Talk:Taiwan (island)

please use section headers

That 98 % of the Taiwanese population are ethnic Han Chinese is correct. Out of 100% population in Taiwan, only 2% are aborigines who stayed for a few thousand years. Roughly 60% are Hoklo people, which may mean 河洛人(people claiming their ancestry from Yellow River region) or 福佬人 (Fujianese). In either meaning, they are Han people and most are 300 year immigrants, not a long time compared with the stay of aborigines. 25% are Hakka people (客家人, literally meaning guests) who emigrated in the past ~200 years from the border of Fujian and Canton. The newest bunch are the 15% who emigrated to Taiwan ~60 years ago, including an ROC army of six hundred thousand. The term Mainlanders for this group has a diminutive connotation. It would serve all people down there better if the term was to be avoided. What's more, if we call these people Mainlanders, what should we call those who came from China to Taiwan in the past few years?

Han people is a mishmash as a result of thousands of years of mixing. I am not sure if Han can be justified as a race or an ethnic group. - Cooterhu (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree that "Han" is an acceptable description of the ancestry and major culture (the culture is a mixture of Han and other influences, but primarily Han) of the majority of Taiwanese. The statement that "mainlander" is diminutive is believable, but what is being proposed as an alternative term for "mainlander"? The majority of Taiwanese whose families have been in Taiwan for hundreds as opposed to thousands of years is a clearly different group from the people who either themselves or their parents or grandparents came from China with Chiang Kai-shek (or even more recently). Readin (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The current grouping, where "mainlander", "Hoklo" and "Hakka" are grouped under Han Chinese misses the importance of the Hoklo-Hakka common identity as "native Taiwanese" as opposed to the mainlander identity as "Chinese". Readin (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What shall we call these third-wave immigrants who moved to Taiwan 60 years ago? This is indeed a proper question but I have no ready answer. The name should be either what they call themselves or what is agreeable to them. Perhaps time will settle an answer. 'Mainlander' seems so alienating.

While we are at it, let me relate this. One time, anyone who fled to Taiwan after 1949 was called 義胞(righteous comrade) by the ROC authority when it was still a one-party regime. No doubt the term is a highly political one. Newcomers to Taiwan since 1949 are sporadic and have not seemed to form a cultural group yet, most of whom I am aware of are celebrities or at least a high caste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooterhu (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So where's the source for these figures? I need something to whip out when Taiwanese friends BAWWW about Taiwan not being anything like China.  Esper  ^rant  03:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Awesome. The Hoklo ARE Chinese. This opens up a whole new realm of trollability.  Esper  ^rant  03:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Christianity?

On the Taiwanese Aborigines page, it states that roughly 70% of Taiwanese Aborigines are Christian while on this page it says over 64% are. Which one should be changed? Eugeniu B (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

• It's quite likely that the two are quoting different sources. Why don't you do some research...? Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
• OK I just looked. Both quotes are from Stainton. The one on this page is the older one (2004), and says over 64%; the newer one (2006) says about 70%. I don't think Stainton provides sources for these figures, but I'd bet they're from government statistics somewhere. Ling.Nut ^(WP:3IAR) 02:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, this article lists LDS (Mormons) as a subdivision of Christianity, along with Protestants and Catholics. This is a gross miscalculation, as Mormonism is clearly a separate religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.66.224 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

PRC claimed that it was the successor of Qing

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)

You're right. I've modified sentence to say that PRC succeeded ROC. Readin (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Proposal for new Taiwanese Wikipedia

Please leave comments at [1].

122.109.171.138 (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

southern min includers fujian, which aint part of taiwan..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.72.153 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Mistake to be fixed please:

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) 

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)

The New Taiwan Dollar is legal tender throughout the Taiwan Area of the Republic of China.--pyl (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

"Mainlanders" unclear

Since Taiwan is oommonly used to refer to Taiwan island and other islands ruled by the same government, the term "Mainlander" can be very unclear to an English speaker unfamiliar with Taiwan's history of colonization. The logical assumption is that "mainland" refers to mainland Taiwan, as opposed the Pescadores, Orchid Island, Turtle Island, etc.. The point made by Pyl that "mainland Chinese" can be confused with people who came from China at times other than the 1949 wave may be valid, and if so we need to somehow clarify what is meant by "Mainlanders". Any suggestions? Perhaps a parenthetic note saying "from mainland China"? Readin (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

In Chinese, they are called the "Extraprovincial people (外省人)". They really aren't called "mainlanders (大陸人)" anyway. "Mainlander" is a term that the Taiwanese currently use to describe the people in mainland China. "Chinese (中國人)" is also used, but it is used much less frequently because there are people in Taiwan who identify themselves as Chinese as well. "Mainland Chinese (中國大陸人)" is not a common term in Taiwan, and when it is used it means the people who are currently in mainland China.

There is no such thing as mainland Taiwan. Such an assumption is an obvious erroneous assumption, and this possibility can be discounted as being marginal. Taiwan is an island. There is nothing "mainland" about it. If people want to make a distinction in Taiwan, they say "Taiwan the main island (台灣本島)".

I don't think we need to over-analyse this issue. Since these people are commonly known in English as "mainlanders", we should just leave it. Readers who want to find out more about it can click on the link for further information (there is a full article about it). Otherwise I think we should do a direct translation and do "Extraprovincial people" to reflect the real usage in Taiwan.--pyl (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I think "Extraprovincial people" should be used instead of Mainlander, may be in Australia, but using Mainlanders in English referring to "Extraprovincial people" in Taiwan is very uncommon here in Canada, also not in where I lived in the States and UK as far as I know. I don't think there is going to be a statistics made on this, but if you talk to anyone who does not have a sufficient knowledge of Taiwan, they would not have guessed the right meaning by your definition. Even among the Chinese community here. When speaking English, we definitely don't use Mainlanders this word along to refer to any one currently lives in Taiwan. This word is very inaccurate here. I think this reason along should be enough to make it changed to "Extraprovincial people". Chadsnook (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

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)

Communist Chinese News as authority

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)

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)

redirecting "China" to the "PRC"

There is a discussion going on here.--pyl (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Foreign government offices in Taiwan

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)

Island or group of islands

I have very little knowledge about this, but the article seems to contradict itself: Taiwan [...] is an island in East Asia and later: The main island of Taiwan, also known as Formosa [...], is located in East Asia off the coast of mainland China.... So Taiwan is not one island but a group of islands, with one main island much bigger than the others? Lerichard (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This is indeed an issue. "Taiwan" is an island, but "Taiwan" also a country in the sense of a region of multiple islands with common history and to a lesser extent common culture. It is also a "province" that covers an area containing multiple islands. It is also the common name for a nation formally called "Republic of China".

In its most common usage, "Taiwan" refers to the nation. However, due to political considerations (see Political status of Taiwan) it is impossible to get agreement to have the "Taiwan" article talk about the nation. Readin (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

IMHO political considerations / nationalism should not interfere with the content of the encyclopaedia. If, in its most common usage, "Taiwan" refers to the nation, the "Taiwan" article should be about the country, not the island. But I guess you already have discussed about this for years and are fed up about the controversy? :) Lerichard (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. :) Readin (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Add Hebrew Link

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

Need POJ

Need POJ reading at Sean Lien. Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Need POJ

Also need POJ for 鸭母哒仔 and 鴨母笛 at Guan (instrument). Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

culture and separation

Since the Taiwan localization movement of the 1990s, Taiwan's cultural identity has been allowed greater expression. Identity politics, along with the over one hundred years of political separation from mainland China has led to distinct traditions in many areas, including cuisine, opera, and music.

Since 1895, Taiwan has been ruled separately from China for 108 of 113 years. Please do not change "over one hundred" to "fifty" as the latter is less accurate and less useful in explaining the cultural differences. Readin (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I earlier changed on the page Taiwan, in the culture section, "over one hundred years of political separation from mainland China has led to distinct traditions in many areas" to fifty years. I realize I made a mistake there. I thought the original sentence said separation from China, so that would be from 1895 to 1945, which is fifty years. If it's separation from mainland China, then it is over 100 years. Sorry about that. Chadsnook (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

EXPLAIN TO ME Y MAINLANDERS ARE AN ETHNIC GROUP...

Please...Gumuhua (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

They are a ethnic group consisting of people from China. This ethnic group is more heterogenous than most, but it is an ethnic group. You are right that it is more than that. It is also a group defined by actions taken in the past. This is not unlike the "hispanic" ethnic group in the United States that is neither a single culture or a single race, but is defined as much by culture and race as it is by immigration from areas to the south of the United States. Readin (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say the term "mainlander" is as much a socio-political distinction as an ethnic group. Yes, they are a group consisting of people from China, but not a single ethnic group. It is true the majority are Han Chinese, however, there are also people from other ethnic groups, including Mongolian, Manchurian, Hui etc... Check the definition of ethnic group. Since these Han Chinese, Mongolian, Manchurian and a lot of other people from mainland do not identify with each other on a presumed or real common heritage and do not share a common culture, they cannot be called an ethnic group.

