Talk:Taiwan (island)/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Taiwan (island). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Taiwanese Nation (Edits to Intro and Disambiguation)

I changed "geographical and cultural aspects" of Taiwan to nation as this is the concise term that correctly means just that. This article is basically about Taiwanese identity (given the recent vote) and citing from nation:

"A nation is a community of people who live together in an area (or, more broadly, of their descendants who may now be dispersed); and who regard themselves, or are regarded by others, as sharing some common identity, to which certain norms and behavior are usually attributed. The nationals (born of the "nation" in this sense) are distinguished from the rest by common descent, common language, and/or common institutions."

This is apolitical in contrast with state, which is:

"nation (ethnos) denominates a people in contrast to country which denominates a territory, whereas state expresses a legitimised administrative institution."

For the charge that some of the minority waishengren (mainlanders) in Taiwan feel they are more Chinese than Taiwanese, that just means that they identify with Chinese identity rather than Taiwanese identity, not that the Taiwanese identity doesn't exist.--160.39.195.88 15:39, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The notion that Taiwan is a "nation" is POV. Chinese nationalists claim that the cultural distinction between Taiwan and the mainland is not enough to justify being a "nation". For example, who calls Shanghairen a "nation"? Even Hakkas arent called that. The term "nationality" 族 is reserved for ethnic groups such as the Uighurs or Mongolians. There is no such thing as 臺灣族, or I've certainly never heard of it, even from independence supporters. As long as some people are disputing it, the term cannot be used. --Ji ang 20:22, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You did not read carefully. It is NOT the same as ethnic group. It is explicit in the article that it is not an ethnic group. Please reread the article or don't bother participating in the discussion. And why is MarkSweep not discussing when he is the one reverting. Nation is not directly about politics, although of course, in this case and many other cases, nations often want to have their own states.--160.39.195.88 02:35, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was patently clear that "Taiwanese nation" is rather strongly POV -- clearly a step in the wrong direction compared to what we had previously. I used a detailed edit summary explaining that, and only later discovered, to my relief, that the same objections had already been raised on this talk page. I don't think your arguments here address the core of the issue, namely that "Taiwanese nation" is an unusual term that can and will be misread, no matter what you intended it to mean. Why not keep it simple and say explicitly what this article is about, namely a geography and/or cultural unit, without calling it names? --MarkSweep 03:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From now on, I want to see hard evidence. You guys always make it sound like there's all these people with so and so opinions out there, but I want to see them written down and expressed. I want to hear YOUR opinions. I want to see CITATIONS. No more bullshit.

Taiwanese nation references

Explain the following papers and what they're talking about if they're not talking about a Taiwanese nation: http://www.cefc.com.hk/uk/pc/articles/art_ligne.php?num_art_ligne=2306 http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2005w10/msg00106.htm

What the hell does it mean for Hou Hsiao-Hsien to make Taiwanese films? http://pages.emerson.edu/organizations/fas/latent_image/issues/2003-07/printed_version/hou.htm

How about this paper showing the pan-blue position of one country two systems terms of unification as already assuming the existence of Taiwanese nation even if the legitimacy of the state is challenged? http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/as.2004.44.4.534;jsessionid=je2Cio9KaXte?cookieSet=1

Spend some time on any search engine and you'll find millions more. Fact of the matter is the majority of people in Taiwan will say they are Taiwanese. It doesn't matter if some minority of people disagree--that just means they choose not to be a part of that identity--but you can't deny that it exists. If it doesn't, then why don't Taiwanese want to unify with their caring, kind, benevolent mother China?

Does Shanghai have its own film tradition? Do Hakka across mainland China and Taiwan have similar events in their collective consciousness like 228 and oppression by KMT? Your examples are so bad, I'm not sure why I'm even responding. Bostonians aren't a nation either. Neither are the good people of Washington state. You can give infinite examples of non-nations and it proves nothing. I'm sorry but I CAN'T STAND YOUR WEAK LOGIC OR FALLACIOUS REASONING!!!!--160.39.195.88 03:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you claiming that no one' disputes that there exists a Taiwanese nation? Even your citations seem to suggest that the notion 1) is only developing and 2) is a pro-independence concept. As such, calling Taiwan a nation cannot be neutral.

What Chinese term are you referring to when you call Taiwan a nation? 族 can be alternatively translated into either nation or ethnic group. I don't see any other comparable Chinese terms. Please stop reverting until youve gained consensus to change. Othwise, you'll get yourself blocked. --Ji ang 03:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're avoiding the question. These are somewhat specialized terms (possibly techinical but they are widely used) and you still have given no evidence. You are well known to have biased POV and with hiding changes you didn't want to discuss, gain consensus, or reason about so if anybody should watch themselves it's you. Taiwanese has rising nationalist sentiment as in nationalism. There is a Canadian nation even though there is not necessarily nationalistic fervor going on there now (as there is in China, see protests against Japan). And further, the debate is about DEFINING Taiwanese identity, not whether it exists or not. You keep ignoring my points, especially the fact that people belong to an identity if they self-identify so, and if other people dispute it, they could only really dispute that they do not want to be a part of it, not that it doesn't exist. Stop your fallacious reasoning.--160.39.195.88 04:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's no need debating the truth as long as the truth is disputed. This is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum. Do you sincerely believe that everyone believes Taiwan is a nation? If the answer is no, then trying to arrive at the truth here is pointless because even if you persuade me, there are still billions of people not persudaded. As long as there is a dispute, how can calling Taiwan a nation be NPOV? --Ji ang 04:57, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are not responding to my points. The ROC state is disputed. Taiwan as a nation is not. Read nation. Really. Cite it. The Taiwanese culture and traditions are self-evidence of the Taiwanese nation. Why do you feel your Chinese identity is threatened by Taiwanese identity? Until you respond with evidence, I feel no hesitation reverting you.--160.39.195.88 05:05, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I told you your points are irrelevant. There is no such thing as 臺灣族. The only other term is 臺灣國 which we know does not exist either. What Chinese term are you referring to?--Ji ang 05:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha, so funny Jiang. You can't win in English so you shift to Chinese. And you didn't really read the articles I know because the time was too short for you to have bothered and respond to any of the points in them. No Taiwan zu but is there Meiguo zu? But there's an American nation. Tell me what Taiwan Ren is? Chinese is not exactly the most scientific or modern language. Think about how masogynistic it is if you think about all the etymologies that have to do with women.--160.39.195.88 05:24, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is certinaly no American "ethnic group". The Chinese word 國 does not distinguish state v. country v. nation. 族 is often applied for a nation when 國 cannot be used, as 國 would implied a political entity. In the case of Meiguo, 國 is used to mean state, country, and nation, but the nation exists because of the state. In the case of taiwan, neither 國 nor 族 is used. What is Taiwan ren? Perhaps no different than Shanghairen, Beijingren, Shandongren, or Yunnanren? Or a better analogy would be Xianggangren or Aomenren, who have probably been exposed to more foreign culture than Chinese in the mainland. --Ji ang

There was a resolution in Taiwan, which passed today (or yesterday), that states that Taiwan declares itself a self-governing nation...--205.174.8.4 14:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here is the link; see 2nd to last paragraph...--205.174.8.4 14:58, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2005/04/20/2003251183

"Nation" is a vague concept, and it is not easy to define. The nation article says the following:

" The idea of a nation remains somewhat vague, in that there is generally no strict definition for exactly who is considered to be a member of any particular nation. Many modern states show a great diversity of cultural behaviours and ethnic backgrounds. England may furnish a classic example: a territory which is not a state, since it has no government of its own, and which has large immigrant populations and diverse cultural behaviour, yet which is often described as a nation. "

While I won't deny the fact that people on Taiwan do demonstrate a certain common identity, it is hard to comment whether they are a nation. People from, for instance, Glasgow and Edinburgh, would posess two identities. — Insta ntnood 17:11, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

To further on the notion of vague concept that 'nood raises. "Nation" in the context used by our IP address using friend, implies sovereignty. I would say that a Taiwanese passport holder is a Taiwanese "national". I would say that those living on Taiwan have a "national" identity. I wouldn't necessarily say that Taiwan is a "nation", even though they claim it, because the government there can't back it up... It's not a clear distinction, is it, but that's why we love English. SchmuckyTheCat 17:45, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid the word "nation" rarely means sovereignty in English. — Insta ntnood 18:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say it did. I said it was implied. SchmuckyTheCat 21:30, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not implied by nation. See the article on nation and see below. Amerinese made some good points about your point about vagueness too, Instantnood.--160.39.195.88 03:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, our IP address using friend =). Why don't you register? I think people would take you more seriously. First of all, I agree with you mostly, but you need to cool it. You made a lot of good points, but people will ignore you because you are so combative. Also, Jiang, you gotta stop reverting like a madman and I know IP man is combative but he's right about you not responding to his points. You can't just shout "people disagree" or "POV" without explanation or argumentation. My other observation is that the evidence people have provided regarding the ambiguity of the term nation only lead to an expansion in its inclusiveness, making IP man's points more, not less valid. Let me summarize some of the points made here:

- The existence of Taiwanese traditions and identity and culture are clear and are found in articles on Taiwanese photography, Taiwanese cuisine, Cinema of Taiwan, etc. I will add that these traditions are the result of over 100 years of disconnect from mainland China.
- Identity is not enough. The shared democratic institutions of the Republic of China as well as the collective experience of 228 and White Terror further establish the existence of Taiwanese nationality.
- Nation is a confusing term. For example, "international" is about relations among countries and states, not nations. Your nationality also often means your state of citizenship.
- Jiang brings up the question of Chinese terms. I'm not sure that Chinese terms are analagous to English ones. I'd have to talk to a Chinese political scientist to see what terms they used in translation. It's unfortunate that everything is English generated, but that's the reality till other countries have as high-caliber academic institutions. In any case, I agree that popular Chinese terms are generally not the English ones.
- On the other hand, the refined usage of the terms nation, country, and state is pretty clear. I add that it is important to use precise terminology if we're talking about a heated topic like this. If we were talking about nations and we were talking about US and Canada, then I don't think a big deal should be made about it. But here, controversial means all the more we should use the precise terminology.
- Responding to the comment about England. Your argument is something like, "even England is a nation so Taiwan is not" when it should be "if even England, with no real state institutions of its own and large immigrant population, is considered a nation, then so is Taiwan". The definition is wide, not narrow, and that is why it is somewhat ambiguous (though it is not so much that we can't distinguish it from state or country).
- Responding to any and all comments about sovereignty. Please read the nation article carefully. It is neither proper colloquiual usage nor is it informed usage to use nation as meaning sovereignty. If we can all read and understand that, then I don't think there's really a dispute since it looks like the same people that don't like Taiwan's sovereignty don't like calling Taiwan a nation.
- Instantnood pointed out that there are other identities as well, such as being from a particular city. Well, there are religious identities as well, and in most cases, this does not have to do with being a nation. However, in the case of Jews, it does. I would say that there's not a hard and fast rule, but if you consider a common state institution, common history, common culture, common language, fulfilling most of the qualities (which people from Edinburgh do not), then it is a nation.

