Talk:Taiwan (island)/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Government in Exile

There's a dispute over at Talk:Government in exile over the sovereignity of the ROC, and whether or not it is a gov't in exile. There is also a request for comment for one of the editors involved. More input is needed to resolve this issue, thanks.

Request for comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mafia_godfather T-1000 (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You've been busy canvassing for help, eh? T-1000. Mafia godfather (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, The point of a request for comment is to get more input? My message here is not biased against you. Why are you afraid to let people know? Does that mean you know that your POV is fringe all along? T-1000 (talk) 04:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh heavens no! I am not afraid at all. In fact, I enjoy every ounce of this attention! People need to know how many editors up here been throwing misinterpreted wiki policies and preventing good information from contributed because of editor mobocracy. I just find it very amusing that you are going around asking people to comment on the dipute you have with me on a page that has nothing to do with ROC as government in exile... and at the end we only have a few people who showed up to comment other than those who originally were involved in the dispute. One of the outsider even formally explaqained that he thought I was someone else after you have left enough messages on his board complaining about me. You have no idea how much joy I get from your effort. Keep it up! Do you want me to spread the word, too, or are you OK? hahaMafia godfather (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If T-1000 were canvassing for help he would have been better off putting the notice on the talk pages of people he thinks would be sympathetic to his side of the disagreement. Instead he put the notice here were anyone who edits the Taiwan article can see it. A similar notice was put the Republic of China talk page. Readin (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"If T-1000 were canvassing for help he would have been better off putting the notice on the talk pages of people he thinks would be sympathetic to his side of the disagreement" Well, THAT is exactly what he did. [1]LOL You know what is even better? If what you are saying is true... then he should also have left similar messages on talk pages of Taiwanese Independence for the sake of perspective, and since you all REPEATEDLY say that this is about Political status of Taiwan and Legal status of Taiwan, howcome T-1000 left no RfC on the discussion pages there? Where many people who agree Taiwan is not a part of ROC as a fact would be able to access the RfC if they have seen a request as such. Very interesting. No RfC left on San Francisco Peace Treaty, Treaty of Taipei, and Chinese civil war to obtain more different perspectives. It is funny that nothing was discussed on this page about ROC as a GiE, and many other pages I mentioned earlier have had extensive discussion on this perticulaar topic. I can't help but wonder his intention to only listed the RfCs on Taiwan, China, and Republic of China. Mafia godfather (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying people interested in ROC/Taiwan's sovereignty won't come to Taiwan's talk page? I left the message on China and ROC because the Blue and Red viewpoints are major as well, and NPOV demands that they be included. T-1000 (talk) 20:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that it's funny that you obviously have thought it through before you posted those RfC messages but you didnt do it thoroughly enough. You completely left greens out. You did not leave any on talk pages of political status of Taiwan and legal status of Taiwan. You left none on the discussion pages of articles about the relevant treaties. I didnt even go as far as saying you did not leave any similar messages on Japan, Instrument of Surrender, Cairo Declaration, Potsdam Declaration ..... T-1000, you sure you are REALLY trying to enforce NPOV policies? Please. Mafia godfather (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that Greens don't come to the Taiwan page? T-1000 (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I am saying that you were not thorough. Mafia godfather (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ROC retreated to Taiwan

I think it's important to note that the U.S., which defeated Japan in WWII, gave the Chinese ROC (which was defeated by the Chinese Mao army) the permission to occupy Taiwan. It was meant to temporary until the ROC realized that they can never ever retake their motherland. The U.S. "gave" Taiwan to the Chinese, and later decided that the U.S. will ambiguous as to whether they support as a country or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.137.201.43 (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, it was under temporary "trusteeship" of the ROC handed over by the UN, and under some unclear language/documentation and lack of further action by the UN, Taiwan became de facto ROC territory. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Mistakefinder (talk) 09:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

At the end of World War II, Japan had agreed to give up sovereignty over Taiwan to the Republic of China.[6].