It is also very different from the 'Hispanic and Latino' ethnicity issue in the US, categorizing 'Hispanic and Latino Americans' is a much more complicated method and is not a equivalent of categorizing Mainlanders. Check Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, You definitely do not categorizing immigrants from one area as an ethnic group. For example, you do not categorize "White Americans" as an ethnic group, even though their ancestors are all immigrants from Europe. Same thing goes for Asian Americans and Black Americans whose ancestors all come from Asia and Africa respectively. In the US Census, people who originate from the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent are classified as part of the Asian race. But you can not call them an ethnic group of Asians. They are of Asian race made up of different ethnic groups of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Malaysian, Tibetan, Mongolian, Indian, Pakistan, etc...

As you can see here, ethnic groups are included in different race groups. Since Hispanics are a mix of different groups of culture and race, 'Hispanic and Latino' are the main terms employed to categorize any person, of any racial or ETHNIC background, who is of Hispanic American or Spanish origin or descent. That is why The Federal government of the United States has mandated that "in data collection and presentation, federal agencies are required to use a minimum of two ethnicities: "Hispanic or Latino" and "Not Hispanic or Latino."" Then within both groups, you are identified as White, Black, Asian, American Native, etc... Within each of these groups, you are then identified as individual ethnic groups of English, Scottish, German, French, Russian, Chinese,Hmong, Asian Indians, Thais, Greek, etc... You see, Race is on top of ethnic groups who are of the same culture, and "Hispanic and Latino" or "Not Hispanic or Latino" is on top of Race and include all races with a Hispanic heritage, these races then further more includes all ethnic groups with a Hispanic heritage. There is a difference of inclusiveness and exclusiveness between the relationship of Hispanic with other American ethnic groups and Mainlanders with other Taiwanese ethnic groups. That is where I think you got confused. Whatever ethnic groups you can find in non-Hispanic group, it's possible to find it in the Hispanic group, even though the number might be small. eg. Non-Hispanic Japanese American vs Hispanic Japanese American, Non-Hispanic Native Americans vs Hispanic Native Americans. A Caiapó from Brazil moved to the US would be considered a Hispanic Native American. But she is also a Native American. She would be considered an ethnic of Native American of Hispanic heritage. In this case, Hispanic and any other ethnic groups within the USA are not equivalent and not exclusive. This is irrelevant in the case of Taiwan by your definition of ethnic Mainlanders, ethnic groups you can find within non-Mainlanders can be impossible to find in the Mainlander groups. eg. Taiwanese aborigines can be found among non-Mainlanders, but most, if not all can not be found among Mainlanders. A person can not be a mainlander and an Taiwanese aborigines at the same time, of course unless she or he is mixed of both.

To make it simple, you can be a Hispanic (immigrant from Latin America of any ethnic background) and at the same time be an ethnic of any other ethnic groups in the US. However, by your definition, you can be an ethnic of Mainlander (immigrant from Mainland of any ethnic background), but you can NOT be some ethnic groups in Taiwan (Taiwanese aborigines). This shows that using the method to define "Hispanic and Latinos" as an ethnic group as equivalent of defining Mainlanders as an ethnic group is insufficient, because there are fundamental differences.

I definitely agree to include Mainlanders as a distinguish group of people in the Demographic of Taiwan, But your statement of The term "mainlander" is AS MUCH a socio-political distinction AS an ethnic group is incorrect, and the citation you provided is only your own claim, not a reference to support your claim. Chadsnook (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello there: what I adde reads: the term "mainlander" is not an ethnic group per se (it is more a socio-political distinction): it includes the people that migrated to Taiwan after the KMT relocated its government to the island in 1949.

I don't consider mailanders an ethnic group at all, it is a socio-political distinction: hui chinese were among those who fled the mainland to Taiwan, and if u go to Nangang, u can see some of their tombs, with scripts in both chinese and arabic. "but not a single ethnic group", of course not, thats y I dennny that mainlanders form "an ethnic group"...

I dont understand y we should classify some kejia mainlanders under the "mainlanders" label, and not into the kejia (hakka) ethnic group... Please explain to me y those kejiaren should be labelled as mainlanders, when their mother tongue is kewen, not mandarin. Please, explain to me y those fujianese who fled the mainland in 1949 (their mother tonge is not mandarin either) should be labelled as mainlanders, and not fujianese (they speak minnan, the mother tongue of most of the residents of taiwan)...

Yes: a "mainlander" can be both mainlander and fujianese, or mainlander and kejiaren (hakka), or mainlander and hui. Kejiaren and Hui are ethnic groups, mainlanders are not.

Gumuhua (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who added "extraprovincial people", but thats the literal translation from the chinese text (waisheng ren) Gumuhua (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you were responding to my comments. I have the same understanding with you on this issue, that, Mainlander are not an ethnic group, it is a socio-political distinction. I was arguing against the previous editing that "mainlander" is as much a socio-political distinction as an ethnic group. In terms of classifying Hakka and Fujianese who fled to Taiwan around 1949, I think they should be considered both mainlander and Hakka and mainlander and Fujianese respectively. If you were referring to my comment, However, by your definition, you can be an ethnic of Mainlander (immigrant from Mainland of any ethnic background), but you can NOT be some ethnic groups in Taiwan (Taiwanese aborigines)., I think I should add "of the" after some, so it should be some of the ethnic groups in Taiwan (Taiwanese aborigines). This was just meant to point out it is wrong to conclude classifying mainlanders as an ethnic group is NOT unlike Hispanics in the US (check above). The Uncritical ethnic labeling of Hispanic means you can be a Hispanic and at the same time be of any ethnic group in the US. That is why classifying mainlander as an ethnic group is unlike Hispanic in the US. Because you can not be a mainlander and at the same time be a member of some of the ethic groups in Taiwan (eg. you can not be a mainlander and Taiwanese aborigines at the same time (of course, unless you are mixed). Chadsnook (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed mainlander in the ethnic group to "extraprovincial people", but did not change it in the demographic of Taiwan. If you were talking about where I changed it, I listed my reasons in the "mainlander" unclear session on this page. Chadsnook (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lol Chadsnook, I read ur long and explanatory answer, and I did understand it, obviously, we both agree... what I wrote was kinda the grounds for the change, and y mainlanders are not an ethnic group... Glad to know we both agree..

U did the change to waisheng ren? Good. Cya Gumuhua (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have access to this?

Journal East Asia Publisher Springer Netherlands ISSN 1096-6838 (Print) 1874-6284 (Online) Issue Volume 24, Number 3 / September, 2007 Category Original Article DOI 10.1007/s12140-007-9022-z Pages 269-294 SpringerLink Date Thursday, October 04, 2007

https://commerce.metapress.com/content/d817251735u7w101/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.html&sid=gb1zrvrdtpt0pi45afevfw45&sh=www.springerlink.com

According to Google search,

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Taiwanese+%22view+of+Japan%22+than+%22other+Asian%22+suffer&start=10&sa=N&fp=S3dUhtJA77k

the above article contains "...but unlike in other Asian countries, a significant cross-section of Taiwanese. people hold a positive view of Japan and the Japanese." but the actual article is behind a login so I haven't been able to verify. This would provide the cite for recently deleted text. (despite the deleter's statement about his personal circle of aquaintances, the truth of the statement is well known by many others based on their experiences, but if he's going to make a case of it we need a source).

Anyone have access to a copy to check it out? Readin (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

this is totally irrelevant to the article about the island of taiwan..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.160.168 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Only Europeans hunt deer to extintion?

Reading this otherwise interesting article, I stumble upon one (more) racist comment against Europeans.

Is it relevant in any sense to include the following in the "European settlement" section?

"The Dutch colonists also started to hunt the native Formosan Sika deer (Cervus nippon taioanus) that inhabited Taiwan, contributing to the eventual extinction of the subspecies on the island"

Is this such an important issue in the history of the island?

Moreover: Did the native people not hunt and eventually lead to the extintion of other animal species? What about the next to arrive, the Chinese? Did (do and will) Chinese people not "contribute" to the extintion of any native animal, vegetal and whatever species of the Formosa island and elsewhere?

If they do, why isn't it included in the respective section, in as relevant a place as the one in the main article for the European Settlement section?

Also, the fact that the actual article on the Dutch rule consists basically of a list of massacres against the aboriginal people, while this is almost completely a non-issue in the following articles (Chinese invasion and colonization). How many Dutch or generally speaking European people are today in Taiwan as a result of the "colonization"? And how many han people are there? How does this affect to the aboriginal population? Who did actually "contribute" more to the almost complete destruction of the native peoples and cultures of Taiwan?

I call all this racial profiling against Europeans and a total bias in favour of Han supremacism.

Out of politeness and respect for those who contribute regularly, since I'm not logged in, I will not change the contents myself, for now. I'm confident that my argument will be enough to convice the people responsible for the regular maintenance of the article to do it themselves.

Thank you,

Aisin Gioro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.217 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Natives did hunt animals, but not as wide scale as Europeans do. You have to know that Natives don't hunt animals for sport like Europeans do, and their "success rate" is not as much either. The Europeans are wasteful compared to Natives. As for the Chinese, they didn't arrive in large populations until AFTER the Dutch left. And destruction of native peoples, apparently the Dutch had done a lot of that compared to the Chinese. The Chinese didn't "force" the natives to "change their ways" like the Dutch had done. It wasn't until the Qing dynasty did the Han population exploded, and the prosperity and "clashes" eventually forced the Natives into the mountains, but they retained their cultures. The Dutch wanted to "christianise" everyone on Taiwan, no matter where they are. The Chinese brought changes like irrigation, cultivation, agriculture, etc, but they didn't try to "change" the Native's culture. It wasn't until the Japanese took control did they try to "educate the barbarians into the civilised way". Later in 1945 when Taiwan was given to the ROC, the KMT didn't try to "destroy culture" either, the cultural just shrank as the natives begin moving into the cities to work. There are still Formosan villages in existence, but that's like real inland in the mountains. Most of the people have left for the more urban and developed areas.