--Amerinese 20:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All right. Since you've taken quite a bit of time to put up this summary and get together your own opinions, I'll try to keep it cool. But this Jiang character never cites anything, goes to Chinese saying zu and than refers to ren and it's obviously two different words, doesn't even say whether or not it's related to nation and completely ignores the page on nation. I don't know what to do with simple poor argumentation and unwillingness to take part in the discussion honestly.--160.39.195.88 03:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Below you will find Jiang's arguments, and then you will see me thoroughly knocking all of them to bits.--160.39.195.88 06:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would we be calling Hong Kong and Macau people nations too given their separate histories and lengthy periods of foreign rule? It seems that the "Hong Kong nation" or "Macau nation" isn't cited by anyone serious, and the "Taiwan nation" is only cited by independence supporters.

Straw man argument. HK and Macau aren't sovereign states as well. I don't care if HK and Macau aren't nations (though I wish the best for their democracy), but it says nothing about Taiwan. Statehood helps establish a nation. What traumatic experiences were there for HK or Macau?

Evidence that people differ on this:

"As Taiwan is not a "nation," and is not recognized diplomatically by any major nation in the world, it is not a party to the Paris, Berne, Madrid, Rome or Washington Conventions."[1]
"Without Taiwan's sovereignty, it is no wonder that the international community is confused about whether Taiwan is a nation or not, and even thinks that Taiwan is not a nation because of the insistence by past governments on both sides of the Strait on the "one China" principle."

[2] (This is A-bian's support of the concept, but in defending it, he reveals that people do disagree and think the nation does not exist.)

Non-techinical of nation, state, country, etc. Again, you just confused Taiwan of this article with Taiwan meaning STATE and meaning ROC. Sad to hear that from you when you are well aware of the distinction.

"Goh Chok Tong, ignored the multifaceted good relations between Singapore and Taiwan and instead openly said that Taiwan is not a nation." [3]

He meant Taiwan meaning ROC is not a legitimate state after being pressured by the PRC. Again, why are you trying to confuse people? You're so dishonest.

"As it happens, the People's Republic of China agrees with the Republic of China that Taiwan is not a nation. Despite widespread semantic shorthand which refers to the Republic of China as "Taiwan," from an international law perspective there is no nation state in the world known as "Taiwan," just as legally speaking, there never were two political entities known as East Germany and West Germany." [4]

Hahaha, you can't cite ANYTHING. That garbage has no more authority than you babbling. PRC does not regard ROC as a legitimate STATE. Stop trying to confuse people.

"Li denied he had made such comments, and went on to state his belief that no matter who is elected president, Taiwan is not a nation but merely a province of the PRC." [5]

What the hell? You are kidding. ALL YOUR EVIDENCE IS ABOUT TAIWAN MEANING ROC MEANING STATE?!?!?!?! Read nation.

In short, the issue of a Taiwanese national identity is a very controversial and hotly debated issue. It would serve our purpose not to use such biased and politically charged words. This article goes into a lot of detail about the national identity concept: IS TAIWAN A NATION? ON THE CURRENT DEBATE OVER TAIWANESE NATIONALISM AND NATIONAL IDENTITY Specifically: "Guojia rentong (國家認同), the very concept that troubles the people of Taiwan, is usually translated as “national identity,” with guojia (國家) equivalent to “nation.” This is a satisfactory translation only if we are forbidden to coin a new phrase, “state identity.” The key point is that in Chinese guojia means primarily a political community with sovereign power, though it may also have some cultural connotations. Hence it is best translated as “state” or “country” rather than “nation.” Conversely, the English word “nation” is usually translated into Chinese as minzu (民族), because the latter denotes a people of common descent, language, or culture. To translate guojia rentong into “national identity” confuses the distinction Chinese makes between guojia rentong (國家認同) and minzu rentong (民族認同)." --Ji ang 05:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Again, when you can't win in English, you try to confuse by shifting to Chinese (except this time you do it by proxy through this author, haha). This guy would say that ROC is a legitimate state (no de jure problems) also, do you accept that? In any case, his definition of nation is not the normal one--as you could see if you didn't just scan for something that you thought would sound like it would support your argument, nation as he defines it does not fit the wikipedia definition. Also, nationalism is not the same thing as nation.

According to this guy, there is no Chinese nation either. Are you going to represent his POV in the China article? Give me a break. As long as we're bound by English terms, we will use English definitions. Redefining nation so that Taiwan doesn't fit is a retarded way of arguing.

(response to Amerinese comments at 20:53, 20 Apr 2005) It's hard to tell whether Taiwanese has become a nation of its own. There is no quick rule to tell how many years of separation would be qualified. It would also be controversial to say who are part of the nation, and who are not. Mainland Chinese who arrived after 1949, and their descendants, may not agree. If we're going to define it by "common state institution, common history, common culture, common language", some stateless nations won't be qualified, and some, for instance, Hong Kong and Macao, would be qualified. — Insta ntnood 05:31, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Look everyone, don't try to pin this definition of nation on me or Amerinese or Schmucky or anyone else. We're not defining nation. Go to the wiki article and if you don't like, cite something and change it. You can't attribute it to me, and you can't say it's completely vague and has so and so connotations. Read nation. There's a pretty good article on it. Then say something based on that information.--160.39.195.88 06:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"In common usage, terms such as nation, country, land and state often appear as near-synonyms, i.e., for a territory under a single sovereign government, or the inhabitants of such a territory, or the government itself; in other words, a de jure or de facto state."

If you just call it a nation without defining it further, you might as well just call it a state. Dont expect your reader to know what you mean. Even if they do, there's plenty to dipute here. How would Taiwan be different from the non-existent Guangdong nation or the non-existent Shanghai nation? (I dont expect you to answer this since you cant seem to comment on HK or MO) --Ji ang 03:07, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, I think you're really hung up on something that's just not the case here. Here's what's wrong:

- The original disambiguation said that "this article is about the Taiwanese nation. For the political entity commonly known as Taiwan, see ROC" so it cannot be the case that nation is being used to denote a political entity here. It is clarified by virtue of the second part of the disambiguation so you can't make the argument that nation means state here.
- You are selectively quoting from the nation article. Why do you accept the common misconception that country, state, and nation are the same thing? Afterall, we rejected on Wikipedia calling ROC Taiwan even though that is the dominant usage in English. When we're talking about something important politically like this, we should use the politically accurate terms. It doesn't matter if you're just saying "I went to the nation/state/country of Taiwan" because people will know where you went, but for a context like this the distinctive words should not be folded into a single meaning.
- Your removal of island nation is unjustified since it is listed under island nation.
- There is plenty in the article beginning with the very first section explaining that the _state_ is disputed. Even if we were to accept the confusion that nation=state, POV policy means that you state both sides. Presenting both sides means that you should explain that it is generally considered a state and then you can give the arguments that dispute that. Don't put the cart before the horse and try to knock down an argument before it's even put forth--trying to silence the argument is the wrong way to maintain neutral POV.
- I don't know what anon's knowledge of HK and Macau are, but you are not making sense about why it is relevant. Taiwan is very different from both, and it is not the same as Shanghai either. If you want to talk about differences with Shanghai, first of all, there is the democratic government (this is a political institution but it makes a huge impact on the culture), there is the 100 years of separation from the Chinese state, there is the distance from the mainland and limited migration across the strait, and there is Taiwanese culture--film, photography, Taiwanese language TV, newspapers, fiction, etc. HK has Cantonese language film tradition, TV, writing, etc, but no state institution and it's on the mainland with much exchange between the mainland and HK. Don't ignore these differences--these are exactly the differences between a nation and a mere ethnic or identity group.

--Amerinese 09:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Having state institutions/democratic government or not is somehow irrelevant. Kurds, and Jewish people before the moden state of Israel was created, are stateless nations. Migration of people between the mainland and Hong Kong, to my understanding, was limited from 1949 onwards until the early 1980s, and it was largely one-way. While we acknowledge the differences, there is no clear cut minimum qualification for what constitute a nation. — Insta ntnood 21:22, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

If institution has no role in forming a nation, I guess you are arguing that the United States is not a nation and does not have nationality for their people.--Mababa 00:03, 24 Apr, 2005 (UTC)

State institutions/democratic government does contribute to nation building. But the way a nation is built is more to do with cultural identity and self-recognition. Afterall, this definition of nation is usually only used to immigrant countries with the major groups coming from far away from their ancestry homelands, such as the United States and, perhaps, Australia. — Insta ntnood 10:32, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Most people do not know what nation really means and equate it with state. I don't believe it is automatically assumed that the term is not being used to denote a political entity. Given how the word "nation" is regularly used and misused, I can make the argument. This assumes a Taiwan nation exists, while supporters of Chinese nationalism would like to claim it doesn't as each Chinese province is not usually referred to as nations. The cultural identity and distinction issue is very controversial and hotly debated.
I am acknowledging, not accepting the common misconception. I agree that we should avoid the common usage of equating nation with state. However, we should also avoid using terms expecting readers to know what they mean. An encyclopedia is meant to serve laymen, not political scientists. Please consider the average reader. Why do you insist on using the term "nation" when the old disambiguation ("geographical and cultural entity") means the same thing you want it to mean?
I argued at the island nation article was misusing the term "nation", but the user who created it insisted that "island nation is the standard term, even if it might not fit some people's definition of a nation" and reverted me. They are deliberately using the term "wrong" there. Besides, Taiwan is listed as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" and not Taiwan by itself. They really mean "state".
not sure what you mean here...
Hong Kong has had a governmental system separate from the mainland since 1842. Not only was it governed separately, it was governed by a European power that had an entirely different culture. Even since the handover, there are no mainlanders governing HK. Travel between the mainland and HK was severely restricted from the communist revolution until 1979. Even now, mainlanders have to get visas to visit HK. I really dont see how what applies to HK does not apply to Taiwan. --Ji ang 23:29, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

According to Instantnood, HK and mainland China had frequent inter-mingling and bidirectional migration from 1842 to 1949. Whereas people often argue that no major immigration between Taiwan and mainland China until the Nationalist lead mainlanders to Taiwan in 1949[6]. Study in Taiwanese HLA typing also suggested that Taiwanese are genetically distinct from the mainlanders[7]. Of course I concede that these studys are often considered as POV and disputed by the Chinese nationalists according to their own POV. Therefore, as Jiang suggested, if we want to present the view that Taiwan as a nation, perhaps we should address this issue in length.