This is simply incorrect. Japan never named the ROC as the successor goverment. Japan surrendered sovereignty of Formosa in the 70's to a, as of yet, undertermined party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.81.5 (talk) 14:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The Treaty of Taipei explicitly states that all previous treaties signed with the Chinese government are retroactively nullified, meaning that the secession of Taiwan in 1895 from China to Japan is retroactively nullified. Therefore, as the successor government of the Qing, the Republic of China was the legal government of Taiwan after 1912. There are those who will now want to argue whether the ROC is a legitimate government after 1949, but that is not what the Treaty of Taipei is addressing. There is no doubt from mainstream international lawyers that Taiwan belonged to the Republic of China when the Treaty of Taipei came into effect. The alliance (talk) 22:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

But the statement of the text is that Japan surrendered sovereignty to the ROC. That is not true. The treaty of Taipei does not name the ROC as the successor to the Chinese Empire. The treaty says that Japan renounces claim to Taiwan, and that the former treaties are null and void. But it doesn't say whether the people of Taiwan, the people of Manchuria (the Qing origin) or some other people should take possession of Taiwan since the treaty that transferred the colony from Qing to Japan was voided. Readin (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Retroactive nullification means that in 1895, Taiwan was not legally separated from the Qing Empire. Therefore, when the Qing collapsed with the establishment of the ROC on the Mainland, Taiwan was legally a province of the ROC. Furthermore, Japan stated in the Treaty of Taipei that all Taiwanese shall have Chinese nationality, further clarifying that Taiwan was part of the ROC. The alliance (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

There are many theories about the legal status of Taiwan. Some would argue that by the time the Treaty of Taipei was signed, the PRC had already succeeded the ROC. Others make a compelling argument that Taiwan is still legally under the administration of the Allied powers or even the U.S. specifically. Making your argument is WP:OR and using only one of the various theories is violating WP:NPOV. Readin (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually believing that Taiwan is not part of the ROC is as out of touch with reality as claiming that Taiwan is part of the PRC. NPOV is to ensure that on contentious issues, all arguments are made. It is not to be invoked for things such as conspiracy theories. I have not heard any prominent politician (aside from former President Chen, who later recanted his statement) or international lawyer claim that Taiwan is actually part of the United States. The burden of proof is not on the fact that Taiwan is part of the ROC, rather, on those who argue that it is part of the United States. The alliance (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The specific statement in question claims that Japan explicity agreed to give sovereignty to the ROC. It is not question of whether or not the ROC currently has sovereignty. Even if the Treaty of Taipei did state that Japan was giving sovereignty to the ROC, it would be a problem because the treaty also says it is nulling the earlier treaty in which the Qing promised sovereignty to Japan. If that treaty is void, then how could Japan be giving a sovereignty that it doesn't have? But then what does nulling a treaty really do? The 50 years of Japanese sovereignty actually occurred - you can't just roll back time. These questions of so-called "international law" are not clear-cut. About all we can say is that the ROC currently has sovereignty over Taiwan by, if nothing else, right of conquest. The ROC sent troops and suppressed dissent - that makes it the sovereign. But even that simple observation draws howls of protest. Readin (talk) 05:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Japanese official position on disposition of Taiwan is "merely stating that Japan renounced all claims to sovereignty over its former colonial possessions after World War II." [2] Japan and the world has never recognized ROC'c claim over Taiwan or claims such as "Japan had agreed to give up sovereignty over Taiwan to the Republic of China." This needs to be corrected. Since this is an English article, I am guessing a reliable English published source would probably have priority over non-English source. Mafia godfather (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Official position and what originally happened is different. The USSR's 'official' position with Alaska was that it was 'lent' to the US, yet the original treaty/agreement clearly states that the Russian Empire had transferred all soverienty over Alaska to the US. As for what the rest of the world 'recognises' or what, that matters little as well. Most of the nations in the world do not recognise South Ossettia's independence from Georgia, yet it is independent from Georgian rule whether one likes it or not. As for pertaining to the current arguments by the Blues in the ROC, they argue that the Japanese instrument of surrender (english copies everywhere on the internet, look for it) itself gives up the sovereinty of Taiwan, Penghu, and other territory of China to the ROC, so that means that there still is a document signed by Japan and the Allied forces of what happens to Taiwan etc etc.

As for english sources having priority over non-english sources, that's not true either. Wiki-manual/policy does not say that. What it is says is that English sources are preferred. 'preferred' does not mean 'absolute'. This means that foreign sources can still be 'above' english sources.