There's a reason why Taiwan was only known as a colony when it was under the Japanese and Dutch control, and a simple one too. The Chinese didn't try to "force a change" upon the Natives like the Japanese and Dutch did. If you want to ask who "destroyed" more culture, I'd say the Japanese and Dutch. The Chinese didn't do anything, the Natives just left their own culture and tribes for the more developed areas. Liu Tao (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the first page of the article reference, it makes no mention of Europeans being the ultimate cause of the deer's extinction. Unless the rest of the reference clearly lays the blame on Europeans per se, the statement should be reworded pursuant to the policy on verifiability. Ngchen (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that this type of statements (deer extinction etc) really need some good reference. It seems a bit out of place. Indeed Dutch tried to spread Christianity to aboriginal, but under Chinese, a lot of the aboriginal also got sinolized. And it sounds like both Fujian and Dutch "colonize" Taiwan one way or the other. They are both "uninvited" guests. And just to put a sort of balance in this...some aboriginal people actually like Christianity and the Dutch better than the Chinese. But I am sure you can find examples showing some aboriginals like Chinese better, I don't know. But I think it's just better to consider them both colonizers. Another thing I find is the material in the Dutch colony era seems to be quite lacking compare to other sections...perhaps more material shown in this section is possible?? (Twchang2005 (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Emotional paragraph on POW camps in Taiwan

Taiwan played a significant part in the system of Japanese prisoner of war camps that extended across South-East Asia between 1942 and 1945.' Allied POW's, as well as 'women and children as young as seven or eight years old,' were brutally enslaved at various locations like at the copper mine northwest of Keelung, sadistically supervised by Japanese and some Taiwanese. It was found that, while the Japanese were invariably proud to give their name and rank, Taiwanese soldiers and 'hanchos' invariably concealed their names … some Taiwanese citizens … were willing participants in war crimes of various degrees of infamy … young males were to an extent highly nipponized; in fact a good proportion in the 1930s are reported to have been actively hoping for a Japanese victory in China, so they can find jobs as pro-consuls and carpet-baggers in the new Empire. One of the most tragic events of the whole Pacific war took place in Kaohsiung. This was the bombing of the prison ship Enoura Maru in Kaohsiung harbour on January 9, 1945.'

I pulled the above paragraph out of the article due to its obvious emotional language and subjective statements. However, rather than dump it completely, I thought should leave it here in case anyone wants to clean it up. It does contain some truths - there was at least one POW camp in Taiwan where the Allied prisoners were mistreated. Readin (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

PRC claim that Taiwan has been part of China for hundreds of years.

The PRC claim that Taiwan "has been a part of China for hundreds of years" is indeed a POV claim. First, because there is the question of when or if Taiwan really ever became "part of" China, or whether it was simply a possession or colony. And if it did become "part of China", when that occurred. Second, was it part of China for the past 110 years? What about the 50 years while it was part of Japan? What about the 60 years it has been independent of PRC China - was it part of China or was the KMT a government exiled from China? Readin (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Qing Dynasty ruled Taiwan from 1683 to 1895. Whether how effective Qing administrated Taiwan is up to debate, but no matter it was a possession or colony or same as other provinces, it was part of Qing, there's no doubt about that. No one dispute Taiwan was a colony of Japan for the 50 years before the end of WWII. In terms of the 60 years of ROC in Taiwan, I know you disagree with the govt of ROC being a legitimate govt over Taiwan. But the govt ruling Taiwan during this period is called the Republic of China. The original input "PRC claims Taiwan has been a part of China" easily implies "Taiwan was a part of China" is only a claim by China, the other possibility is that "Taiwan was never a part of China". This clearly would confuse a lot of people. I would be ok as long as we can clear this confusion. --Chadsnook (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Parts of Taiwan were undoubtedly ruled in part by the Qing for many years. But as you note about the 50 years of rule by Japan, "ruled by" does not equal "part of" in everyone's eyes. You're quotes about China claiming Taiwan was part of China are incomplete. The quote was not "Taiwan was a part of China", the quote was "Taiwan was a part of China..." with the "..." being "for hundreds of years".

I'm not sure how relevant it is, but since you bring it up, I don't say that the ROC is not a legitimate govt of Taiwan. Through elections it has gained legitimacy. But it is no longer a government of China. Rather, it is the government of Taiwan. The name "Republic of China" no longer fits the government but instead is a misnomer left over from history much like the "United States of America" as the "states" are really just provinces now as they have lost their sovereignty. Readin (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I know the quote was not "Taiwan was a part of China", I was just questioning the original quote "PRC claims Taiwan has been a part of China" gives the impression that it's possible that "Taiwan was never a part of China" or "ruled by China", which is contradict with the fact that Taiwan was "part of"/"ruled by" Qing, also "part of"/"ruled by" the ROC. I understand your disagreement about any of the govts of China's governing in Taiwan being illegitimate in the past. But the original quote was confusion to me and I believe it also mislead many other people. Do you like the "Taiwan had been a part of China for hundreds of years until Japanese took it over in 1895, it is currently under the administration of the Republic of China since 1945." or do you have another expression in mind? --Chadsnook (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article straying from main subject

Is it just me or am I finding that the article is talking more and more about Taiwan as a political entity then a geographical island? The article is talking about Taiwan as an island, not as a province/country or whatever. The article talks about Taiwan as a Province and sometimes as post 1949 ROC itself as well. Liu Tao (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How was the last edit vandalism? As far as I can see, it's talking about what it's supposed to be talking about. This article is talking about the island, not the province, not the ROC, not the PRC, nothing political, just the island. Liu Tao (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The "straying" as you call it results from the attempt limit the scope of the article to a definition of "Taiwan" that is not common usage. While there is an island Taiwan, most usages of the name "Taiwan" do not refer solely to the island. They refer to the area (country) having a shared history of rule by the ROC, Japanese, Qing, Koxinga, Dutch, etc.. This area now constitutes nearly all of the ROC, so "Taiwan" is also used as the common name for the ROC just as "France" is used as the common name for the French Republic, even though that republic rules more than just "France".

For political reasons, there are many who would push to say Taiwan is just an island or at best a province and nothing else. However that disagrees with nearly all usages of the term. Do a google image search on "Taiwan map" and you'll find very few maps that show just the main island. Nearly all show the Pescadores. Some show Kinmen and Matsu.

Unless we are going to adopt the hardline position of Chinese Nationalism, we have accept Taiwan for what it is and what references call it (we did a source stack on the China page about a year ago and found that more references than not listed Taiwan with other "countries").

If I look at a travel book on "Taiwan", I'll read about Lanyu, Orchid Island and the Pescadores because in English usage, they are considered part of Taiwan, even though not part of the main island "Taiwan". Whether or not we actually use the word "country" or instead try to use a term like "region", we still need to be honest enough to recognize that people looking for information on "Taiwan" are usually not looking for information restricted to a single island. Readin (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, this article is SPECIFICALLY talking about the island Taiwan. It even says it in italics at the top of the article, "This article talks about the island Taiwan". This article is talking about the island. Pescadores and the Orchid Island are not part of the island, they're part of the province and in the region. There's a separate article for the Province, and another article for the "Taiwan Area". This article is specifically talking about the island, a geographical feature and entity. We don't talk about the ROC politics, we don't talk about Taiwan independence, we don't talk about anything that is not directly related to the history, culture, people, and other stuff of Taiwan. As the Taiwan Island is not a political entity, it should not talk about governments imposed upon it. Liu Tao (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

It even says it in italics at the top of the article And that is the problem. The article should not be talking specifically about the island, because "Taiwan" is rarely used to refer specifically to one island. We need to fix the line in italics. Readin (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is talking about the island not Taiwan. There are separate articles for what "Taiwan" can mean. I've said this multiple times, there are other articles which talk about the other meanings of "Taiwan". There's the one for the province, the one for the area, and even one for the "claimed" province of the PRC. There's also this thing called "disambiguation" at Taiwan_(disambiguation). It doesn't matter if it's rarely used or not, it's how it is. The term "Taiwan" can refer to multiple things, and this article talks about Taiwan as the island. There's a reason why there's so many "Taiwan" articles, cause you need to separate what you're talking about, the island, the province, the proposed state, etc. etc. Liu Tao (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

So where is the article that talks about the country, the culture, the society, the community, etc.? Where is the article that talks about the common history of rule portugese, Qing, Japanese and ROC? Why does this article talk about so much more than just the rocks and dirt? Readin (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no country. If you're talking about the proposed state, see Republic of Taiwan. If you're talking about the culture, it's in this article like it is, or it's supposed to be. The Community is also in this article, but remember, this article only talks within the confinements of the Taiwan island. It's supposed to be about the island, not about a political entity. A political entity is different from a geographical feature, I'm sure you know that. We're DISAMBIGULATING the DIFFERENT USES of "Taiwan", not splitting it into multiple articles about culture, history, and all that other stuff. This article talks about the ISLAND and the things that have to do with it. Taiwan Island is NOT the same as Taiwan Province, Republic of Taiwan, Republic of China, ect ect. Obviously the history, cultures, and other stuff would be a bit different, but still overlap. But what I'm saying that Taiwan in the article is being described incorrectly. Taiwan is being described as the ROC or the Province or the Area etc etc. Liu Tao (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the disambiguation hatnote, there are indeed different uses of "Taiwan". This article here is about one of them (note, I'm not taking a position on what "one" means or what meaning(s) should be discussed here). All meanings and phrases involving the word "Taiwan" can be found on the Taiwan (disambiguation) page--that's the whole point of such pages. Therefore the hatnote need only point readers to the DAB page and from there they can find whatever other meaning they might want. I don't think we need to highlight Taiwan Province as a special particular other meaning among the DAB possibilities, so