In my opinion, what applies to Taiwan but not HK for being called as a nation is its national identity, which is increasingly calling themselves as Taiwanese but not Chinese. If one look into history, this national identity has been rooted during Japanese rule. Lastly, NPOV can only be reached by adding up all of the POVs. Unless we can prove one is wrong and the other is right. Perhaps it would be better to add a section in this article on Taiwan's national identity.--Mababa 00:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(response to Mababa's comment at 00:03, Apr 24 2005) To what I acknowledge people in Hong Kong do posess a separate identity from mainland Chinese, and among some people the distance can be comparable to what Taiwanese think they're from the mainland Chinese. This feeling is not uncommon even among people who were born in the mainland, and has stayed in Hong Kong for several decades. If you run into a person from Hong Kong, say in the UK or in the States, and you ask her/him where she/he comes from, you can rarely get an answer like "I am from China" or "I am Chinese". — Insta ntnood 10:36, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we need to address the issue of identity. There is no consensus currently on whether there is a distinct Taiwanese identity from the Chinese identity. According to this survey, as cited by the BBC, the number of people considering themselves to be "Taiwanese only" hovers around 42%. Another more recent survey puts this at 60%. Either way, there is no consensus on this issue for our labelling of Taiwan as a nation to be npov. --Ji ang 01:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've read this long discussion and my conclusion is that I highly recommend that you two (160.39.195.88 and Jiang) get a room (IRC chat room I mean ;-). I think there's a lot of repetition going on, but responding to the above, Jiang, you have an interesting way of reading the survey since what the survey really says is that about 90% of ROC citizens view themselves as Taiwanese with about half of them considering themselves both Taiwanese and Chinese. Obviously Taiwanese is quite distinct from Chinese if you can even ask people whether they are Taiwanese or Chinese or both!!! It's not possible for people that identify as Taiwanese or Taiwanese and Chinese to deny Taiwanese ethnicity! Even for the people that identify as Chinese, they may recognize Taiwanese-ness but simply not identify with it. It's plausible that people would consider themselves Chinese ethnically but Taiwanese in nationality, and I would argue that is the better interpretation of the survey. In any case, you're citation of it, quite frankly, is misguided.

I'm going to add in the disambiguation with nation for the following reasons. First of all, in terms of wikipedia audience, it is true articles should be accessible to non-experts, but we cannot be afraid of using words that people will attribute _incorrect_ meanings to. Then there would be very little to say at all! Second, Amerinese had a good point that immediately mentioning political body and redirecting to the ROC right after competely takes the wind out of any argument that nation means a political body.

Third, POV should be dealt with the way that POV all over wikipedia always is--by describing who and why they disagree. For example, the way that disagreement about the legitimacy of the ROC was dealt with with that article was to recognize that it is a state (regardless of legality, we should reject any "POV" that says otherwise because it's factual), but then talk about the history and political situation and why the PRC challenges the ROC's legitimacy. In the same way, this article should talk about the Taiwanese nation--then--it should talk about who disagrees and why (Jiang, could you write something about the Chinese nationalists you mentioned? I'm curious myself to read about it if you have some sources you could send my way). NPOV means covering all points of view.

Fourth, looking at the poll that Amerinese started, I believe this is part of the root of the problem. The poll basically entails changing the article from being about Taiwan island to being about the Taiwanese nation. Amerinese should've used the word nation as the summary of those characteristics, but I don't think he/she realized that nation would be the most appropriate summary of this ambiguous mix of culture/people/politics/history/geography/economy/tradition etc. Nation is the blob that can make sense of why Taiwanese food and Taiwanese economy are related. "Culture and geography" are inappropriate descriptions of the article as they aren't the only things covered.--68.239.218.122 07:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan does not have to be distinct from Chinese for the survey to exist in the first place. The surevy exists because different people have different opinions and perceptions on the level of distinctness. The people who answered "Taiwanese AND Chinese" obviously don't believe they're different enough to be mutually exclusive. If they are both, then it is suggestive that the two cannot be separate nations. The term used for China, if I recall correctly, was zhongguoren, which means politically Chinese, not merely ethnically Chinese. Therefore, it is not possible for respondents to have interpreted "Chinese" as being "Chinese in ethnicity".
I'm afraid you're grossly exaggerating when you say "there would be very little to say at all". Of course some people will misinterpret some things, but when the vast majority of people are going to interpret it wrong, use should avoid the word unless you're going to define it on the spot. I disagree with Amerinese's point because people are not aware of the distinction among nation/state/country in the first place to make the inference. I further say that people don't know that the Republic of China exists or is not the People's republic of China and this just makes things more confusing.
Correction: we say the ROC functions, for most purposes, as a state. no one, for most purposes, disputes this, though the PRC will not spell out the de facto situation exactly. Here, the existence of the Taiwan nation itself is disputed. You are assuming that it exists, and that wikipedia must claim it exists, while we should only present claims by some that it does not exist for the sake of npov. Wikipedia cannot claim that a Taiwanese nation exists and still be NPOV. I want to claim: "the Taiwanese nation does not exist because Taiwanese are culturally Chinese. Taiwanese speak a dialect on Minnan, are ethnically Han Chinese, follow Han Chinese cultural traditions, and were only subjected to one generation under a foreign government. Any distinction between Taiwan and the mainland are subnational and regional differences, not national differences. the difference in cultural traditions, common ancestry, and language, between people of Taiwan and Fujian are less than those between Yunnan and Shandong." What give you a right to say I'm wrong by outright declaring a Taiwanese nation exists? The text is obviously not npov.
The China article uses "This article is on the geographic and cultural entity." This should be a parallel in separating the political entity from the cultural/geographic entity. If you have a problem with listing economy here, then keep it in the ROC article or change the disambiguator to "geographic, cultural, economic entity". --Ji ang 07:56, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrong. They were not asked if they were politically Chinese. And like it's already been mentioned, they are not mutually exclusive. Do you read what other people write? I seriously doubt it. You like skim and just try to fill up the discussion so that other people reading it will think it's more controversial than it really is. People in America hold dual ethnic identities all the time. That doesn't mean they don't belong to the American nation.
I'm "sorry". Actually no I'm not, I love tearing you apart. It IS defined on the spot in opposition to the sentence that IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS AND TELLS YOU TAIWAN CAN'T MEAN THE POLITY and through the link to nation! It tells you that nation cannot be a political entity. This is from basic logic and immediately indicates that the reader, if he/she conflates nation with being a political entity, then should try to figure out what nation is.
In general, especially considering people's marriage/child-bearing habits of the time, each generation would be about 20-25 years without overlapping. That means there were FOUR TO FIVE GENERATIONS since being under very limited Qing government. PRC is COMPELTELY DIFFERENT TOO. You really have two vectors that moved quite apart for each other. If anyone is exaggerating the differences (in this case minimizing for political purposes), it's YOU. You ARE wrong. Nation is well-defined and you can look at whether people use it to describe Taiwanese and then you can also look at whether they have characteristics that fit the definition. I would be curious to see why a people would deny being nation even though they had all the characteristics of one, but it is the characteristics that make it a nation in an objective way.
False citation. Actually that article needs to be fixed. It's not only about geographic and cultural entity either. And that's a clear case where it's disputed whether China is really a nation or many. But I think the correct fix is to complexify the notion, not to remove the description.--160.39.195.88 20:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wrong? You're just disagreeing without providing any arguments. The options were: "是中國人, 也是台灣人", "是台灣人, 也是中國人", "是台灣人, 不是中國人", "是中國人, 不是台灣人". 中國人=Chinese person by nationality. They did not ask about being 華人= Chinese by heritage/culture.
The problem is that most people will "[conflate] nation with being a political entity". It's not so simple. You cannot expect people to click on the link (which doesnt even definitvely define the term, but instead provides the different definitions) and all wikipedia articles are meant to permit standing alone. The logic would make sense provided 1) the term "nation" is clearly defined and 2) the nation undisputably existed in the first place. Neither is taking place. I guess you're not interested in making this article reader friendly. You just want to confuse people so they'll think Taiwan is an independent sovereign state. Now who's the tricky one now?
I have yet to see a convincing argument put forth on how Taiwan is a nation. You're begging the question here. You're saying it is without providing why. (No, don't tell me to read the above because I did and have responded to it.) What is so different about the PRC? Basically, its citizens don't actively participate in government and are on average poorer. What else? This argument is only taking place because the notion of a Taiwanese nation is disputed. As it is disputed, we cannot be npov by taking a single side.
There never was consensus to change this article to be on the "Taiwanese nation". If you would like, I could revert it to be about the "geographical island".--Ji ang 22:25, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. What? You're crazy. Taiwan IS an indepedent sovereign state. That is a fact. What in the world? I can't believe you said that. What? What?!?! I can't believe you believe it's not. You can claim it's illegal and it may not be a sovereign state in the future, but what the hell? If by Taiwan you mean ROC on Taiwan (since you say state, I have to assume that's what you mean), then there is nothing disputing that it is a state. There is only something disputing its de jure status as a state which may change what it will be in the future. It does make it friendlier because it's a good summary of Taiwanese identity that is connected to the land, but is not the land, that is connected to the history of the ROC state, but is not the ROC state, that is connected to the Taiwanese language, but is not the Taiwanese language, and so on. Cultural and geographical aspects does not cover it. You make no better suggestions to try to fix the problem. Where's your alternative? Where's your clarification of nation? You're just playing word games to try to win a political battle. You're not going to convince anyone.--160.39.195.88 03:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Counterargument 1: "Taiwan is not an independent sovereign state. It is a province of the People's Republic of China. It is not sovereign because almost all other states and the United Nations recognizes the PRC and acknowlege the fact that Taiwan is part of the PRC. If Taiwan were an independent, sovereign state then it would have the priviledge of joining the UN and enter international government organizations under its official name, not 'Chinese Taipei'. leaders of sovereign states do not have to send proxies to APEC summits." Counterargument 2: "Taiwan is not an independent sovereign state. Taiwan is the land that is governmened by the Republic of China, which is an independent sovereign state. Taiwan is not the same as the Republic of China." You're still ignoring my point that the nation's existence is in dispute. My suggestion? Mabababa's suggestions. Let's go in depth on Taiwan's national identity and all the controversy surrounding it. We can do this but we cannot claim Taiwan is a nation when people would like to claim otherwise.