Anyways, aye, Readin is correct. All we can say is that Taiwan is currently administered by the RoC. As for how, that's too political and controversial to deal with. Liu Tao (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont think you understand, Liu Tao. The only parties dealt with Taiwan's disposition were the Allied powers(excluding China) and Japan. The only treaty that was ever signed and ratified on Taiwan's dispotion was San Francisco Peace Treaty. None of them mentioned sovereignty transfer of Taiwan to ROC or China to that extent. Since Japan was the original party involved and has not changed its official position since when it "happened", the primary source is probably the most reliable. This is very different than Alaska or Souith Ossetia.

Potsdam Proclamation and Japanese Instrument of Surrender do not supercede the legality of San Francisco Peace Treaty. Potsdam or Cairo Declaration were referred by the Japanese Instrument of Surrender as guidelines to spell out the demands of the allies. The Instrument of Surrender is merely a to-do list for Japan to follow in exchange for cease fire and temporary suspension of war. The peace treaty is the ultimate legal binding agreement between Japan and the Allied forces on the demands as described by the JIS. As soon as SFPT comes into force, the obligations Japanese had were hold fulfilled, and the settlement marks the end of hostilities and beginning of peace. Therefore the JIS and all declaration used as reference become obsolete and nullified. It is elementary legal concept, what makes it controversial is too many editors up here do not know enough on the subject to validate the reference and sources of information.

No offense, Liu, but have you read [[3]] ? "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English language sources of equal caliber and content, though the latter are allowed where appropriate. When quoting a source in a different language, please provide both the original-language quotation and an English translation, in the text, in a footnote, or on the talk page as appropriate." Familiar with this policy? Mafia godfather (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You keep citing treaties. Treaties only describe realities to the extent that they are followed, enforced and/or believed to be enforced. You claim that the ROC did not take possession of Taiwan because they were not allowed to under treaty. Do you have any evidence that the ROC actually followed these treaties? Do you have any evidence that anyone enforced the treaties and caused the ROC to either refrain from taking possession of Taiwan or to give up possession of Taiwan?

As I understand it, the Kellogg-Briand Pact effectively outlawed war. Should we delete the World War II articles because they never happened, as proved by said treaty (signed by both Germany and Japan)? Readin (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

ROC up until today still follows the treaties I have mentioned, Readin. One best example is that Treaty of Taipei clearly stated it was the positions of ROC and Japan to abide by what was arranged per San Francisco Peace Treaty. Not Instrument of Surrender, not Potsdam Declaration, not Cairo Declaration, but the Treaty of San Francisco. Article 2 and Article 5 specifically made reference to SFPT's Article 2 and Article 10. Also, in Article 6 the ROC made it clear that they will abide by the UN Charter. Do you need anymor evidence or would you prefer to just read more about the subject and then come back to chat some more? SFPT did not refrain ROC from taking control of Taiwan, it just made ROC not the owner of it. ROC does in fact, control Taiwan, no? You can be a nanny of some kids that you do not have and be responsible for them, and that does not make you the dad. Except that ROC did not expect that would lose mainland China at the end, so they were marooned on Taiwan, without territorial sovereignty ever transferred to them. The only they can survive is to make all Taiwanese agree that ROC is their country and Taiwan has been given back to ROC. That worked well during the martial law period when Taiwan was not democratic and ruled by obscurantism.

Kellogg-Briand Pact is a treaty to promote peace and that is addressed in UN Charter Article 2. It is a plead for peace and does not disallow nations from defending themselves in event of invasion. Germany and Japan obviously paid the price for breaking the laws and were charged with war crimes against humanity.Mafia godfather (talk) 19:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