Template:Two other uses

rather than

Template:Three other uses

is sufficient. DMacks (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Why not highlight that 3rd use? As far as I know, the most common uses of "Taiwan" is used for the ROC, the Province, and Island. In official use, "Taiwan" is the name of the island and Province. There's is no such thing as "State of Taiwan" legally speaking. The reason why people call the ROC Taiwan is because of the Pressure from the PRC saying that there is only One China plus the fact that the administration of the ROC is currently limited to almost but not entirely the Taiwan Province (The ROC also controls parts of the Fujian Province as well as some territorial islands). If you're going to highlight a non-"official" view or usage of a term, then why won't you highlight those that are of "official" usage? Liu Tao (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, my point is that I don't think we should highlight any use. We simply document "go to the DAB page if the meaning here isn't what you meant when you typed 'Taiwain'". The only reason to list any other hatnote links at all is if one doesn't know that an article with the word "Taiwan" isn't what one really wants at all. The explicit and only point of hatnotes and disambiguation is to help readers find what they want if it's easy to accidentally get to the wrong page by searching. It's not about promoting any agenda or party line, merely to help people who have different backgrounds and may or may not be informed about the correct meanings, nuances, or biases associated with any particular term. Write for the readers please. Historically and probably in some areas still (for better or worse), ROC was/is known as Taiwan. So it's not obvious that if that is the meaning you had in mind, you should go to the ROC page: ROC isn't listed on the Taiwan DAB page. So hmm...maybe ROC should be listed on the Taiwan DAB page because it is a possible meaning of "Taiwan", and then the only other-uses we need here is the DAB link. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I never said anything about promoting agenda or anything, I asked why would you would only state 2 of the hat notes but refuse to have the 3rd. Anyways, I am not trying to promote any particular agenda. As I've told you, the term "Taiwan" serves 3 main uses, it can either be used to referring the ROC, the Taiwan Province, or the Island. Those are the 3 most common usage. You think that when people say Taiwan, they're talking almost certainly about the ROC, that's when you'll be wrong. I have personally seen people who are trying to look up the Taiwan Province, but come to the island and thinks that's what they're looking for. By deleting out the stuff that is not referring to the island, like the stuff about the province and the ROC like it's supposed to be, you can REDUCE the amount of confusion and mistakes like that. People would start reading the article and see that this isn't what they're looking for, scroll up, and look at the DAB page. There are people who never uses the term "Taiwan" to refer to the ROC, there are those who never even know "Taiwan" is used to refer as the ROC. I didn't know Taiwan and ROC are used synonimously until I was in like 3rd grade or 4th grade. There are people who have been brought up being differing between Taiwan and the ROC. Maybe you should open your eyes more and write for the readers. Not every single reader is like you or your peers. I ADDED an additional hatnote, you DELETED the hatnote, meaning you're limiting the possible scope of the field of the usage of "Taiwan".

Also, Wikipedia is a source for people to research and get to know new stuff. I learn stuff from Wiki all the time, and some of the times it's because of the hatnotes used to lessen mistakes. If you want to teach readers something, you should be teaching them what's "legally true", not something that's mainstream. That's how rumours and misconceptions spread. It's also partly why your English teacher teaches you Proper English, not slang. Sure, people speaks incorrectly all the time, but does that mean that you should as well? Do you know how hard it is for a lot of people to talk to each other simply because the terms they use are different in meanings? There are people who just talk and talk without thinking the correct meaning of the words they use. There are also people who makes sure the terms they're using are correct, in this case it would be the usage of "Taiwan" and "ROC". Imagine that you're talking to someone about the "Leader of Taiwan", but you're talking about Taiwan as the ROC, but the other guy's talking about Taiwan as the Province. You're over there talking about the National President, and he's over there talking about the Provincial Governor. Even worse, what if you were taking a test or something? The teacher's testing you on the "Capital of Taiwan", the answer she's looking for is Jhongsing Village but you put down Taipei because you think she's talking about the ROC, not the Province.

BTW, the ROC is listed on the Taiwan DAB page, check it again. Liu Tao (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes. So in that case, given that we have no way to know which of the eight distinct and independently-notable meanings of "Taiwan" a reader might want if he comes here, I think a single "go to DAB page if the page here isn't right" is the only even-handed solution. You're exactly right, we should be teaching people what's correct, and communication is confusing without being clear about what a term means. And that's exactly why a DAB page exists: to present a list of similar terms, each defined and with a link to the properly-named pages. But we don't know here what the reader even wants (which meaning of something properly called "Taiwan", or something only improperly called that). All we know is that there are lots of similar possible things one might call "Taiwan" and this page here is about one in particular. Which comes back to sending everyone else to the DAB page to see a list of all meanings from which they can choose what they actually mean and quickly get to the correct name and the page specifically about it. If people speak incorrectly, we should correct them, but we have to start from what they're saying and let that guide them to the correct term (whatever that might be, which we don't know and shouldn't assume). DMacks (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, you got that about right. There are not really any "neutral" way to doing the hatnotes, but if I understand it correctly, hatnotes should be used for the most popular and widely used ways the term is used for. For me, the main ones would be the island, province, and ROC. Until we have another report from another person that one of the other definitions is also widely used (widely used as in comparable with the previous hatnotes), we can still keep the current hatnotes the same as it currently is. If the amount of hatnotes becomes too much (3 is not a lot, believe me, I've seen hatnotes that are like 5 lines long in text), then we can just get rid of the hatnotes altogether and just leave a DAB page. Liu Tao (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

If I'm looking for information about society, culture, shared history, etc. (in other words, a country), why would like look at an article about geographical feature? Especially when that particular feature is limited and doesn't include all the relevant places? So if I come to this article, and I read the hat note, I'll think, "oh, this is about the island - I'm interested in the country" and I'll look elsewhere. But it's not the ROC government I'm interested in. Nor is it a particular administrative division. So where should I look? Taiwan island, Turtle Island, the Pescadores, etc. all have a very similar history and as a result many commonalities in culture, society, etc.. They form a country. This is no POV regarding whether Taiwan is part of China. It is possible for a country to exist within a larger country. So where do I go to find information on this country? Readin (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Because the island has a population and the population has a culture, society, and history. Also, could you not use the term "country". A country only denotes territory, there is no set definition of "Country". It could be a piece of rock out there waiting to declare independence. I can say that Penghu, Taipei, and Keelung are countries, and that'll still be technically correct. That's why in Political Science you talk about states and not worry about countries.

An island has culture, history, society, etc. It's not just about the geographical features of the island. It's the same with a province and a state. But what needs to happen is that you are able to differentiate between the state (ROC), province/proposed state (Taiwan Province/Republic), and island (Taiwan Island-current article). There's an article for the state Republic of China, an article for the proposed state Republic of Taiwan, an article for the Taiwan Province, an article (the article in question) Taiwan Island, and even more articles at Taiwan (disambiguation), go knock yourself out. This article is about the island, and that includes the people on the island, the history of the island, the societies of the people on the island, etc etc. I'm not gonna argue about POV and stuff, it'll just get ugly and controversial. And as I've said, there's no "country". Countries denote territory, and usually is spoken in a political aspect, meaning if you want to talk about country, it would be the Taiwan Province. There's your country, Taiwan Province. Want to develop? Develop on that. Liu Tao (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Page protected

Page sysop protected due to recent content dispute. Tan | 39 16:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

biases

I've tried to reach a balance between some of the edit warriors. Before changing, please discuss here. I'll start by explaining why I've rejected certain wording:

"process of localization in which local, Taiwanese regional culture and history was promoted"

To see why this is biased, consider an alternative "process of localization in which Taiwanese national culture and history was promoted". Trying to emphasize a belief that Taiwan is merely a "local" part of a larger whole, or a mere region within a larger whole, is POV. There are certainly instances where the terms may apply to Taiwan, but in this case they are unnecessary and POVish. Readin (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"of the Taiwanese dialect "

Whether Taiwanese is a dialect or a language is much disputed. No need to say either here. Readin (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Lee's adminstration was also plagued with allegations of pro-Japanese sentiments, an issue which polarized much of Taiwanese society."

Needs a reliable source. Readin (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Japanese culture from the colonial period"

Calling the Japanese a colonial period and not calling the Chinese rules colonial is bias POV. Both were non-native rules fitting the definition of "colonial". Readin (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"all historical facets of Chinese culture which were dilluted considerably during the fifty years of Japanese occupation"

needs citation. Also calling the Japanese rule an "occupation" suggests, so I've been told by those who object to calling the ROC an "occupation", illegitimacy. It is therefor POV. Readin (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"has led to distinct regional cultural traits in many areas, including cuisine and music. "

Again the use of "regional" is unnecessary and appears to be a POV push. Readin (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"It is disputed whether Taiwanese culture is a regional form of Chinese culture, or if it is truly distinct."