What the hell are you conflating state and nation for? Go take that over the the ROC article. I still question if you've even read the definition of nation. You belittle democracy when your own life, your own existence at Berkeley is so privileged and free for the very reason of democracy in the US. It's obvious that democracy creates a complete change in a society, but even if you're blind to that, it's what distinguishes the ROC state from the PRC state and shows why they are not the same thing and thus have created different peoples. I don't think the Taiwanese nation is very old. But the way people think, the way people do things, the way they read their news, the way they act in public... democracies are quite different from non-democracies and to belittle that is ridiculous and so contradictory to your very own existence.--160.39.195.88 06:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't start the old Berkeley/Columbia minor league polo rivalry again… --MarkSweep 07:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

3. Begging what question? Did you read all the above? You don't like the argument, but that doesn't mean clear arguments weren't made establishing why Taiwan is a nation. You also exaggerate the ambiguousness of the definition of nation. If anything, it is a WIDE definition, meaning it's hard to define because so many things fit it. Which is pretty fitting since, afterwards, there is tons of explanation about the unsteady de jure status, ROC history, etc. You are ambiguating on the ambiguity. Think harder, you'll argue better.--160.39.195.88 03:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Didn't I ask you not to tell me to read the above because I already did and provided my argument? And then you just disagreed with my argument without backing up your point. A nation is a nation when people regard it as such. It's not up to us to do the interpretiion "is Taiwan a nation or is it not". It is only up to us to reflect the general viewpoints and report them. The people regarding Taiwan to be a nation just happen to be Taiwan independence supporters, and only Taiwan independence supporters. Suprise! Suprise! --Ji ang 04:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have no idea what begging the question is do you? No, those papers above are mostly by American academics. Show me a respected academic that doesn't think Taiwan is a nation. You are bullshitting now. I hate bullshit. You just think the only people that think it's a nation are so called "Taiwan independence supporters" because that's what you wish it to be, but in fact, only Chinese nationalists would say that Taiwan is not a nation.--160.39.195.88 06:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

4. No you can't revert to "geographical island" because there's a consensus for the new scope. I don't know why you would even suggest that. That's so wrong and misguided. You are basically the only one doing the reverting although I you want to avoid you're ridiculous frequency of reverts without changing anything so you asked Marksweep to help out. But you're the only one yelling and jumping about nation and yet you can cite... NOTHING. Seriously, did you read those articles? What are they about? Get a clue.--160.39.195.88 03:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

6:4 is not consensus, and if it were then it was on "cultural and geographical aspects" and not "nation". you are the one claiming that they are different. I cited nothing? provided absolutely no links? what? --Ji ang 04:10, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's 6:3. And MarkSweep has little credibility in my opinion since he never takes part in discussion. I consider him your proxy who you just ask to revert every now and then. In any case, there is no way that it can be about the island when a majority has already agreed with plenty of reasoning that this article is not only about the main island. So stop changing the intro to that. It's retarded.--160.39.195.88 06:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the record, User:Jiang has never asked me to revert anything. Please consider the possibility that there is no conspiracy and that several people can come to the same conclusions independently of one another. For all I can tell the matter has been discussed sufficiently and I can only repeat what has already been said in one form or another. Your attempts to change things strike me as particularly one-sided, and the changes you have proposed are not helpful, since they create more confusion than the previous version. I think I even understand your arguments about the meaning you attribute to "nation", but since this term is so vague in everyday use it will create more problems than it solves. Spelling out the uncontroversial facts in simple, unambiguous terms is the better solution. --MarkSweep 07:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mark, you are to revert everything I ask you to. Don't play stupid. You're a puppet, behave like a puppet!--Jianq 23:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) (NB: This comment was not contributed by Jiang, but by an impersonator who has since been banned. --MarkSweep 02:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Worst of all, you keep taking out that it's an island nation when it appears on the list of island nations. What is your problem man? Wikipedia at least should try to remain consistent. You can't make unjustified changes like that.--160.39.195.88 06:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And now for something completely different...

This entry is particularly informative to people who believe that Taiwan is the Capital of Indonesia

Excellent! Moved to Wikipedia:Valley of the Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense Spudtater 23:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Truce

Instead of carry on the contention, I guess it would be more constructive to start the section on National identity. It may be more useful for the readers to understand the current situation in Taiwan.--Mababa 05:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree we should start a section so that Jiang and fill it with all that great content that he never cites. Whatever he disputes about the Taiwanese nation he should put it there and back it up with sources.--160.39.195.88 06:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I call for the following truce:

Both Jiang and 160.39.195.88 should refrain from reverting this article and editing anything that has to do with nation. There are enough people around that we can work this without the two of you and I think it'll elimnate most of the acrimony.
In general, we will all refrain from simple reverts without attempting to discuss or try to work out something more palatable.
For now, we will only point to the ROC article without saying exactly what this article is on. The vote I held has already knocked down that this article is about the island and expanded it to cover basically everything that is non-governmental of the area governed by the ROC (just to make sure--again, this is not calling the ROC state Taiwan, in the same way that the DPP does). So it is quite contradictory to mention in the opening paragraph that Taiwan is just the island (I've made the argument before but I'll mention it again--Taiwan as the island is neither a usage common to English or Chinese; in Chinese, we say Taiwan Dao for just the island). This is a middle point--we will link to island nation instead of nation and we will work to a new solution from that.
While Jiang and 160 are on their agreed break from this topic, the rest of us will try to hash out the issues and come to a conclusion regarding nation and its applicability to this article. I suggest we try to recruit some more people (people without a known position would be best) to help work on this article.
In addition to opening information, we will also create a section on identity for the Taiwan article to deal with the complexities of Taiwanese identity, beyond a simple yes/no determination with regard to nation.
160 made a point on my discussion page that the notion of Chinese identity as a nation is also disputed. I think it is important to keep in mind the applicability of nation to Chinese identity, not because these two identities are related, but because it is yet another case and if we restrict our notion of nation, then we will have to reevaluate if it applies to where it is currently used; on the other hand if we agree that it is applicable to so and so places, then we will have to be sure our definition is not too restrictive to match our actual use. We might consider other nations which are more extreme cases to guide our notion of nation.
Jiang and 160--please indicate your acceptance of the truce below. Everyone who can help--please indicate your willingness to help edit the applicability of nation below.

--Amerinese 16:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'll help and try to work this out. -- ran (talk) 17:07, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to exclude Jiang or 160 from this discussion. I suggest that everyone should be allowed to take part in the general effort to make this article more NPOV. -- ran (talk) 23:21, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind I'd be happy to join in. -- Loren 23:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I will not touch this article for 5 days (starting now) provided that 1) 160 promises to do the same and 2) DINGBAT and 50stars are not allowed to mass revert the article without explanation. I will continue to monitor the discussion in the meantime. Ran, Loren, any everyone else, please go ahead and propose improvements. --Ji ang 01:54, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I recall, Jiang, you mass reverted my changes a few weeks ago and then you and your cronies started adjusting from there. Additionally, at one point, there was a motion on the discussion page to ban you and your communist POV. --DINGBAT 18:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I also agree not to touch it until a consensus is hashed out. But I don't agree that Jiang should be allowed to conditional on others, especially Dingbat. Dingbat is making such weird changes it's not even guided by ideology or anything. He just takes random sections and replaces them with versions that are really old. If he does that and you promise to revert without making any other changes, then fine, I'm okay, but if you use that as an excuse to insert changes, I'm going to jump all over you.--160.39.195.88 06:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

160, those aren't random edits. Clearly, the pages that I revert to were once the agreed upon pages. You should also note that my definition more closely resembles yours than Jiang's...--DINGBAT 18:37, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed modifications

Hello all, after going over the main article and some of the comments on the talk page I thought I'd propose some possible changes to the article here and see what you guys think:

Intro

How does this look?

Taiwan (Traditional: 臺灣 or 台灣, Simplified: 台湾, Pinyin: Táiwān, Wade-Giles: T'ai-wan, Taiwanese: Tâi-oân) is an island in East Asia located off the coast of mainland China in the Pacific Ocean, currently enjoying de facto independence from Mainland China and governed by the Republic of China. The main island is also known as Formosa from its Portuguese name Ilha Formosa, which means "beautiful island".

If you look at the last archive, we had a poll to correct this misuse of Taiwan. Taiwan does not refer to Taiwan Island, which is properly called... Taiwan Island. I won't spam here, but you can click back to read about it.--160.39.195.88 17:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Political Status of Taiwan

While I don't dispute the need to mention the issue of Taiwan's disputed status, is it really nessecary to copy all of what we have on the article right now verbatim from the Political status of Taiwan article? Perhaps something shorter along the lines of:

Taiwan is governed by the Republic of China which withdrew from mainland China in 1949 and has since reformed into a multiparty democracy. The Republic of China on Taiwan enjoys defacto independence but is only officially recognized by a few countries due to diplomatic pressure from the People's Republic of China, which considers Taiwan as part of it's territory, despite never having actually ruled it. The current debate on Taiwan revolves around whether to pursue de jure independence, unification with China, or maintainance of the ambiguous status quo.

Good point. It is too long and is not exactly a summary of the main article. Withdrew isn't quite right, but otherwise something like that would make sense. I'll come up with something later.--

For more information, see Political status of Taiwan.

On the whole, I think this article should try to avoid participating too excessively in the nation debate and refer readers searching for info on that subject to Political status of Taiwan. In general, I'd propose making the Taiwan article sort of a central point which can redirect readers to other related articles such as History of Taiwan, Culture of Taiwan... etc. This should help avoid excessive bloat, and minimize the impact of possible edit wars on various subjects.

Well, in terms of nation, I wouldn't shy away from it because it is not a term that describes political status, and we use it in places where it seems not really to be accurate. See for instance the China article. It's pretty clear that if anything, China consists of many nations, although it is one state, given minority ethnic groups and their desire for autonomy (some want independence). The biggest confusion that I see is that people are afraid of calling Taiwan a nation because it would be seen as a step towards independence. However, the case is that there are many nation-states in the world today, but there are also many states that consist of many nations. It does not help the independence or unificationist cause either way. Think about Russia and UK for examples of non-nation-states aka states that consist of multiple nations, and think about America and Canada, where diversity is so great that nationality probably exists but it exists apart from ethnicity.

The key is that the Taiwanese people have been conditioned by a much different history over the last 100 years than the people on China. While people on China went through revolution after revolution, warlordism, Japanese Invasion, the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Tiananmen Massacre, etc., etc., people on Taiwan went through relatively peaceful Japanese colonialism, then KMT dictatorship, 228 and White Terror, then transition to democracy. Between a distaste for their KMT oppressors and PRC's current hostilities, it is quite understandable that they often reject Chinese heritage, even though I would say there is no way they could ever rid themselves completely of it nor do I think they should.