According to the article Who Owns Taiwan: A Search for International Title in the Yale Law Journal, March 1972, in 1941, China proclaimed that all treaties with Japan were abrogated. However, this act was deviod of legality and effect in international law. Some important excerpts from the article are here http://www.civil-taiwan.org/cairo-potsdam.htm Of interest is to note that the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 positively identified Taiwan as an insular area of Japan. Later, in 1935, Chinese General Chen Yi visited Taiwan to help to celebrate the 40th anniversary of Japanese sovereignty in Taiwan. At those ceremonies, he congratulated the Taiwanese on their good fortune to be Japanese subjects. In an interview with American journalist Edgar Snow on July 16, 1936, Mao Zedong advocated that Taiwan should be independent out of the Japanese colonial rule. An Oct. 1959 US court case held that no treaty had ever transferred the territorial title of Taiwan to the ROC. See http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/shengvs.htm Ahem ... The above facts do not support the contention that the cession of Taiwan to Japan via the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki had somehow become "invalidated," or that some other arrangement had caused the territorial sovereignty of Taiwan to be transferred to the ROC. Additionally, the official "Starr Memorandum" authored by the US Dept. of State in 1971 held that the ROC did not acquire title to Taiwan territory via either the Peace Treaty of San Francisco or the Treaty of Taipei. Excerpts from that official document are here http://www.taiwanbasic.com/nstatus/starr.htm Hmortar (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Taiwan

Can you elaborate more about the Spanish colonisation in Taiwan? It was short and a fort was founded, but local historians probably know more about their influence in the area during those years. Probably there are still many Christian Taiwanese descendants of some of those who converted to Catholicism under the Spanish colonial period, the same way as in Japan (I think that in Japan even bread is still called "pan" in Spanish after Jesuits established bases in the area)--83.35.180.29 (talk) 00:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)Sorry, I have read the article in History of Taiwan. The name of the fort was Fort Santo Domingo and local people raised against the Spanish Governor of that time. There is also a cape called Cape San Diego in Taiwan, named after the Spanirds, and still today called that way.--83.35.180.29 (talk) 00:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Native Ethnic Groups

Alright, we're having issues of whether or not to include the Native Ethnic groups in the info box, so we're gonna discuss it. I support adding them in, or at the least some of them in. The Natives are not one big ethnic group, they're split into 14 separate ethnic groups, at least that's how the RoC government does it (PRC puts them all in one group (Gaoshan)). It would be unfair and unreasonable to include Han subgroups like the Holo and Hakka but not include entire ethnic groups themselves. Liu Tao (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with not showing all the individual aborigine groups. They are distinct, but the groups are all very small. If we are going to show them, then in fairness we should show other distinct small groups in Taiwan such as Indonesians and Vietnamese and even Americans and Japanese. Readin (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But thos Indeos have a RoC passport, those American or Japanese, as they name already says, have other nationalities. 快樂龍 22:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether they have ROC passports or not, they live in Taiwan and have an effect on life there. Readin (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

But that's not the point. Look, when you talk about a country or a region and want to say something about the people there, you usually do not write about people who live there since they are born and have that countries or regions passport. If immigrants are a special number, you mention them further in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuaile Long (talk • contribs) 08:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying the statistics we provide should only include the younger "mainlanders" whose parents or grandparents were the ones who immigrated leave out the older mainlanders who arrived prior to 1949? That seems like an odd approach. If we're going to talk about who lives in Taiwan we should include everyone. Readin (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't talking about them at all. I was saying, that we should add the Gaoshanpeople. 快樂龍 14:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Mountain people are already add. The question is whether we should list all the individual tribes here or refer the reader to another page to get the full list. According to the Demographics of Taiwan page, there are more Indonesians in Taiwan than there are members of most of those tribes. There are more Americans in Taiwan than in some of those tribes. So if we're going to list the tribes individually here, it would make sense to also list other groups, especially the Indonesians and Vietnamese. Readin (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a fact, and so it should at least add the group of Gaoshanren. 快樂龍 05:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Gaoshan are the Natives. The PRC categorises all of the Natives into one big Gaoshan group. The ROC categorises the Natives into 14 seperate ethnicities. As for 'all' the groups, we can include them, but you just have to find the source and numbers for them. I'm just going to settle with doing a bit of alteration is all. Liu Tao (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge into Taiwan discussion