In this case "regional" is acceptable as it is presenting a particular POV as a POV. However the "truly" is unnecessary and appears to be an attempt to make the other side look extreme in its POV. Readin (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying celebrating Chinese New year is a "colonial" practice? Blueshirts (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging with ROC or Taiwan Province (of the ROC)

Everything in this Taiwan article can fit into sections of the Taiwan Province article and the ROC article. Much of the information is actually repeated in said articles. The alliance (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, we can't merge the 2, the 2 are entirely different things. This article is about the island, the ROC is the State, and The Province is the Province. You're talking about putting a province, island, and state all on the same article. The ROC doesn't just include the island and the province, and the province doesn't include all of the island, nor does it include only the island. Liu Tao (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should combine three articles into one. I am saying that everything in the Taiwan article (except the History before 1945) overlaps with the sections and information about the ROC in those respective categories. The History of Taiwan before 1945 can go in the Taiwan Province article. I don't understand what you mean by "the province doesn't include all of the island, nor does it include only the island" The alliance (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This would be the same as merging South Carolina into the United States article. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand your analogy. Please explain. The alliance (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

ROC is the Country, Taiwan is the Province. South Carolina is the State, United States is the Country. As for that quote, it means exactly what it says. Apparently you don't know that there's an island called "Taiwan" just like the Province is. Liu Tao (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need to be rude. Second, it is a faulty analogy, because SC is a small part of the USA while the island of Taiwan comprises almost 100% of the ROC's jurisdiction; therefore the two are inextricably related. Third, the Taiwan article includes much more information than just the geographical aspects of the island, including culture, history, government, etc., all of which can easily be combined with the two articles in question. The alliance (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The only major place where Taiwan is used to mean STRICTLY ONLY the main island of Taiwan is on Wikipedia. This artificial usage was created specifically to keep people from merging the ROC and Taiwan articles. Now people use it as evidence as if it were really the way Taiwan is defined. Pretty ridiculous and circular.--61.224.52.87 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, the Taiwan (Island) article includes way too much of the political and the other irrelevant information, which is what I've been trying to get fixed for the past month, but apparently they stopped replying to my rebuttals and requests. Tried to change it myself, but it just gets changed back. Apparently people can't tell the difference between the island, province, and state. Liu Tao (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, the Taiwan (Island) article includes way too much... That is why there has been so much back and forth about the title of this article. An article about "Taiwan" should not be limited to the rock and dirt under people's feet, and to make it solely about the "island" is too limiting. But the proposed solution, to tie Taiwan to a provincial article, is a blatant attempt at POV pushing. Why not tie it instead to the "Taiwan Area" Why not make it about any or all the Taiwans that have existed in various forms - as an area, a colony of China, a province of China, a nation in its own right as the ROC, a colony of Japan etc.. Readin (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Taiwan has been part of the ROC for only a small portion of its history. Similarly, the ROC has controlled Taiwan for only about 2/3 of its history. Unlike, for example, the French Republic where the location has always been limited to France, Taiwan and ROC have very different histories and are very different concepts. Also, the province is problematic as to why it should be preferred over the "Taiwan Area". Readin (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean when you say that ROC has only controlled Taiwan for a small portion of its history. However, does that mean that we need to have separate articles for things like California before and after it became a state of the United States? The same applies to Taiwan, in my opinion. Just because it has only been under ROC rule since 1945 doesn't mean that we cannot include the history of Taiwan island in the Taiwan Province article. The alliance (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's exactly what Alta California is. It has specific information about that era's territorial aspects. There are also separate history pages for different (approximately) centuries. DMacks (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Completely different things. Valerian456 ^{Hush, Rush} 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Having a rational discussion here on the talk-page is the right way to resolve this issue and decide about the merger. Any user trying to establish "facts on the ground" or change the status quo of any of the related articles prior to consensus here will be blocked immediately for disruptive editing. DMacks (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Were we to have a single article for ROC and Taiwan, making it a state/country articles similar to France (French Republic) and Spain (Kingdom of Spain), naming conventions would dictate that we call it by the common name, "Taiwan" and that would draw a lot of protest and edit warring from people wanting to change it to "Republic of China". It's is disruptive enough when article content is frequently changed. Frequent changes to article title would be a greater problem. Readin (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Better to keep the different articles than try to put everything into one which will lead to major edit wars. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - These articles are over two completely topics. The RoC is the political entity that occupies the island, while the Taiwan article is over the island itself. It would be similar to us trying to merge North America into the United States/Canada article, because those nations are on it. Doesnt work. Thanks, Ono (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Definitely not. Taiwan is the common name which should continue to be used for the RoC as it is today. However, the RoC was the government of mainland China for several years. Republic of China is just as much about that entity that controlled the mainland as it is about the one that controls Taiwan today. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose One is a geographic region and the other is about a government. It is best to keep the two separate, than to create confusion. Citybug (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Agree The separation of Taiwan and the Republic of China is confusing to most readers who normally identify the two as one single entity. The Times, Le Monde, El Mundo, The China Post and plenty of well respected newspapers use Taiwan and the ROC interchangeably, and I think that Wikipedia should reflect this consensus. Likewise, major encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Universalis have only one article for Taiwan and the Republic of China. Finally, the threat of an edit war shouldn't be a criteria for splitting articles that way, because it would open the door to all sorts of abuse and innacuracies on Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

  Comment: The main arguments that keep coming back against the merge kind of make sense, however they are not in my opinion incompatible with a merge:

1) "Taiwan and the ROC are two different things" - but so is "France" and "French Republic", "Germany" and the "Federal Republic of Germany", etc. Yet they both have a single article for both the geographical location and the political entity. We can definitely do the same for Taiwan, and eventually end up with a much clearer article.

2) "Don't do it because that would trigger an edit war" - not a valid reason, as there are ways to deal with edit wars. The main one obviously is to reach a consensus, which can be done by properly integrating all the POV into the article.

3) "The ROC has not always been located in Taiwan." - agree, and this is definitely something that we'd need to document, perhaps by creating a separate "History of the ROC" article? The French governement was not in France either during World War II, yet nobody would split the France article in two for that reason.

Eventually, I think it all boils down to the fact that Taiwan is not officially a country. However we don't need to describe it as such - we can do as the Encylopaedia Britannica did and call it a "self governing island", which I think cannot be denied. Even China would accept it since being "self governing" doesn't make Taiwan independent and is not incompatible with the One China policy. Again, there is a nearly international consensus that Taiwan and the ROC are interchangeable, yet this consensus is not reflected on Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• oppose,be a chinese,Taiwan(island) is not ROC(contry),it is a diffence conception. --Time mades Hero (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Merging Taiwan, Taiwan Province, Taiwan Area, etc.

We have a smattering of articles about Taiwan. Most are very short, and most would cover the same material this article does were it not for the fact that this article already exists with the information. They should be combined into one article simply called "Taiwan". We can cover the various political set-ups within that one article. It will also allow the article to cover, to varying degrees, the other smaller islands that English speakers mean to include when they say "Taiwan". Readin (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I don't think I agree. This seems directly analogous to the situation with Great Britain, the United Kingdom, the British Isles and any of the constituent countries on the island (eg England). I agree that some of the articles leave a lot to be desired and there is too much overlap, but I think all of the articles should exist. I think this article should focus on the geography and natural history of the island, while the others (namely the ROC article) should deal with the politics and human history. TastyCakes (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Were the ROC article to be the article that deals with the human history of Taiwan et al., then it would carry the implication that Taiwan's human history began with the ROC, which is complete nonsense. If an article about the ROC is to deal with human history, it should be the human history of the ROC - which would only include Taiwan starting in 1945 and before that be only about mainland China (with the info about mainland China ending in 1949). It would be a very strange history to complete change subject matter in the period between 1945 and 1949. And the human history of Taiwan would be incomplete were it to leave out everything before 1945. Readin (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

...but I think all of the articles should exist... The main Taiwan article would summarize each subject Taiwan Province, Taiwan Area, etc. while Wikipedia:Summary style would be used to provide more detail as needed, giving each its own article. Readin (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Readin, merging all the Taiwan-related articles into one would be the same as merging all the Italy-related articles (excluding the Italy article itself) into the Italy article. Valerian456 ^{Hush, Rush} 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying the Taiwan (island) article would not have any human history, only that it is much more "high level" than the history section pertaining the ROC. This seems to be how the British Isles article is written. In any case, I note that Madagascar and other island nations don't have different articles for the island and the country, so maybe your suggestion isn't that out of keeping with the rest of Wikipedia. The ROC issue makes it complicated, however, due to it once being so much bigger... TastyCakes (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right about the ROC complicating things. And it's more than just the ROC having once been much bigger. The ROC and Taiwan were separate for the first 30 years of the ROC's existence. The ROC was founded in 1911. It gained control of Taiwan from following WWII in 1945. A mere 5 years later it lost control of mainland China (all of it's prior territory except a few tiny islands). In a sense, the ROC moved from one place to another. Only Kinmen and Matsu were held by the ROC both before 1945 and after 1950. So unlike most other states where the state's existence has been tied to a core region, the ROC has not had a core region that it has held for most of its existence. Readin (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what was separate, I just know these three things. ROC is a state. Taiwan Province is a Province of the ROC. Taiwan Island is an Island. It doesn't matter if it "moved" from one place to another or not, I just know this. That is not the point. This article is a geographical article, it's about a geographical region, an Island called Taiwan. ROC is a political entity, and so is the Taiwan Province. The ROC is made up of Taiwan (Both Province and Island), Kinmen, Lienchang, and some other small islands. The Province is made up of the whole of the Taiwan Island minus Taipei and Khaosiung. The Island is the Island. What is it about these 3 entities that you are not able to differentiate between?! Liu Tao (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

You stated your POV quite well. You forgot about the Taiwan Area. You also forgot about the body of people who share a common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.