Content wise, I agree that we should preserve the summary style of the larger articles. But we shouldn't shy away from using the term nation. If it is really so contentious and ambiguous, why do we bother using it to describe all these other groups?--160.39.195.88 17:55, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, however my point on the organization of the article still stands. In general, debate about the Political status of Taiwan should be directed to that article. I do recognise that we should mention Taiwan's unique status as being seperate from that of Mainland China, though of course the details are up for debate.

As for use of the term "nation", personally I'd be inclined to agree with you insofar that Taiwan is not governed by the PRC, however as the official title is currently Republic of China, I belive that references to the current government and readers searching for info on Taiwan as a state should be directed there. On this page we could perhaps state in the intro that As a state, Taiwan is currently governed under the formal title Republic of China. This would at least be a little more politically neutral. -- Loren 20:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your proposal would imply that "Taiwan is a state". This is a political statement to be avoided. --Ji ang

The how about Taiwan is currently governed under the formal title Republic of China, which is distinct and functionally independent from the People's Republic of China.

"formal title" implies that Taiwan and Republic of China are the same thing and this is also a political position. sorry to nitpick but this situation is so sticky i dont think everyone can be possibly satisfied. --Ji ang 06:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The concept of Zhonghua minzu is disputed. We did not label China a "nation." I have already stated that whether Taiwan is a nation is disputed. Making a political argument (as you did in your second paragraph) does not help because billions of people disagree with you. Can't convince all of them here and achieve a consensus. Such consensus opinion does not exist and wikipedia must reflect that in order to be npov. --Ji ang

Please let me know what you guys think. --Loren 03:59, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest leaving out the phrase "enjoying de facto independence from Mainland China". This implies that independence is not de jure (which some people think it is) and that power/independence is devolved from mainland China. These implications are not neutral. --Ji ang 03:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jiang, just a few points and questions along what you were mentioning, first regarding de facto independence, I'm under the impression that that is essentially the situation right now. The PRC has no jurisdiction over Taiwan, while the ROC certainly has no jurisdiction over Mainland China. Only one is officially recognized by most countries of the world. Now whether Taiwan/ROC/whatever enjoys de jure independence is certainly open to debate, but the fact that Taiwan is functionally independent (de facto?) from the PRC doesn't seem to be disputed.

Out of curiosity, how would you characterize it?

-- Loren 05:52, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The situation is "de facto" in the sense that it was brought about by an unresolved civil war and the current division has never been made official by any treaty, truce, or other document. However, my main quibble is the wording of "independence from mainland China". Could we alternatively say that "mainland China enjoys de facto independence from Taiwan"? Since we probably can't, then this wording establishes a heirarchy: independence of Taiwan came from mainland China. This is neither a neutral nor accurate statement to make. Taiwan is much different (and arguably more seriously taken as a functional state) than the de facto states that declared independence, enjoy effective independence, but are recognized by (almost) no one. The history of Taiwan is far from this path, as "de facto independence" would suggest.

Currently the lead section doesn't mention anything about the political status and probably should. We could leave out references to the ROC until the second paragraph where we summarize the political status. --Ji ang 06:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The situation may be sticky but I haven't given up on trying to unstick it yet. BTW, I'd appreceate comments from everyone as I'm hoping we can all come to some sort of consencous before the next major modification to prevent another edit war.

Now having said all that, for the intro:Taiwan (Traditional: 臺灣 or 台灣, Simplified: 台湾, Pinyin: Táiwān, Wade-Giles: T'ai-wan, Taiwanese: Tâi-oân) is an island in East Asia located off the coast of mainland China in the Pacific Ocean. Taiwan is also often used to refer to the Republic of China. As a political entity, Taiwan is functionally independent of the People's Republic of China. It's current status and ultimate fate are contraversial issues. The main island is also known as Formosa from its Portuguese name Ilha Formosa, which means "beautiful island".--Loren 06:49, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the sentence " Taiwan is also often used to refer to the Republic of China. " added in this edit. Would be nice if it's " In common speech, "Taiwan" is often used to refer to the Republic of China, as Taiwan makes up the majority of the territories currently administered by the Republic of China government(/regime). As a political entity, the Republic China is functionally independent from the People's Republic of China. It's current status and ultimate fate are controversial issues (see Republic of China, and political status and legal status of Taiwan for details). The main island is also... ". — Insta ntnood 10:30, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is more than an island. It's a self-governing entity with its own flag, currency, laws, Olympic team, military forces, president, passport, diplomatic relations, memberships within worldwide organizations, etc. Taiwan is synonymous w/ all the area under ROC control. It is an island nation.--DINGBAT 20:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're commenting on the wrong talk page. The political entity is discussed at Republic of China, not here. Saying ROC=Taiwan is making a political statement. That's not NPOV. You're also using nation to mean "state" which is certainly (or presumably) not the intention of those seeking to insert that term. --Ji ang 02:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I propose to replace the entire intro and political status section with:

Taiwan (Traditional: 臺灣 or 台灣, Simplified: 台湾, Pinyin: Táiwān, Wade-Giles: T'ai-wan, Taiwanese: Tâi-oân) is an island in East Asia located off the coast of mainland China. It is bounded to the east by the Pacific Ocean, to the south by the South China Sea, to the west by the Taiwan Strait, and to the north by the East China Sea. The island of Taiwan, also known as Formosa (Portuguese name Ilha Formosa, which means "beautiful island"), is 245 miles long and 90 miles in the shape of a tea leaf and consists of steep mountains covered by tropical and subtropical vegetation.

Since 1945, Taiwan has been governed by the Republic of China (ROC), which had existed on mainland China since 1912. In 1949, upon losing the Chinese Civil War to the Communist Party of China, the ruling Kuomintang (KMT) moved the ROC government to Taipei, Taiwan's largest city, and continued to claim sovereignty over all of China and Mongolia. The Communists established the People's Republic of China, claiming to be the successor state of the ROC, and has since claimed Taiwan is its territory and the ROC government on Taiwan as an illegitimate entity. Under the KMT administration, Taiwan was transformed into a major industrialized economy and touted as one of the East Asian Tigers. Meanwhile, a Taiwan independence movement has grown prominent seeking to establish a Taiwanese republic. In 2000, the KMT's grip of power was removed when the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party won the ROC presidency. The competing claims over the future of the island have made the political status of Taiwan a contentious issue.

Since 1949, Taiwan island has made up 98% of the Republic of China's area of effective control. In addition to the Taiwan island group, the ROC has jurisdiction over the Pescadores, and Fujianese island groups of Quemoy and Matsu.

I'm afraid I emphasized too much on politics when this article isnt even supposed to touch on that topic...but people come here confused.--Ji ang 03:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty nice, just a little bit of comment: the paragraph 2 can be moved to the history section, and replaced with a few sentences, plus a link pointing people to the relevant paragraph in the history section. For paragraph 3, it would be nice to add that from 1895 to 1945, Taiwan (including Pescadores) was colonised by Japan. And by the way is the Pescadores considered part of the "Taiwan island group"? — Insta ntnood 18:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Pescadores: Yes, administratively they are considered part of the Taiwan island group. -- Loren 20:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What about historically, culturally and geographically? — Insta ntnood 21:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Culturally yeah, you could pretty much say that they're the same as Taiwan at least as far back as WWII. Historically is a bit more complicated and really depends on who you ask. A small outpost (which was soon abandoned) was set up on Penghu during the Yuan dynasty by the Mongols who made no further effort to expand onto Taiwan proper. Not sure what the status was under the Ching dynasty except that they ended up going to Japan in 1895 along with Taiwan as sort of a package deal.--Loren 00:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. :-D — Insta ntnood 08:41, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

And besides Quemoy, Wuchiu and Matsu, the ROC also controls Pratas and Taiping in the South China Sea. Perhaps we can talk about them as well. :-D — Insta ntnood 18:39, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Not too sure about the outlying islands, things get a little fuzzy there. ROC control? Yes. Taiwan? Well, somewhat fuzzy... insofar as Taiwan is used to refer to the ROC, then yes. --Loren 20:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If Quemoy and Matsu are mentioned why not some other notable ones? :-D — Insta ntnood 21:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you could, but are we to go back to the days when we claimed that China is part of Taiwan?

In all seriousness, my POV is that Government of Taiwan should point to ROC, while the government of Taiwan is, as Jiang mentioned, commonly used to refer to the ROC government.--Loren 00:27, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I meant to refer to the "Taiwan island group" geographically so theyre not included. I don't know how the second paragraph can be summarized further without inducing further confusion on why we direct people to Republic of China at the top. --Ji ang 01:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I was just wondering what are and what were not part of the "island group". I suppose Green Island and Orchid Island does, but I'm not sure about the Pescadores. And when we're mentioning Quemoy and Matsu, some other notable ones also under ROC's control also need a place. — Insta ntnood 08:41, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Taiwanese nation?

Latest comment: 19 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

There is no Taiwanese nation. Taiwan is a part of the ROC, along with Quemoy and Matsu. Unless Taiwan declares independence from the ROC and Quemoy and Matsu are left hanging on their own (they would presumably be invaded by PRC forces immediately), Taiwan is no more separate from Quemoy and Matsu as a part of the ROC, as Shanghai is from Beijing as part of the PRC --Node 04:46, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Quemoy and Matsu islands are part of Taiwan. They share usage of the flag and currency of the nation. The Taiwanese president is also their leader. They are also able to travel w/ the Taiwanese passport.--DINGBAT 20:34, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Taiwan, Quemoy, Matsu etc. are all part of the Republic of China. There is no such thing as the "Taiwanese president", as is clearly explained at President of the Republic of China. The flag of the ROC is the flag the KMT had already been using when they ruled the mainland. Only the currency is the New Taiwan Dollar (not the New ROC Dollar) both in English and Chinese. --MarkSweep 21:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Truly childish. Just b/c Jiang and his communist POV pushers have changed a half-dozen wikipedia articles that reference Taiwan to the Republic of China, does not make it right. And, the terms "President of Taiwan" or "Taiwanese President" is commonly used in the media around the world. Even Chen himself would say that he's the President of Taiwan. --DINGBAT 22:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that Chen would say such a thing officially, because if taken out of context that could give the PRC a reason to attack. The term "President of Taiwan" is a simplification used by the Western mass media. That (almost by definition) does not make it the most accurate term to use. Contrary to what you might think, the use of "Taiwanese" here can be seen as the result of real "communist POV pushing": the PRC refers to the President of the ROC vaguely as the Taiwanese leadership/administration, denying the existence of the ROC as an independent state. Thus the only term consistent with the PRC's version of the story is "Taiwanese" something-or-other (not "president", though), which they interpret to mean the provincial leadership. Thus in some contexts the PRC position is to prefer "Taiwan" (over "ROC", which the PRC does not acknowledge and has pressured other states to shun), as long as it's not implied that Taiwan is an independent nation or state. The only sensible policy for us is to imply neither that Taiwan is an independent state, nor that it isn't (which happens to match the deliberately vague political status quo). The best choice for us is to use the official term "Republic of China". Speaking of "Taiwanese leadership" can be either seen as PRC POV-pushing (there is no ROC, only a Chinese province called Taiwan) or Taiwanese independence POV-pushing (there is no ROC, only an independent state called Taiwan). In the East Asian political context, "President of Taiwan" can be interpreted as either extremely careless or extremely POV, and we should be neither. All of this has been explained and debated before on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese). --MarkSweep 23:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's just really illogical Mark. Wars, on the face of it, do have some pretty silly incidents that supposedly set them off (Gulf of Tonkin for the Vietnam War), but come on, when you really look at it, it's never really over an assassination or someone just saying words that don't sound right. China at this current moment is already highly motivated for invading Taiwan. If something structurally changed, like they suddenly felt like they had a military advantage, then they would find something as an excuse to invade and then do it. But the excuse isn't the causal reason for the war. Anyways, Chen has already said ROC=Taiwan, and since you would concede he is the President of ROC, then you are committed to acknowledging he would say he is President of Taiwan even if you don't hear it directly.

