Articles on Wikipedia generally use the name Taiwan except when talking about official titles in which this is not and therefore should use Taiwan.C. 22468 Talk to me 21:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose this article clearly covers the period prior to the end of the Chinese Civil War, as well as the period after the KMT evacuated to Taiwan. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support - Taiwan primarily refers to the country state and not the island. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

How does mainland China belong under the title "Taiwan"? -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support There is one short paragraph discussing a single book during the Second World War/Sino-Japanese War. The article is currently mostly about modern laws, and the other history paragraph discusses laws during martial law. The paragraph that does mention the mainland is probably undue anyway, as it's a single book in what appears to be just a short note in a reference, and it was a wartime act, where censorship (and other versions of information fudging) is no doubt more common. CMD (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Common Name.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 20:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support (see my responses to Jiang's comment) - CMD makes a good case why the one paragraph should not trump the current consensus to use the common name where appropriate. wctaiwan (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Articles that deal exclusively with the actions of the government of Taiwan should use "Republic of China". Readin (talk) 18:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. We have the main article, correctly and perfectly acurately, at Taiwan. If this article was "Censorship by the government of the Republic of China", the argument about actions of the government might have some weight (although I'd still argue it's not a technical enough reference to suggest an exemption). But it is of the form " Censorship in ...", which clearly refers to the geopolitical space. That is, Taiwan, as rest of the world other than one or two hold-out WP editors know it. N-HH talk/edits 20:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • What happens when someone does a little extra research and includes information about censorship by the Republic of China prior to 1945? Will the name "Censorship in Taiwan" still make sense? Readin (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it would actually - that material would simply be background to where we are now, just as the main "Taiwan" article has information about ROC history, including when it was not even limited to Taiwan. We generally name articles about things that reach into the present day by contemporary references and don't automatically have to revert to an archaic or technical name at the the first whiff of any history. Also, as noted below, if there was significantly distinct material about censorship during mainland rule that could warrant an entirely separate article, under the ROC name with dates/"History" or whatever added. N-HH talk/edits 07:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I see valid reasons for renaming this article, but the rationale given by CMD and wctaiwan above are insufficient and misguided. Wikipedia articles are not meant to be static. Just because this article does not currently cover "Censorship in the Republic of China" in sufficient detail does not mean it never should and never will. Give me a few hours, and I can produce enough text to make this article overwhelmingly be about "Censorship in the Republic of China" as it existed before 1949. It certainly existed in a significant manner. The question you want to discuss is whether you want one article, or two, on this topic - whether censorship before and after 1949 are sufficiently unrelated for these to be separate stand alone articles, and what you would name the "other" article once this article is renamed.--Jiang (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

My opinion is that the situation in the modern ROC is different enough from the pre-1949 ROC such that given the way the article is structured (i.e. breaking down by aspects of current censorship and not chronologically), extensive coverage of censorship in pre-1949 ROC should really be broken into a separate article. Should the article be refactored to be organised by chronology (and there's a case to be made for that), with sufficiently comprehensive description of each time period, I would probably be fine with the current title. wctaiwan (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, rereading the article, I think it isn't so much the organisation that is the issue, but rather the lack of detail in the pre-democratisation parts. As it is, I still think the move should happen, but if someone is up to the task of expanding the pre-democratisation sections, I'm okay with that too. Striking my "vote". wctaiwan (talk) 01:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My rationale was based off current content. As for future articles, I think a split would be valid, as the post-1949 situation with martial law and sometimes draconian rule of the KMT on Taiwan was no doubt very different from the issues that would've affected censorship before then, which were probably maintaining control and giving the image of maintaining control over the huge mainland. CMD (talk) 06:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong move, People's Republic of China, Republic of China, and Taiwan are THREE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. The difference between the pre-1949 and current country are radically different, and this article is about Taiwan, not a historic country that no longer exists. Ego White Tray (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  • The article discusses censorship by a government that still exists - the Republic of China. Although the government ruled different places, it was the same government making and enforcing the censorship rules. Readin (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support A short amount of content that deals with actions in mainland China shouldn't dissuade us from matching the parent article. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support per the country article's name and WP:COMMONNAME. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Censorship in Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619040057/http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/CompAdminLaw/Yeh_CompAdLaw_paper.pdf to http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/CompAdminLaw/Yeh_CompAdLaw_paper.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)