Suppose we talk about the culture of "Taiwan". Is it the culture of a province? Odd that Kaoshiung and Taipei are not included. Shall we talk about the island - are the Pescadores really so different? Perhaps we should talk about the culture of the state. Odd the way that the culture of Taiwan suddenly shifted so radically between 1945 and 1949 so that it wasn't even the same people or located in the same place anymore. Shall we use the "Taiwan Area"? How do Kinmen and Matsu fit in? Attempting to choose only one interpretation presents a problem. That's why I think we should have a single "Taiwan" article that talks about the island, the province, the nation, the state, the area, etc. while providing links to each of those articles if more detail is needed. Readin (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There's an article for the Area, and I think it's written and explains itself quite well. Well, when you talk of cultures, you're talking about the people, so culture would typically go for the island, but it can be the same for the province as well, they'll overlap, there's no question. If it's odd that Kaoshiung and Taipei are not included, then don't do write culture for the Province, do so for the Island. I personally think Culture can be done for both. If you don't want to do 2 copies of culture for both articles, you can link the culture section of one to the other or something. And Pescadores, how are they not different? You act like you've never been there before. I'm telling you, we cannot combine these articles, they ARE NOT THE SAME THING. How the hell are you gonna list the territory, location, area, population, government, capital, flag, ect. if they're NOT THE SAME. Obviously, the territory of the ROC is not the same as the Taiwan Province. The territory of the Taiwan Province does not include all of the Taiwan Island. As said before, try to combine the British Isles and Great Britain into one article. Try combining the Republic of Ireland and the Ireland Island into one article, IT DOES NOT WORK. If the cultures of the different regions are different, then you describe each of the separate cultures in detail of the respective cultures/areas. You are from Taiwan, you know as well as me that Taiwan itself has multiple cultures. There's the Hokkien, Hoklo, and the 16 Taiwanese Native Ethnics. Each of them has their own culture and language, how would you describe all of their cultures as a whole then? You can't, which is why for broader articles like the state articles, when they describe the culture, they describe the culture as a whole, or they describe what is of commonly found in ALL of the cultures. Liu Tao (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the status quo (ROC has an article, the island has an article, the ROC province has an article (with content, as there is some political history), plus there is an essentially empty article about the PRC nonprovince) is fine, and merging won't help much. Ireland is a similarly complicated topic, where the history of the island and the history of the country usually called with the same name are also not identical. Plus, it is good that several articles (each describing something slightly different) cover much of the same material. After all, they are supposed to stand alone and make sense even without access to the rest of Wikipedia. Kusma (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of the people here that the separate articles should remain. However, should this article be the default "Taiwan" article? I think when most people say Taiwan they are really talking about it as a country, not an island. The ROC article, then, would seem to be what most people are looking for when they search for "Taiwan". Perhaps there is a case to be made for making "Taiwan" redirect to a disambiguation page so people can say if they're choosing between the geographical entity or the country. Or maybe we could redirect Taiwan to ROC and put this article under Taiwan (island) or something. TastyCakes (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the naming conventions of using the common name, it would make more sense to redirect ROC to "Taiwan" than to redirect "Taiwan" to ROC. We have articles on "France", "Spain" and "Vietnam", not articles on "French Republic", "Kingdom of Spain" and "Socialist Republic of Vietnam". Readin (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but I suspect the ROC has kept its full name in the article title to distinguish it from the PRC (whose article retains its full name. TastyCakes (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we just keep things the way the should be? The default article would be the Island, not the ROC, not the Province. Search up Ireland, their default article is the Island, not the Irish Republic, not Northern Ireland. If we keep the default article as the island, we can keep it politically neutral as well. This article would be a geographical article, with no political grounds or anything. Or, if we still have disagreements on this, then we can make the disambigulating page the default page like Britain is. Then there would be NO grounds for disagreements and arguments at all. I personally like this idea the best, because we can make fix this article back to the island article it should be without fights about what is "Taiwan". We can rename the disambigulation page as "Taiwan" and this article as "Taiwan (Island)" or something. Liu Tao (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That's true for Ireland, but I think it might be a different situation since all island nations that take up the entire island that I can think of have the country as the default page. For example Iceland, Madagascar, Cyprus etc. If there were two countries on Taiwan (the island), I would agree with you entirely...

A disambiguation page is certainly a good option though. TastyCakes (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The island option does fit well with Ireland. One thing the Ireland page does is cover more than just the main island, at least by judging from the map. It includes a lot of smaller islands that by proximity and by common history belong to the same country (not in the political sense but in the cultural and historical sense). One of my objections to having the "Taiwan" article cover the "island" is that it is too limiting. But if, like with Ireland, we are able to agree to adopt a broader definition that includes more than just the main island, then it works. A disambiguation page would be a problem, I think. Most people looking for Taiwan want the big picture. Asking them to choose among various technical definitions would be confusing, especially for people who need the article most - those who don't know much about Taiwan. Readin (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

But a disambigulating page as the main page would just show you the way to what you're looking for. I mean, unless you're trying to look up "What is Taiwan", you should know pretty well what you're looking for, the state, island, province, area, whatever. Even if that's what you're looking for, the disambigulating page would be like a dictionary, showing you the different "definitions" of Taiwan and you just pick which one you want. If you don't know which one you want, read all of them, if you're doing research, you should have the time to read them all, if you don't want to read all of them, then you're just plain lazy. If you get confused, then that means you need to reread the definitions. And what is it that you mean by "big picture", as I've said, you can't say what people are or are not looking for. There is no "broader" definition of Taiwan. Taiwan has only so many definitions. It can be referring to the Island, the ROC, the Province(s), proposed state, etc. etc. If you write an article, it has to be one of these unless another "definition" occurs or something, you can't just "combine" them together, it doesn't work that way. You have to define what you're writing about. There is no "broader definition", the Island has already been defined as the Island. Throw in the surrounding Islands and you have what's known as the Taiwan_Area. Look, here's a direct quote from the wikimanual: "Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is." We can't make definitions, there are already set definitions of what "Taiwan" is and can refer to. The main article should either be the Island article like the Ireland article or the disambigulating page modified into a "main" page like the Britain article. As I've said, either way can help prevent "unfairness" to people with different political POVs, those who say Taiwan is a state (ROC) and those who say Taiwan is a Province (either of ROC or PRC). We make the main page a geographical Island, there's nothing they can complain about. There's no politics pertaining to what the name of an Island is called, an Island has a name and that's what the name is. If we modify the disambigulation page to become the main page, same thing, they can't complain about a list of possible definitions telling them what the term could mean or refer to. I don't even see how you can get confused looking at a list like that. If you originally thought Taiwan was only "one thing" and you wiki it and find the main page as the disambigulation page and you suddenly become all shocked at what you see, then good, you learned something new, which is the multiple meanings and references "Taiwan" can mean. Liu Tao (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

We have long had a Taiwan (disambiguation) page, which does seem to have a good dictionary-list of the different meanings and the proper name of each one's page. I agree that we should try primarily to help readers learn and to find what they want even if their search is not perfect or they are not using the "proper" terminology. Making that the page called Taiwan would be a big help for many, at the one-click expense of those who only know and/or primarily care about the one meaning presently here. They would immediately see all the varied meanings and decide what sounds close to what topic they wanted (and along the way learn its more proper name and what other topics there are to read later, etc.). It's especially important since we do have lots of inter-related pages to avoid channeling readers to what we think they mean. As a bonus, making Taiwan the disambig page would solve the hatnote edit-war, because the page would already be properly and specifically titled, no otheruses. DMacks (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So, what will we do? Everytime we have a discussion, it ends abruptly, and when someone tries to change something in accordance with what was last said, it gets changed back. Will we still make the DAB page the main page or are we keeping the Island as the main page? I'm fine with either, since this article has to be fixed to have all of the non-island revelant information taken out of. Liu Tao (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Do you know Chinese?Please read some Chinese article.You'll understand they are diffence.--Time mades Hero (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Flawed democracy

It says in the article that Taiwan has evolved into a "flawed democracy" and then links to the Democracy Index, a ranking released by the Economist. While I'm a fan of the Economist, I don't think this little known term specific to their study should be applied to the article, especially without explanation. I think the article should say "a democracy with such and such issues". Any other thoughts? TastyCakes (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included at all, it's inrrelative to the article. As already noted, this article needs to be cleaned up, it's got stuff in it that's not supposed to be. This article should be about the Island, the statement you noted should be in the ROC article, not this one. Liu Tao (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Saying it's a democracy would be more than enough, especially for the intro. Blueshirts (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

"Extraprovincial people"