I don't see any discussion on the proposed Merge. Who proposed it? I think it's important to keep it separate because it is a politicial subdivision and includes more than just the island of Taiwan. This article provides the political/administrative history of the entire province and doesn't cover geographical/biological aspects which are covered by articles on the individual islands and archipelagoes. I understand Taiwan is over 90% area of the province but that doesn't justify the merge since they are distinct entities, just like the State of Hawaii is separate from the Island of Hawaii, which also accounts for most of the area of the state. I've seen the Merge tag on the page for months. If I don't see any further discussions in a week, I will delete the tag. --Mistakefinder (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the name "province" is in and of itself confusing, it could lead readers to the mistaken view that Taiwan is a province of the PRC. Perhaps a name like "Taiwan (nation)" or "Taiwan (government)" would be more appropriate and less misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.75.236 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan is not ROC (Republic of China)

Please get rid of "ROC = Taiwan = Chinese Taipei" this message. Taiwan is Taiwan. China is China. Not ROC not Chinese Taipei. Do you guys know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.209.237 (talk) 05:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation terminology issue

Apparently we are having disagreements on what the english translation of 本省人 is. The Native Taiwanese article does not say that 本省人 = Native Taiwanese, it says the first given usage, dealing with ancestry and migration, is similar to the Chinese term 本省人. 本省人 translates to 'people of this province', that is what it means, just as 外省人 means people of outside this province. Liu Tao (talk) 06:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So what is the issue you are raising? The alliance (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there is an argument of what is the English translation of 本省人. I fix the translation and someone reverts them. Liu Tao (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought we had previously agreed to use "benshengren" and "waishengren"?--Jiang (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Alright, then I'll edit as per then. Thanks! Liu Tao (talk) 23:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Cailon

In his 1589 map Maris Pacifici, Abraham Ortelius identified a large island between China and the Philippines (in Taiwan's location) as Cailon (see map at WM Commons). How notable is this name as an ancient name for Taiwan? Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 06:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ceylon? Back in the 1500s, European geographical knowledge of Asia was very minimal. Back in Marco Polo's time, they believed that China and India were one geographical entity. There are Christopher Columbus-era maps that mark the word "INDIA" even on locations such as Siberia. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I had the same thought, but I have older maps also by Ortelius (dated 1570, 1574 and 1581) that each depict Zeilan just east of the southern tip of India (this would be Ceylon) but do not show anything at Taiwan's location but open ocean. Ortelius seems to have neglected Taiwan until his 1589 map (the Western limit of which is the Phillipine islands), when suddenly he shows a rather large island where there had been none before, and I find it compelling that he consistently called Ceylon Zeilan and then when Taiwan appears, it is called Cailon and not Zeilan. Unfortunately, the area covered by this map of the Pacific Ocean does not include the area where he formerly indicated Zeilan, which would clarify things to some extent if he showed the two on the same map. Taking another look at the earlier maps, particularly the 1570 map, it looks like Ortelius may have simply underestimated the size of Taiwan and lumped it into the Lequio/Lequiho (Ryukyu) islands. Indeed, European knowledge of Asian geography was quite limited at the close of the 15th century, but it grew rapidly throughout the 16th century and by the early 1600s, European maps had a remarkable accuracy when compared to maps of the late 15th century. While you could say that knowledge was limited in Marco Polo's time, this map was not drawn in Marco Polo's time, nor even in Columbus's time, but in 1589, after the renaissance in European cartography, and even after this map's maker had created the world's first modern atlas. I don't think he was just tossing islands about willy-nilly. I was wondering, though, if Cailon is a name for Taiwan that has been found elsewhere in maps and literature of the 16th-17th centuries. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 12:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei

Comment: Though I am sure that this has been discussed before it seems to me the deliberate omission of "Chinese Taipei" from this discussion is misleading. This is not to say that it has to be mentioned as a synonym per se but not mentioning that the international community uses this term in many settings seems unjustifiable.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Chinese Taipei is an alternate name for the Republic of China, a political entity, rather than Taiwan, the geographic entity. Chinese Taipei is currently mentioned in Republic_of_China#Names. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I get it. My point is that saying Taiwan is under the government of the ROC without mentioning this alternate name is not entirely NPOV (i.e. since the very legitimacy of the ROC is a subject of international debate). Additionally since Taiwan is the main part of the ROC/Chinese Taipei, some people use Chinese Taipei in a geographic sense as well as a political sense. Again, I am not suggesting stating this as a synonym, but for the sake of clarity and NPOV it seems that mentioning this phrase at least one time is necessary. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that Chinese Taipei needs to be mentioned in the Taiwan article. Chinese Taipei is a geopolitical term while the Taiwan article is not (supposed to be) political. The alliance (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Taiwan article covers the non-political aspects of the country, while the ROC government article covers politics - and Chinese Taipei is definitely a political term. Readin (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You still don't bloody get it. The Taiwan article covers the island and only the island. The ROC covers the political state INCLUDING the island AND politics just like every other state polity articles do. Liu Tao (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The ROC is NOT just like every other political state. It is the only state I know of that started in one place and wound up in another with no significant territorial consistency.