A separate point about the argument Mark and others keep bringing up about POV and Taiwan--Chen has deliberately made unclear what he means by ROC. PRC, of course, thinks ROC means the old ROC, and Taiwanese independence supporters are against that old ROC as well. Chen hasn't made that clear though that he means the old ROC. And given his pragmatist streak, what he is really saying is this--there is no need to establish and new Taiwan Republic and that the constitution of the ROC, no matter how foreign and forced it was, has been reformed to the point of allowing democracy, and can be further reformed to adapt to the Taiwanese people. I think this entails refraining from openly declaring independence, but also recognizing that democratic elections have already legitimized the "ROC" government for the Taiwanese people. In any case, all these statements have little to do with the ontology of the past, and everything to do with what they want Taiwan to be in the future. We can't base our interpretations of history on people's desires about the future. What is is, and if and when it changes in the future, we'll edit the article to reflect that.--Amerinese 16:42, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear MarkSweep, I note that your analysis neglected the position of the Taiwanese people who favors Taiwan over ROC in majority. Please take their position into consideration. ROC is not neutral in PRC's eye anyway. PRC does not like "ROC" but still wants Taiwanese people to wear that tag. Please also note that strictly confining the definition of "Taiwan" as a geological entity is not presenting the view point of the majority public as well.--Mababa 04:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against explaining what the various views are. It's just that the heavy-handed editing that's been going on here is not helping: we can't just say "Taiwan is a nation" without explaining carefully what that might mean. And I think that once we can get to that task, we may well find that it can't just be summed up by a single word like "nation" or whatever.

Regarding "Taiwan" as a purely geographic entity, I think that's primarily a convention designed for safety: as long as we only use "Taiwan" in a geographic context, we're not grossly POV. And I still think it's strongly POV to either suggest that "Taiwan is a nation" or "Taiwan is a state" on the one hand, or to suggest that "Taiwan is not a nation" or "Taiwan is not a state" on the other. Such views can be discussed if they can be attributed to specific parties that hold them, but we should not come out and take sides. In other words, "this group of politicians has claimed that X" is probably fine, but an unqualified assertion that X is actually the case will very likely be problematic. But since we clearly have to name names occasionally, it's best to use official names. --MarkSweep 04:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mark, referring to the Taiwanese nation as ROC is a PRC POV. The neutral POV is that which is generally accepted. It's not just western Media that refers to Taiwan as Taiwan, even the newspapers on Taiwan refer to Taiwan as Taiwan and NOT ROC. China prefers that Taiwan uses ROC, because the word China is included in that name. Everywhere you travel, people understand the distinction between Taiwan and China. Using ROC and PRC just confuses people. It's funny, but even Jiang admits that people come to this talk page when debating on Taiwan (the nation) not just Taiwan (the island).--DINGBAT 14:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Impossible. The PRC POV is that the ROC ceased to exist in 1949 and that there is no such "Taiwanese nation". We may be seeing examples of POV-pushing alright, but it's not the PRC's POV. It's only recently that the PRC has given up on its universal opposition to "ROC", because the alternative is to use "Taiwan" instead, which, as you point out, deemphasizes any connection between the ROC and the PRC. Second, I would be surprised if the neutral POV always coincided with what is "generally accepted". Third, I don't buy the "people say X so we should say X" argument; if we did that, we would be vulnerable to political spin from all sides. People say all kinds of things that are based on oversimplification and can be seen as highly inaccurate. In this case, it's not only accuracy that's at stake, but also NPOV. We don't want to say that "PRC equals China", nor do we want to say "PRC does not equal China", and likewise for "ROC" and "Taiwan". It's Ok to attribute such opinions to certain groups, but it's POV either way to assert or deny that "China" is the same as "PRC". You need to appreciate that people arguing against these assertions are not arguing for the opposite view, but are often arguing for not expressing any view at all. --MarkSweep 16:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mark, I'd like to see you try to be more constructive. It's hard to have dialogue with someone that doesn't express a specific position himself. As you say, you're not against explaining, so let's see some explaining.--Amerinese 02:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat and rephrase: it doesn't matter what position I or anyone else takes. Everyone has their own POV. What's important is that the article does not present views as facts. The article can cite and attribute all kinds of views and opinions, but it's important that these are qualified appropriately as just that, views and opinions. I'm not arguing for or against any specific position; rather, I'm arguing against the article endorsing certain controversial positions and presenting them as facts. --MarkSweep 03:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Thus, can I safely say that you agree upon adding the view point suggesting Taiwan as a nation for the sake of NPOV?--Mababa 05:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So building on that, how about an intro reading: Taiwan (Traditional: 臺灣 or 台灣, Simplified: 台湾, Pinyin: Táiwān, Wade-Giles: T'ai-wan, Taiwanese: Tâi-oân) is the name of island in East Asia located off the coast of mainland China, and is commonly used to refer to the government of the Republic of China, which currently administers Taiwan, as well as the smaller outlying islands of Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu. Though functionally independent from the People's Republic of China, Taiwan is claimed by the former as part of its territory. The future fate of Taiwan is a contentious issue.

The main island of Taiwan is bounded to the east by the Pacific Ocean, to the south by the South China Sea, to the west by the Taiwan Strait, and to the north by the East China Sea. The island of Taiwan, also known as Formosa (Portuguese name Ilha Formosa, which means "beautiful island"), is 245 miles long and 90 miles in the shape of a tea leaf and consists of steep mountains covered by tropical and subtropical vegetation.

Main points:

Taiwan is commonly used to refer to the ROC to the point where the terms are almost interchangeble. The ROC .gov administers areas outside of Taiwan proper.
Though functionally independent, the government of Taiwan/ROC has not yet formally abolished the ROC, and thus whatever historical ties that may connotate.
The PRC claims Taiwan to be its territory.
Future status unresolved.
Geographical stuff--Loren 06:08, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It looks good!! :) I was actually suggesting starting an article about Taiwanese national identity with the following points:

Historitcal origin of Taiwanese: some people think Minnan/Hakka Taiwanese are Han, but others thinks these native Taiwanese are Pepo.
Qing period enforced sinication and the questioned immigration from mainland
Self-awareness during the Japanese rule among the social elites
the recent poll numbers in regard of the Chinese vs Taiwanese identity in the context of political localization movements
Scientific datas derived from Lin Mali's HLA study shows: 1)High land tribes are disctinct from Minnan/Hakka 2)Hakka and Minnan are identical 3)Minnan and Hakka are distinct from mainlanders
Criticism from PRC scholars

This proposed article would serve as the main article of the National identity section in the article of Taiwan. However, I am pressed of time. Not sure when I can start this article though. But I think this would be the most informative way to deal with the debate, especially the poll data seemed to be removed from the article political status of Taiwan. :( --Mababa 01:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I strongly believe that the best word for Taiwan is nation. I am open to the possibility that someone will think of a better term, but the worse alternative of simply ignoring trying to describe the community by only referring to the main island, Taiwan Island, is unacceptable. If we ignore the term nation, then we need to think of something to describe the community, culture, history, traditions, connected to the geography, but not necessarily bound to it (i.e. if I am Taiwanese American from Penghu, then this intro seems not to describe me both because I am not living on the main island and because I'm not from the main island originally).--Amerinese 16:27, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Look, I'm all for TI and all, but you must admit that as it stands, the official title used by what you and I think of as the government of Taiwan is "Republic of China". As it currently stands "Taiwan" is used either to refer to the main island itself, or as a common reference to the ROC government. To say otherwise is akin to the nutcases who claim Taiwan as "Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China". My answer to both is, "hasn't happened yet". --Loren 19:51, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

No I don't agree. The main uses for Taiwan is to refer to ROC government as you said, and then to the place of the Taiwanese people, be that the main island or Penghu or others. You should also consider that any time someone uses Taiwanese in an article, they're going to link to Taiwan. People talk about Taiwan all the time and they mean the unity governed by the ROC but they don't mean the ROC itself. Note that this is not the same as calling the ROC (government) Taiwan, which is a challenged usage (although personally, I don't see it as that controversial).--Amerinese 02:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, you pretty much just summed up what I've been saying except for the last part. As you and I mentioned, and as the article in it's current form mentions, whenever someone refers to Taiwan in a statelike manner, what they are really refering to is the political entity called the ROC. Therefore all references to Kinmen and Matsu being occupied by Taiwan are really refering to Kinmen and Matsu being occupied by the ROC. If used in a nationality-like manner as you mentioned above, the word "Taiwanese" refers to people living in regions under ROC jurisdiction. Since the point here is to be NPOV, we must clarify that in the minds of most people, and for most popular use at the moment, "Taiwan==ROC". If the ROC is abolished then naturally you'd have a case for refering to Taiwan as a nation. As it stands though, this is not the case.

Though I'd also argue that the average joe can't tell the difference between Taiwan and Thailand, and the ROC to them is the name of a wrestler. --Loren 08:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait a second, wait a second, hold the phone. Loren, could take a look at the nation article? Why would the abolishment of a _state_ have to do with the existence of a _nation_?--Amerinese 16:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

From the article:

A nation is a community of people who live together in an area (or, more broadly, of their descendants who may now be dispersed); and who regard themselves, or are regarded by others, as sharing some common identity, to which certain norms and behavior are usually attributed. The nationals (born of the "nation" in this sense) are distinguished from the rest by common descent, common language, and/or common institutions.