Do not use terms that you invented. Google search of the term all points to wikiforks, as shown here Blueshirts (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not invented, it's an actual word. It means not of the province, which is what 外省人(waishengren) means. Also, it's been used LONG before I came to wiki, so it wasn't me. Mainlander means someone from Mainland (大陸人 daluren), it has a different meaning then extraprovincial. Liu Tao (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to use a foreign term, we should use the foreign term. Otherwise use the English term. "extraprovincial people" is never used in English. "mainlander" is the English term. If you want to use another language, then use it: say "waishengren". Blueshirts is correct that "extraprovincial people" is invented. It is true that it was invented by translating a Chinese word, but it is invented nonetheless. Readin (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's never used by YOU, you mean to say. You have no right to say what terms are used by others and what are not, unless that is you've talked to every single english speaker in the world and know how they talk. "Extraprovincial people" is not an invented term, it's used elsewhere as well, just not as popular due to the preferation of "mainlander". A Mainlander and an Extraprovincial person has slightly different meanings, you yourself live(d) in Taiwan, you know that 大陸人 and 外省人 are different. People from Hong Kong and Macau are NEVER called 大陸人, they're either called 香港人， 澳門人 respectively， or just 外省人 in general. 大陸人 means someone from Mainland, 外省人 means someone from outside the province. If you say 外省人 in another province other then Taiwan, like Hubei it'll mean someone from another province/area/jurisdiction like Guangdong, Beijing, and Jiangsu. Liu Tao (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an invented term in ENGLISH!!! The google search I provided should be very clear. Please don't make YOUR OWN translations. If you're really bothered by the term "mainlander", you can use "waishenren", because this term has been used extensively before. Blueshirts (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not an invented term. Look it up in the dictionary. Here, I'll look it up for you:

http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=extraprovincial&search=search

happy now? And we can't use "waishengren", we're suppose to translate it, that's what the manual says, if we do use it, we have to put it in italics everytime we do, which is a pain. "Extraprovincial" is a widely used term, just not for you cause you never use nor heard people use it because they say mainlander instead. Who do you think you are saying a term is "invented"? All words are "invented" by definition, it's just what is used and what is not. As I've said, "Extraprovincial" and "Mainlander" mean different things, just as 外省人 and 大陸人 have different meanings. Liu Tao (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you're confusing the issue here. You can't go to a dictionary, look up a translation, and put it here. If nobody refers 外省人 as "extraprovincial people" in ENGLISH, then YOU are not allowed to make that term here. Blueshirts (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there are, it just isn't used as much because people use "mainlander" more. Also, that's how a language works, you put together words to combine their meanings. Extraprovincial means from outside the province, here, we're talking about people from outside the province, so we're using the term. "Extraprovincial" is an adjective, "people" is a noun. "Extraprovincial people" means "people from outside the province". I mean, if "Extraprovincial people" isn't the term to describe people from outside the province, then what's the term that describes a person from outside the province?

BTW, take a look at this article:

http://wapedia.mobi/en/Taiwan?t=4.

and see if they use the term "Extraprovincial" or not. Liu Tao (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This article is a direct copy of this article, so it's a wikipedia "fork" and not an independent source. Come on, you can do better than this. I changed mainlander to "waishenren", which is a commonly used term in ENGLISH, and end this discussion. To illustrate, you can't call 陳水扁 "Chen Water Flat", just because that's what comes out when you put it into a translator. You have to use the exact word used commonly in English, and not make a translation by yourself, even though the meaning is correct. Blueshirts (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Waishengren" is Chinese, "Extraprovincial People" is English, wikimanual states to use English unless it's a common term used in the English language, if you can't find the term (which in this case is impossible). Anyways, "Waishengren" is almost never used in English, if you say "Extra-provincial people", English speakers know what it means, provided that they learned their English, but even if they don't know what it means, they can look it up. You won't find "Waishengren" in the dictionaries. Liu Tao (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm done trying to reason with you. You still have not grasped the idea that you are not supposed to make up your own translations, because that's original research. There is not a single independent source that uses the word "extraproinvical people." Plenty others use "mainlanders" or "waishengren". The CIA world factbook uses "mainlander Chinese" even. You revert again, I'm going to treat it as plain vandalism and revert it. Blueshirts (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's called translating the term, there is nothing wrong with it. We're supposed to WRITE IN ENGLISH, and even if "waishengren" is widely used in the English world, it can't be found in the dictionary unlike "extra-provincial" which can, if not, it can still be pieced together by finding the definition of the prefix, "extra" and the word "provincial". That example you gave about Chen, that's different, you're talking about a proper noun as well as a personal name, waishengren is neither. Liu Tao (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside thoughts

Folks, please try to maintain calm in this issue- which is clearly a troublesome one. Here are my thoughts on the subject:

• Can we find a published document which offers a translation of 外省人? News media, research document... anything.
• Is the term 外省人 contentious or controversial? If so, we need to source a translation to maintain a neutral point of view.
• Despite what Blueshirts asserts, translations do not necessarily need to be sourced. For example, it's a quite common matter to use non-English material for sourcing an article- while English source material is always preferred, it's permissible. Translations of common terms, if this is one, work the same way.
• Would using the phrasing "14% Mainlanders, or waishengren (Chinese: 外省人; pinyin: wàishěngrén; lit. 'Extra-provincial people')" satisfy all parties?

I cannot stress enough, however, that continued edit warring over something like this will not resolve anything and only result in administrative action. Please try to resolve this issue civilly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We can, but usually it turns out to be "mainlanders" due to the almost synonymous use of 外省人(extra-provincial people) and 大陸人(mainlanders) in Taiwan. When searching for sources to back us up usually they are used in forums and stuff, but virtually never in news articles because of the use of "mainlanders". We have already agreed that the two terms have different meanings, not only that, but that they also both have different indications of who they refer to. We seem to have already agreed to put both mainlanders and waishengren on it, but the question is if we should put it up as "Mainlanders and Waishengren" or "Mainlanders and Extra-Provincial People". Liu Tao (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sources using either the word "mainlander" or waishengren: The CIA world factbook link I provided above uses the term "mainland Chinese." An article using the transliteration waishengren. 21 academic articles from JSTOR also using waishengren.

Sources using the made-up word "extraprovincial people": 1 article from JSTOR using very general keywords of "extraprovincial" and "taiwan", but the only result is about bivalve fauna. And there are no independent sources using the term "extraprovincial people," other than exact copies of this wikipeida article.

When there are commonly used terms describing the subject, I don't think we should make up our own translations even though their meaning is correct. There is also a mainlander article, explaining exactly what a mainlander is and isn't, so don't try to cloud the issue as a content dispute, when the current dispute is purely on original research. The searches speak for themselves. Blueshirts (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Make up our own translations? That's commonly known as translation. All of your sources are English sources, they are not directly translated from Chinese articles. I've already pointed out to you, "Mainlander" and "Extra-provincial people" have different meanings, even the mainlander article says so, if you had read all of it that is. If you're really gonna stress this, then what about people who originally came from Hong Kong and Macau? There's a bunch in Taiwan, they're not considered mainlanders. What about them? Liu Tao (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, never mind about this anymore, after doing some further reading, I've decided to side with you and use the term "waishengren" instead of "Extra-provincial people", thought it is going to have some problems with confusions and other stuff. But remember, as "waisheng ren" is not an adopted term in the English language, everytime you use the term, you must remember to put them in italics as said the manuals of Wikipedia. Liu Tao (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With respect, it isn't "making up" a translation- "extra-provincial people" is a pretty straightforward literal translation, if you consider the individual words' meanings. Now, I don't suggest that translation should be used as the main term for that percentage; I think using it in the template I showed above is the right thing to do, and then wikilinking waishengren, and possibly using it in conjunction with mainlander, depending on what the source says. As Blueshirts points out, we have an article to explain the intricacies of "mainlander", so we should simply wikilink to that while maintaining the simplest presentation we can here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the term to waishengren. Both the link and the fine print describe this group pretty well. Blueshirts (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We got another problem with the definition of "waishengren", we have different definitions, we got to set it right first before doing anything else. Liu Tao (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Waishengren and daluren are different. The English word mainlander when referring to Taiwan most likely refers to waishengren. The population percentage given includes only waishengren, so it is redundant to list "mainlander and waishengren," when the English word mainlander has two meanings that is clearly stated in its article. There is no ambiguity on what a waishengren is and isn't. This is a very simple issue. Blueshirts (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The article also states that both "waishengren" and "mainlander" have different meanings as well and both are used. The article states who "waishengren" are usually referring to, but not what they are, there's a difference, and a big difference in this case. Waishengren in Taiwan usually refers to mainlanders who came over post Civil War, but it's actually more correctly as those who are not of the province/jurisdiction.

And how do you know the population percentage only gives the percentage of "waishengren"? It was originally labeled as "Extra-provincial and mainlander", and it doesn't mean that when we change "extra-provincial" to "waishengren" that the meaning changes as well. The percentage stays the same regardless.