The Taiwan article is not about rocks and dirt surrounded by water. It is about non-political aspects of what people call "Taiwan" (whether they consider it a province, island, country or region). Readin (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A state is a state. It has territory, population, and a sovereign government. That is the definition of a state. A 'state' is either a state or it is not, simple as that. There's no such thing as 'not the same'. It has territory, yes? It has population, yes? It has a government, yes? It is sovereign, yes? It's a bloody state. Territorial consistency, what is it? What is the definition of being 'politically consistent'? The United Kingdoms at one time was composed of 1/4 of the world's territory, now it's nothing but a few islands off the coast Europe, yet its article talks about its culture and its people. Rome started out as a city, then becoming one of the largest empires of its time. It doesn't even exist anymore yet its article talks of its people and culture. The US started out as 13 colonies on the North American East Coast, 200 years becoming the 4th largest nation in the world, yet its article talks of its culture and people.

As for Taiwan, the bloody article itself says that it talks about the island, which is a geographical entity, meaning the article is better titled 'Taiwan Island'. The article talks about the island and only the island. Nothing says you can't talk about culture, the British Isles talks of its culture, the Great Britain article talks of religion. Being a Geographical entity article is no excuse to not talk of the island's culture and people. Being a state that has lost the vast majority of its territory is no excuse not to talk of its people and culture. Heck even the largest state Russia and continent Asia talks of its people, culture, and languages. Nobody said that an island article can't talk about its people and culture. Yes, Taiwan Island is a hunk of rock with dirt surrounded by water, but it's a hunk of rock with people living on it. There are people, you can talk about the people. The people have culture, you can talk about the culture. Liu Tao (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You mention Rome, United Kingdom, and Russia as states for comparison with the ROC.

• Rome began its history at a location on the Tiber River. Rome still occupies that same location. At all times, from the beginning until now, Rome has been on the Tiber River.
• The United Kingdom began its official life as a union or England, Wales and Scotland. It is still a union of England Wales and Scotland. During all of UK history it has always contained England, Wales and Scotland.
• Russia's beginning was centered around Kiev and Moscow. Kiev and Moscow are still the Russian heartland.

The ROC is very different. It started in China. In 1945 it acquired Taiwan from Japan as war booty, and then 4 years later it lost China. Unless you are claiming the Kinmen and Matsu are the ROC heartland, it can't be equated to the other examples. Even America, which started as a country a fraction the size of what it is now, has never lost its original territory. And even if it lost that territory today, the change would not be so dramtic because the basic shape of the country has remained unchanged for over 100 years providing plenty of time for assimilation of the various parts. The change in the ROC from 1945 to 1949, four years, was far more dramatic. The population changed, the land area changed, and with these changed the culture, the economy, the customs, the most common language and pretty much any other non-governmental thing you can think of. This makes the ROC different from other states in the way that matters for what we are discussiong here: identification. When someone says Italy when they really mean Italian Republic, it matters little because the Italian Republic has governed Italy for its entire existence. The concept of "Italy" has many parts: the people, the economy, the land, the culture, and even the government. And those concepts all have a common history and have always remained tied together. But the ROC, which is a government, has no similar relationship with any people, economy, land, or culture.

If you really think the ROC is like any other state, then you should support the notion of merging Taiwan and ROC articles just as other government articles are merged with the country they government - under the name commonly used to refer to them - in this case "Taiwan". Do you support such a merger where the "Republic of China" article would redirect to "Taiwan" just as the French Republic link redirects to France? Readin (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not doing comparisons, I am making examples, and you are missing my points with them. I'm not even comparing them to the RoC. Point I am making is that the ROC no matter how small still has people, if it has people, then it has culture, if it has culture, you can talk about it. I was using the UK and Roman articles as a point. Rome doesn't even exist anymnore (I'm talking about the bloody state, don't get smart with me about the City) yet its culture is still being described. If even a dead nation has culture, then why does the ROC not? What, is the ROC below Rome? Does the ROC not have culture? Does it have so little culture that it's less than that of a dead nation's?