Now let's look at some of the points here shall we?

Common insitutions/language: Yes to the first, partially yes to the second.
Common identity: Partially in that people from Taiwan, and the outlying islands certainly regard themselves as being different from people from the PRC. However the main problem here is that everyone has a differing interpretation on what that is. Some (I'd argue a great many, but can't really provide anything but anecdotal evidence here) view it as a national identity seperate from China, others view it as an identity within a greater Chinese nation. The exisitance of the ROC (presently at least) is partially indicative of continued support for the latter viewpoint; of course, it is also indicative of ROC being less likely to attract PLA missiles.

I'd say that you're on the right track with the current edit, however there is far from a concensous on the issue even in Taiwan (yeah I know I'm misusing the term). We cannot take sides in the debate in the article, therefore while we can mention what both sides of the debate are, using the term "nation" to describe Taiwan is premature. --Loren 07:07, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Why do you think you're using Taiwan wrong? That's probably the most common usage, and I don't think you'd be right in denying it (I would say that the second most common usage, referring to the ROC government as Taiwan is the controversial one). See, the thing with the threat of force is, as you acknowledge, the likely explanation for why there is no declaration of independence and why there is no political impetus to remove the ROC and establish a ROT. Then you have no way of extrapolating backwards from the existence of the ROC that Taiwanese consider themselves Chinese! It's possible that's a reason, but we already have a main causal reason that covers up whether that's true or not.

My main issue is that nations are often formed by states--places where you can travel freely in between and where there's a common language. But that is not to say that nations ARE states. There are many states with multiple nations and many nations that don't have states or at least are not bound by them. The legitimacy or the illegitimacy of the ROC is not what creates the conditions for the formation of a state, but separation and coherence as a separate community for 100 years is.--Amerinese 04:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the conditions for an independent Taiwan do exist in my own personal opinion, HOWEVER the fact remains that we have not formally done so, either through fear of a war or otherwise. There is a big difference between having the CONDITIONS for a nation, and actually having one. There are plenty of people in Taiwan who subscribe to the viewpoint that the Taiwanese identity is merely a smaller one within that of a greater Chinese Nation, i.e. the Pan-Blue position. We cannot ignore their viewpoints, and therefore we cannot refer to Taiwan as a nation. --Loren 04:48, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

1) In general, identities are self-identifying. I.e. if you claim that you are not a New Yorker even though you are from New York cannot invalidate the claim that there in fact exist people that identify as New Yorkers. 2) Nations are not exclusive identities. One can identify as both ethnic Chinese and a part of the Taiwanese nation.

In the end, I am open to an alternative term, but again, if we just call it an island, we're really avoiding the real topic of the article.

--Amerinese 05:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

In response to your first point: Yes, one can identify as boh ethnic Chinese and part of a Taiwanese nation, but plenty of people don't (yes, even in Taiwan). As I've said at least half a dozen times, we cannot pick a POV here, the most we can do is state that they exist. Identifying Taiwan as a nation takes one of those POV's. --Loren 16:17, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm starting to see everyone's point. Taiwan is indeed a nation and we, although proud mainland Chinese, should probably let them prosper as they have for dozens of years. Maybe someone should just redirect Republic of China to Taiwan.--Jianq 23:56, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) (NB: This comment was not contributed by Jiang, but by an impersonator who has since been banned. --MarkSweep 02:11, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)) --67.92.178.213 17:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed

-- Though functionally independent from the People's Republic of China, Taiwan is claimed by the former as part of its territory. The future fate of Taiwan is a contentious issue.

It's really not clear that this is current position of the PRC is on Taiwan. Roadrunner 23:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Considering that they don't recognise the ROC either, and actively work to keep people from recognising the ROC, I think it's safe to say that the PRC considers the "One China" to be itself, even if they've been trying not to say so lately. --Loren 01:15, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan is not an island

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Taiwan should not be referred to as an island. That has been an established point. See Talk:Taiwan/Archive3#Poll_on_Scope_of_Article and discussion surrounding that poll.--Amerinese 16:14, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Seems most agreed "Taiwan" does not only mean the island. While there's little dispute on whether the Pescadores, Green Island, Orchid Island, etc. are part of Taiwan, there has been lengthy debate on whether Taiwan is extended to cover Quemoy, Matsu, Wuchiu, Taiping, Pratas, etc. Is there any earlier polls from the archives of talk:Taiwan and talk:Republic of China by the way? — Insta ntnood 16:28, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Nood, I didn't see any, although you should check yourself too. In either case, I believe we are agreed that Taiwan is not Taiwan Dao. Your point that they do have a separate historical trajectory than that of most of the rest of Taiwan is well taken. I don't think it's a matter of inclusion/exclusion, but rather of inclusion with caveats. If we can find some specific cultural characteristics or defining features of those islands as separate from Taiwanese culture, we can include that information. The problem with trying to leave that for the ROC article is that the ROC article generally doesn't cover that kind of thing--it covers the government entity.--Amerinese 02:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I vehemently dispute the assertion that the recent poll here (/Archive3#Poll on Scope of Article) established any real consensus. --MarkSweep 23:02, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Haha, do you know what vehemently means? I hope your contributions are not driven by hate. In any case, it was a clear majority that was well-reasoned. There is no momentum to restrict to meaning just the island. The real debate going on now is about the usage of the term nation. Again, I want to hear alternatives rather than avoidances. If you don't want to say nation, you can't just switch topics and talk about the main island of Taiwan Island. We're not talking about a rock in the water here, or else there'd be a lot more material on earthquakes, continental drift, and mineral composition. It's clear that it has always been the intention of the article to talk about a people and their culture and their traditions and their history and their politics and their economy and more. What do you want to call that if you don't want to call it nation? And there is outside, dispassionate consensus on the island nation page that Taiwan is an island nation.--Amerinese 02:15, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

By my count it was an even 4:4 split, if that. And as the previous versions demonstrated, it's perfectly possible to write the article in a way that completely avoids controversial issues and terms like "nation". --MarkSweep 03:57, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

No, it was 6:3 and then you voted after the poll was closed and changes were implemented (people on both sides wouldn't have felt obliged to vote after changes were made so your vote doesn't count either). I'm not sure why you would distort something like a vote where everyone can go and look and see what happened. It's really dishonest, but it's foolish too since I'll call you on that in no time. The fact is, there was a good majority and we'd be worse off trying to go back to the previous state. I think you're too emotionally invested. Try to be more objective. My challenge still stands--what do you propose as an alternative? Avoiding the subject and talking about a geographic landmass instead when it's not the content of the article is not a solution.--Amerinese 16:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The thing is, we have to discount the sockpuppet votes in that poll. There were at least two, possibly more, voting to support that don't count, because it's one vote per person; everything else is dishonest. I've outlined the alternative, and I'll say it for a third time: we do not take a position on the issue of nationhood in this article, which doesn't mean we cannot discuss it. --MarkSweep 18:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

What the? Are you privvy to information the rest of us aren't? Why didn't you challenge the votes in the poll rather than just tell me a number that you know wouldn't make sense to me? In any case, there are separate issues here--the article is not about an island or an geographical landmass--but I agree we can and should discuss nation.--Amerinese 15:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

No, but I am. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Developer_help_needed for the sockpuppet list, including yours [8]. If there really is another person using the same IP, you should get different usernames. And if you claim 160.* is another person, and that you know them personally [9], you should be able to arrange the proposed truce [10] talking to them in person rather than on the talk page - David Gerard 18:57, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Uhh...... Without getting into the validity of that vote, since the topic is controversial, we can still talk about the subject without taking side of it. In this way, we shall not take side on the question whether people of Taiwan is a nation or not. Instead, we should present the thoughts of people from both side thinking about the question: whether people of Taiwan is a nation or not. Let's be civil, people who thinks Taiwan as a nation talks about what they think, and the opposition talks about what they think; I think this would be the best way. Even if that disputed poll on expanding the scope of this article is undoubtly endorsed, we still carries the responsisbility to present opinions of the both sides without endorsing either way.--Mababa 04:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

You guys are editing an outdated version of the page

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:50stars mass reverted this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taiwan&diff=12929345&oldid=12915374. You are editing from an outdated version. Please incorporate edits that were lost through the mass revert. --Ji ang 06:29, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

anyone want to clean this up? --Ji ang 03:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

National identity

Amerinese changed reference to Taiwan as a nation in this edit, and added the following paragraph:

" Depending on one's political views, one may dispute whether or not Taiwan is a nation in its own right. Both some Chinese nationalists and some Taiwanese nationalists see Taiwanese national identity as incompatible with larger Chinese identity, leading one to deny its existence and the other to promote it. Others view Taiwanese national identity as perfectly compatible with Chinese ethnicity. "

This paragraph is neutral and describes the matter objectively. But making references as a nation in the rest of the article is in effect endorsing one of the two opposing views. — Insta ntnood 17:58, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

PRC still claims Taiwan

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I really don't see how this is true:

Historically, the People's Republic of China has claimed Taiwan as an integral part of the PRC. However, starting in 2005, the PRC position seems to have shifted to insisting that Taiwan is part of China without explicitly identifying China with the People's Republic. Both of these positions are contraversial.