Also, when you revert things, please only revert parts you want to revert, not everything from the past 10 edits. Liu Tao (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Complete BS. You do not know what you're talking about. Either that, or you have a poor grasp of English comprehension. Simply put, "mainlander" is an English word, that can describe two different things: Waishengren and Daluren. When used in the context of Taiwanese demographics, it almost always refers to Waishengren, because waishenren are numerous and influential, and their presence historic, while the number of daluren is small and recent, especially when the census was taken. I have provided so many links above, and you have provided none, and you're making an argument here? And what does "The article states who "waishengren" are usually referring to, but not what they are" mean? I don't like wasting time with people who don't know what they're talking about. Quit vandalizing the article. Blueshirts (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I know exactly what I'm talking about; and vandalising the article?! If I'm correct, you've just broke protocals and made the 4th undo, not me, and I have requested for you to stop revising the other stuff besides the issue in question which apparently you failed to do again. You speak Mandarin, tell me, what does "Waishengren" and "Daluren" mean in Chinese? Do their meanings match exactly who they are usually referring to when used in Taiwan? And how do you even know when the census was taken? It's not even cited! A census is taken every year by multiple people/organisations, we don't know when this was taken, and who took it. Also, based on what you've said about what "mainlander" means, then that means we should just only use the term "mainlander" then, as it includes both waishengren and daluren. BTW, the wiki-article has a different definition about what a mainlander is. Liu Tao (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, it's entirely possible to discuss this without the insults. And as neither of you has ceased edit warring, I have requested that the admin who reviewed my AN3 post on Blueshirts look into this matter again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Madaliv's suggestion Would using the phrasing "14% Mainlanders, or waishengren (traditional Chinese: 外省人; pinyin: wàishěngrén; literally "Extra-provincial people")" satisfy all parties? and his question Is the term 外省人 contentious or controversial?:

The suggestion isn't satisfactory, exactly, but it is probably as good as we can get. Yes, the term 外省人 is contentions and controversial to some people, though it is commonly used probably even by those same people. There is no term that will satisfy all parties because all the terms are based on assumptions about Taiwan's status in relation to the source of the people the term is meant to describe - China.

Of the three terms, "Mainlander" is the best choice if we are bound to use English simply because it is the most commonly used English term. The argument that "Mainlander" could describe more recent immigrants from China also applies to "extra-provincial people" as immigrants from China are also "extra-provincial" (if you buy into that nonsense about Taiwan being a province of China).

"Extra-provincial" is not common at all in English. It is acceptable to provide it as the literal translation of waishengren once, but it should not be the term used throughout the article.

Waishengren is workable as well. Most English speakers don't use it, but if we are to avoid using all English terms with potentially confusing implications and applications, then we'll have to use a Chinese term with potentially confusing implications and applications. The benefit to this choice is that most English readers will be forced to learn the word rather than simply assuming (perhaps mistakenly) that they already know what it means. Readin (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

One more comment, in case Mendaliv is still acting as moderator, regarding his statement Is the term 外省人 contentious or controversial? If so, we need to source a translation to maintain a neutral point of view.

The accuracy of the literal translation is not the issue. The translation is a literal translation, and a correct literal translation. It might also be translated "outside province human" or "foreign province person", but "extra-provincial people" is also literal. The problem is that the translation is both awkward and and not used, and there is already a term that is used. If I may draw a parallel, it is a bit like deciding "China" won't work and instead using the literal translation of jungguo - "central country". Or deciding that "Japanese" won't work so instead we'll use a literal translation of nipponjin "solar-origin people". Readin (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I'm not moderating this in any official capacity- I just stepped in as a result of a request for editor assistance to help resolve this dispute. That aside, thanks for your very informative replies! I wasn't aware that 外省人 itself was contentious- I had thought that 大陸人 would be more contentious, but that shows all I know about Taiwan's sociopolitical situation. Going with your thought, I still think the best we can do in this article is to use the phrasing "14% Mainlanders or waishengren (Chinese: 外省人; pinyin: wàishěngrén; lit. 'Extra-provincial people')". This way, we aren't saying that mainlander = waishengren, but we are referring to the fact that the term is used interchangeably to refer to that statistic. I'm loath to just say "mainlanders" on that point simply because of the unclear terminology used in the source material. What would be best however is to find out what the source says- the CIA factbook is a tertiary source anyway. How does that sound? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that 外省人 itself was contentious. It's contentiousness is very low. I don't know how it compares to 大陸人. Both are problematic to a subset of TI advocates because their literal meanings imply Taiwan is part of China. But I believe (based on what I've heard) that many or even most TI supporters continue to use the term as it became habitual during the 40 years of Chinese Nationalist (KMT) rule during which supporting TI was forbidden. Readin (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox ROC vs TWN

The infobox incorrectly says that the "country" is "Republic of China". However, the ROC is a state, not a country. The country would more properly be "Taiwan". I'm leaving it for now because saying "Taiwan is in Taiwan" is a bit redundant. A better solution would be to handle it the way the Taipei article does, and correctly label the ROC as the "state".

Does anyone know how to modify the template:infobox island template to have it accept either a state or a country (or perhaps even both)? I'm not much good at wiki programming. Readin (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh my god, what kind of statement is that? The ROC is a state AND country. All states are countries, but not all countries are states. In the world of political science, people don't deal with country, they deal with a state, because the definition of a state is set. On the other hand, a country can be anything, it can be a piece of rock out there waiting to declare independence for I know. Theoretically speaking, I can say Taipei is a country as well, it is just waiting to declare independence. The same is with Khaosiung, Kinmen, Guangdong, Guangxi, and anything out there that occupies a piece of territory. Country denotes territory, does the ROC have territory, yep it does. This is how it is in the world of Political Science, that's why Political Scientists never use the term "country", they use the term "state". In the common English language, there is no distinction between a country, state, and nation. I have no idea what how wikipedia is supposed to be written anymore, especially the political articles. Should they be written as if it would in the Political Science World? Or should it be written to comprehend with the common English speaking folks? Liu Tao (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Country denotes territory, does the ROC have territory, yep it does. The ROC's territory has changed dramatically over time. This is an unusual situation in world affairs. The ROC used to be in mainland Asia. Now it is some islands off the coast. People tend to equate a state with a territory because the connection between the two lasts as long as the state does. The French Republic has always occupied the same territory, perhaps growing or shrinking but never picking up and moving. The same is true of most states. The ROC is an odd exception. Thus it makes more sense to describe the ROC as a state not a country.

In common English there is indeed a distinction between country, state, and nation, but it is usually glossed over and the words often misused due to the fact that in most well-known case, the nation and the country are both within a single state and that state encompasses one nation and one country, or at least that is the perception. For example, consider Japan: Nearly all Japanese people live in the country Japan. Nearly all people in the country are ethnically Japanese. The country is governed by the state Japan, and the state Japan governs very little outside of the country Japan. So distinguishing between the three serves little purpose. However the ROC is a very different case, and the distinctions make sense.

Rather than try to argue that the correct country name "Taiwan" be used because I know how batty that drives the Chinese imperialists, I believe it makes more sense to properly designate the state as what it is, a state, because everyone can agree that the ROC is a state and that the ROC governs Taiwan.

...that's why Political Scientists never use the term "country", they use the term "state". I'm suggesting we do the same. Readin (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

People equate a country with territory, not a state with territory. State has territory, government, and population. A country has only territory. So you're saying The United States is not a Country then? What did the US start out with? 13 colonies on the eastern shore of North America. How much land does it occupy now? It is the 4th largest state in the world. Are you saying that Great Britain isn't a country either? There was a time when they controlled 1/4th of the world's population, what are they now? Only a few islands off the coast of Europe. What is a state? What is a country? Name the definitions and tell me if the ROC does not fit both. Sure, Taiwan is a country if you say it's a country, but then I can also say that Beijing is a country, Taipei is a country, Kinmen is a country, Fujian is a country, Hong Kong is a country, Guangdong is a country, I can even say that my backyard is a country. There is no "set" definition of a "country". A country is a piece of territory defined by some sort of political boundaries. Hell I can even say Asia is a country. Liu Tao (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Liu, your favorite reference, encyclopedia.com, says the ROC and Taiwan are equivalent and writes their article at the topic name "Taiwan". Why don't we follow your sources? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think taking that position would conflict with the ROC constitution. I think you are being a bit of a smart arse when you made the "favourite reference" comment, and I don't think it is necessary. Although I didn't participate in the discussions re Nanjing as capital this time, from what I gathered, I think Liu Tao was saying encyclopedia.com didn't conflict with any of your sources saying Taipei is the capital of the ROC: it simply just expanded the information by adding that Nanjing is considered as the official capital, while Taipei is considered to be the provisional capital.--pyl (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

And it's not right to say, Taiwan is the ROC. In some views Taiwan is just the province of the ROC, still Taiwan is an island, as well. And those terms also have to be divided by international law, when you have a look at Political Status of Taiwan, where it's also written, that's not sure, to where Taiwan (island) belongs. PRC, ROC, America (military government) or only to itself.

As there are problems about the acceptance of ROC, as well as there a problems about Taiwans sovereignty and the ROC does not exist in the form, as it is writtin in its consitution, I would prefer to write TWN until there is an international solution to those questions. 快樂龍 17:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not about international law, it's about who/what currently governs the Island. Whomever has jurisdiction over Taiwan has the ultimate say in what exactly Taiwan is. Currently Taiwan is not self governed, it is governed by the ROC, therefore the specification of what Taiwan is is based on their administration, and currently, it is one of 2 things, a Province or an island. And also take note that the Province does not include all of the Island, nor is the entire Province confined to the Island. Until Taiwan reaches independence or the name of the State changes, TWN should not be written as it's not the name. Liu Tao (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)