As for geographical articles, the point is that you keep on BSing about 'geographical articles being just a hunk of rock', it's 'just a hunk of rock' because you MADE it a hunk of rock. The Ireland and Great Britain articles are all geographical Island articles, yet they still talk of culture and people. Only YOU make the claim that geographical articles can't talk about culture and people.

Culture is culture, if it has people, then the people have culture. The ROC has people, the ROC has culture. Nobody told you to ******* write about 'culture on mainland', just culture in general. Even if you don't want to talk about the culture of the ROC whilst it was on mainland, you can still write of the culture of the current territories it administers. Unless the territories don't have culture, there's nothing you can't write about.

And you still don't get it. The ROC is a bloody state, a state by definition has a government territory and people. If it doesn't have any one of those, then it is not a state. It is common sense. The ROC HAS a government, it is NOT a government. It HAS territory AND population. How difficult is it for you to understand the concept of a political state? There is a bloody definition out there yet you refuse to adhere to it. A state is a political entity that is composed of a sovereign government, territory, and population. If the ROC has no territory or population, then it is not a state, simple as that. Government is a political organisation designed for running a state. If the ROC is the government, then what is the state? Don't say Taiwan because it is not. The only entities going by the name of Taiwan is the Island and the province, that is it, nothing else. The RoC has a government, known as the ROC government 中華民國政府, it has territory composed of Taiwan Penghu Kinmen Matsu 臺澎金馬, the ROC has population 24 million of them 兩千四百萬人口. If the ROC is just a government, then so is with every other political state out there.

As for France, told you not to bloody get smart with me. France is a state, its formal name being the 5th French Republic. There is no geographical entity known as 'France'. As for the ROC redirected to Taiwan, you are even more stupid. Taiwan is the island, ROC is the state. One is a geographical entity, the other is a political one. If you cannot tell the difference between an island and a state, then you really have issues. You want the Republic of China redirected to Taiwan? Then you change the name of the bloody article to Taiwan, not mixing it together with an entirely different entity. There is a political state and a island, do not get the 2 mixed up. I am sick and tired of you constantly trying to bend my words. Read EVERYTHING that I type, if you don't, you shouldn't even be editing on wikipedia if you're not going to read everything people painstakinly spent hours writing and typing. I don't care if I typed a 20-page response, I type it, you read it and read it all. If you want to argue, argue against the whole thing, don't go picking out the little nooks and crannies. That is the reason why I have to repeat everything I say because you constantly refuse to meet my points. Liu Tao (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The term "Chinese Taipei" is a supposed "politically neutral" term foisted upon the ROC for use in the Olympic Games, and should not be used outside an Olympic context. The term is considered quite demeaning by vast numbers of people in Taiwan. Bubbha (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not really politically neutral, it's just the less offensive term the Taiwanese government was allowed to use for the Olympic games. But it is offensive anyway because it asserts the PRC's claim over Taiwan. The ROC government is only trying to save face when they say they choose the term because they also represent China. Laurent (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Disputes on whether PRC flag should be included in infobox

There's recently been a bit of edit warring on whether the PRC should be included with a flag icon in the infobox under "Country" or as a footnote/reference. Before the edit war, only the ROC was listed with a footnote/reference explaining the situation. Should the PRC be included or not (with the subtext "Claims but does not control")?