The Constitution hasn't been changed. --Ji ang 03:57, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Why are you so big on constitutions? They are basic and foundational, but they are always interpreted broadly and since they are so hard to change, most of the time, shifts in position will be reflected in policy, not the constitution. Jiang, I bet you've never even been to Constitution.--160.39.195.88 05:44, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Beautiful map

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where did the previous beautiful map go? I kind of like it.--Mababa 05:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Discourse and Discussion

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Couldn't we just put the back and forth going on in the talk page into the article under a section called "disputes" or something? OF course we'd have to smooth things out a bit--- but it would seem rather silly to decide definitively whether Taiwan is a "nation" or at this point when there is no real consensus and is still an onggoing, extremely controversial, and interesting, issue. --thevizier 12:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

My problem with the current approach is trying to call Taiwan an island and referring to a geographical feature instead of the thing that I think is clearly a nation. If we then dispute nation, why does it revert to a geographical feature? If we think it's not quite a nation yet, then we should talk about something that is like a nation, that is about people, culture, history, etc., etc., but not just pretend, okay well, we're having some trouble here, let's think about an island instead.--Amerinese 15:14, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that most people do not think a nation exists in the first place. How can the use of the term be NPOV? Calling it the island and implying that we're interested in everything on top of the island is perfectly valid. You might want to note that other island articles go beyond the geographic characteristics of the island. --Ji ang 22:07, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Who is most people? When you cite Chinese people, you are probably referring to those that think in Mandarin, and when you think of those that think in Mandarin, you are thinking of a language that does not know exactly a word that means what nation does in English. Generally, the Chinese terms are pretty vague and do not correspond to English ones. A few years back, President Lee Tenghui said that China and Taiwan should conduct negotiations on a state to state basis and he couldn't say the speech in Chinese!--Amerinese 05:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Consistency

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Taiwan is clearly listed under island nation. For consistency's sake, I am changing it to island nation and we will include the discussion on why it is disputed in the introduction (laying out all the issues honestly up front). Topically, it does not make sense to introduce Taiwan as an island for many already mentioned reasons, including that this article is not about a geographical feature.--Amerinese 15:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

if it is disputed then we can't call it that, can we? We already told you - the island nation article 1) lists ROC, not Taiwan, and 2) defines nation as state. You are not defining it as such. Please show me one reputably and "neutral" source that calls Taiwan a nation. Every other encyclopedia calls it an island. --Ji ang 22:03, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, you just painted yourself into a corner. Show me one reputable neutral source that separates Taiwan into Taiwan and ROC the way Wikipedia does! Every other encyclopedia calls it an island nation! =) --Amerinese 05:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Political Status Section

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Uh... Why was the entire section removed? It was mentioned that it was too long, but a complete removal? I suspect it was Jiang, but see no explanations here.--Amerinese 15:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

see #Proposed modifications. --Ji ang 22:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

about nation.

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Coudln't we just introduce Taiwan as an island (Becuase it is at least geographically an island) and say there is debate and controversy about the status of TAiwan (its people, the political entity, the word itself) as a nation and its relationship to mainland China etc and then have a few sections talking about the various sides of the issue and arguments on each side, rather than try to create a definitive definition of something that is changing and evolving. What Taiwan is is changing everyday so why not accept that, and accept the controversy, and present all sides of the issue (which may be impossible, but instead of deleting, why can't we have sections for each side?) With a subject this controversial you'll never have any real consensus-- it doesn't even seem the people on Taiwan are entirely sure, and the idea of a TAiwanese nation is developing/evolving, perhaps coming into place, but it is not universally accepted by the people on the island or elsehwere-- but there is a debate, a change going on, so why can't we write about that, instead of trying to pigeon hole Taiwan as this or that so that it can conveniently fit our ideological scheme of the world?

It seems that the only thing that people can agree on is that Taiwan is at least an island. Some would say it is just an island, some would say it is a nation, a state, a people etc etc.

Besides, the word "Taiwan" has various levels of signification. One is the island Taiwan, the other is the political entity ruled by the what is called the "ROC" that includes various islands off the coast of Fujian and the main island of Taiwan. It also connotes nation to same, a province to others etc etc etc. Anyone who wants to fix only one connotation to it is blatantly ignoring the scope of the word. --thevizier 18:42, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Jiang's deletions about nation controversy

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

"island nation" is gross POV; also rm links to crap POV articles

Related to its contentious political status is its identity as a nation. Depending on one's political views, one may dispute whether or not Taiwan is a nation in its own right. Both some Chinese nationalists and some Taiwanese nationalists see Taiwanese national identity as incompatible with larger Chinese identity, leading the former to deny its existence and the latter to promote it. Others view Taiwanese national identity as perfectly compatible with Chinese ethnicity.
Jiang deleted reference to the controversy about Taiwan's status as a nation above as well as a link to the island nation article, citing the reasoning at the top. I feel like he's crossing the line here dismissing other Wiki articles as "crap POV" articles, and I also don't understand how he is helping NPOV by removing the regarding how people both believe Taiwan is a nation and don't believe Taiwan is a nation. NPOV means inclusion of all POVs doesn't it? It would seem then that censorship and silence would violate NPOV policy just as much as a single POV.--Amerinese 05:41, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the primary problem is your description of Taiwan as an island nation in the opening which is a POV. The NPOV way of going about it would be something along the lines of Supporters of Taiwan independence regard Taiwan as a soverign nation, supporters of Chinese unification consider it part of a greater Chinese nation, while the People's Republic of China considers Taiwan to be one of it's provinces, which of course is a little wordy, hence the use of island. Explicitly stating that Taiwan is a nation without clarifying it as a POV is unacceptable. For example, how would you take it if I edited the intro to read Taiwan is a renegade province of the People's Republic of China and forms an inseperable whole with the mainland... without clarifying that it was a POV? --Loren 06:13, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I didnt delete it. Please look towards the end of the culture section - the lead is too long to fit all this; start a new section if you like.

The "crap" im referring to exists at Chinese imperialism and Japanese imperialism. If those articles aren't improved soon, Ill nominate them for deletion since they are crap. --Ji ang 06:32, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

But you didn't give a reason for your move. Given that you moved the Economics section up, your goal appears to be to bury any discussion of nation at the very bottom of the article. Given the heated discussion, that's wrong. If anything, there's too much history in the introduction and that should be reduced--not the controversy over nation.--Amerinese 17:28, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Lead section POV

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

explanation for this edit:

first sentence needs to define what Taiwan is (a island) instead of just stating where it is located.
country of the Republic of China (ROC) does not make sense. The Republic of China cannot objectively be a "country". It can be called a state, but who calls it a country?
"The country commonly known as "China" is administered by another nation officially known as the People's Republic of China (PRC)." Two POV claims here: 1) "China" is a "country" that only includes what is administered by the PRC and 2) the PRC is a nation. The latter point is really supported by no one.
Removal of "Since 1945, Taiwan has been governed by the Republic of China, which had previously existed on mainland China since 1912." why? it's good historical context, otherwise, we dont know where the ROC came from
"The PRC routinely uses biased rhetorical propaganda to portray the ROC government on Taiwan as an illegitimate political entity." calling it "biased rhetorical propaganda" is certainly not neutral
"This is in contrast to the reality that the ROC has never been administered or controlled by the PRC. " Again, a violation of NPOV. Does the "biased rhetorical propaganda" claim that the PRC already controls Taiwan? I didn't think so... --Ji ang 00:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Mostly agreed though I just want you to clarify your thord point, I am a little bit confused. --Hunter 03:09, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Cohesiveness of Edits

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think I have a bit of a chip on my shoulder about poor writing. I really dislike small edits that are disruptive to the article and may fix one problem but introduce others.

Anyways, the reason I really dislike Jiang's deletion about Qing ceding Taiwan to the Japanese is that the all of a sudden control of the ROC at 1945 begs for explanation. Why did they take it over? Did they previously control it? Why did they lose control of it? I understand in the particulars, ROC never controlled Taiwan, but they were seen as the legitimate China, no? I am still trying to figure this out in more detail, as that's not really true either as there is some indication that Taiwan was a US military territory that the ROC took control over on behalf of the Allied powers.

The deletion of the final paragraph also makes less sense than a shortening of the history described in the penultimate one. The final paragraph describes a lot about how Taiwan is today economically and politically while the penultimate one is more about history and political questions about its future. If anything we could put some thought into a quick summary of the penultimate paragraph. But if you're not willing to make the full leap, I rather have a cohesive, though length intro than one that is shorter but not cohesive or comprehensive.

Also, as a side note, please watch your grammar in all edits. Thanks, rant over.--DownUnder555 04:05, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

The historical bit is there in the first place because the political status of Taiwan is a confusing topic and needs clarification. It is not clear how the Qing ceding Taiwan or Japanese rule has to do with the current political status (yes, it might be relevant, but not in the confines of the lead section). The lead section is much too long. It is not meant to summarze Taiwanese history. If a direct link between Japanese rule and the current political status of Taiwan cannot be explicitly made, then we are better off excluding any mention of Japanese rule--Ji ang 05:19, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I would have to agreee with DownUnder555 on this one. The part on Japanese rule really isn't that long and I think is quite relavent to the current political status, in that it created a seperation of 50 or so years between the two sides, and unanswered questions about the transfer of sovergenty are still brought up today. --Loren 09:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't know many thing about Taiwanese history. Although i am a Taiwanese. Now i am writing an article about Taiwan,to make the foreigner interested. Is there any interesting culture and nature things about Taiwan? tall me please. Thanks a lot. 03:12,28 May 2005(UTC)

I would suggest the following site regarding Taiwan history:

http://www.taiwannation.com.tw

That link seems to endorse a rather extreme POV, I'm not even sure if it should be included in the article. Opinions? --Loren 09:45, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unless you are able to repudiate the views expressed at the website, otherwise you should not claim that the website endorse " a rather extreme POV ".

I consider it extreme in that it starts making emotionally charged arguements on rather touchy issues such as racial descent, and seems blatantly racist when referring to anything Chinese. I also tend to be somewhat wary of sites that repesent themselves as the "true history" of anything. I'm not going to question the points brought up by the site as I am not the ultimate authority on these things; but at any rate, if you wanted to present a history of Taiwan from a TI POV, there are much better sites that you could choose which would be understandible to an English speaking audience which are much less reliant on emotionally charged (and possibly dubious) arguements. I would be equally as skeptical of a site that claimed "all Taiwanese are Chinese and Taiwanese culture is degenerate".

Also, please sign your comments. Thanks.--Loren 14:41, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't find anything in the content of that website what you described as "emotionally charged arguments" and "blatant racist".

The website that you refer to, provides a racist myth regarding Taiwanese:

"The Dutch brought in Chinese laborers as migrant workers. for the sugar plantations and rice fields. They usually came for a few years (without family) and then returned to China. Eventually, more settled, and married aborigine wives. Thus a new race was born: the Taiwanese".

According to abovementioned excerpt, Taiwanese is a "new race" created by intermarriage between Chinese and Aborigines. There is no historical basis for this "fact".

The difference with the other TI POV websites is that this website presents a complete different analysis on Taiwan history based on historical records.

Thanks.---Siyac 11:42, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fundamentally speaking your site provides the same arguments on the Chinese version (Chinese + aboriginal mixing, or pure aboriginal) and the English version seems to portray China in the worst light possible. Now for all I know that might be true, but I am still somewhat skeptical.

Maybe I'm just tired of the old argument about nationalism based on race... seems like assertions about Taiwanese being a different race and thus deserving independence is just the same arguement Chinese nationalists use when trying to claim Taiwan (Once Chinese always Chinese). Personally I've always thought of a nation being defined more by the common beliefs of a people rather then who they are or aren't descended from (i.e. Americans originally being British colonists).

Anyhow, I digress. I withdraw my challenge to your link. --Loren 04:45, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)