In my opinion, although this is regarding a "disputed" territory, having it mentioned in the lead section and having a flag icon in the infobox are two different things. The infobox is meant to be a straightforward, neutral information source, while the rest of the article is open to differing viewpoints. Yes, the PRC claims the island, but just because a country claims a territory does not mean it deserves listing under "Country" in the infobox. "Country" should be reserved for whatever political entity administers the island; in this case, it has been the ROC (the PRC has never had any direct control). Saying all POVs should be included in an infobox isn't all that great of an argument either. Let's look at it another way: the ROC has not renounced its claim over mainland China; therefore, in order to include all POVs, an infobox for "Mainland China" should include the ROC as a country which "claims but does not control" it. (Of course, this is absurd.) This should not be based on different POVs; it should be based on the political reality. Taiwan hasn't been actively disputed in quite some time. All the PRC has done is point missiles and call Taiwan a "renegade province" in international rhetoric. The truth of the matter is, the relationship between both sides has been warming up, and to have both the ROC and PRC flags inserted would give the false impression that an active dispute (military, combat, etc.) is going on. A reference is a far better representation of the situation. -Multivariable (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I think there is an infobox for disputed islands. The infobox is used for the Spratley and Parcel Islands and like Taiwan, no military conflict over the islands has happened within the past few decades that I can think of. We can change the article's Island infobox to a disputed island infobox. ROC will be listed under 'Administered by' and the PRC be listed under 'claimed by'. Liu Tao (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There should not be a PRC flag, nor is there any use for an alternative infobox. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, I'm not saying to make an entirely new infobox, I'm saying to use one that is already made and in use, and it won't be that difficult to change it either, only need to change the infobox flag and add a property. After all, Taiwan is a disputed island, it's not unreasonable to use the disputed island infobox. Liu Tao (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just not the right kind of dispute for that infobox. And like the OP says, if we do that, then every PRC province or city needs to, which is ridiculous. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

How be it not the right kind of dispute? Actually, how is the dispute different from the Spratly and the Parcel Islands? And no, this is different from the PRC provinces and cities; those are administrative regions, they only exist within the PRC. The RoC provinces are different, that's why there are separate articles for the Taiwan and Fukien Provinces than for the PRC Provinces. Taiwan Island is a geographical region, there's only 1 Taiwan Island. Liu Tao (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at a list of islands/territories that use that template (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_disputed_islands), it's clear that it's being used for islands with little to no real population (e.g. Paracel Islands: 14, Spratly Islands: 0). I would describe it as "real" disputes, since it's essentially claiming pieces of rock in the ocean (with little to no people). I think a better comparison would be something like the Falkland Islands between the UK and Argentina (e.g. Argentina claims it even though the UK has sovereignty, "significant" population of 3100, etc.). I would argue that the disputed islands template doesn't go there either, since in this case there is a clear "sovereignty" being established that doesn't just depend on countries claiming pieces of rock in the sea. -Multivariable (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What's 'little' or not is entirely an opinion, some think 14 is a lot, some doesn't. And the infobox description doesn't say anything about population, it says specifically that it's for a disputed island or archipelago. As for the case with the Falkland Islands, it uses a country infobox because the article describes/represents an UK overseas territory, which is an administrative division. That is not the case with the Taiwan Island, which is specifically about a geological region, not an administrative region. Liu Tao (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan is not an administrative region? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I would think that administrative divisions are defined somewhat by geographic boundaries, especially if we're talking about islands. Otherwise, there's no way to "claim" a piece of land. And I would say 14 is negligible; it's not enough to have an economy, culture, educational system, establish sovereignty, etc. For all practical purposes, it's a chunk of rock. -Multivariable (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat-Taiwan Island (this article) is not an administrative region, it's just a geographical island. The only 'Taiwan' Administrative region would be the Taiwan Province.

Multivariable-Administrative divisions are not necessarily defined by geographic boundaries. In other words, geographic boundaries certainly comes into play when it comes to administrative divisions, but they don't make the administrative divisions directly. It's those running the region who makes the divisions. I'll use the Taiwan Province's boundaries themselves, they don't conform exactly with the entire island. The Province does not include only the Taiwan Island (eg. Penghu), nor does it include the entire island (Taipei and Khaosiung Municipalities).

As for population, as I've said, it's all based on opinion. If there is people, there is economy, or the people wouldn't be able to survive and live. If there is people, there is culture, it's the people who defines the culture. If there is people, there's an educational system, if not how do the people learn? As for sovereignty, look at the multiple micronations; plus nobody said anything about making them 'sovereign'. As for practical purposes, nothing is just a 'chunk of rock'. An island can be a very important military outpost, or if there are natural resources (eg. oil), the resources can be salvaged and used. Nothing is just a 'chunk of rock', everything has its value. Liu Tao (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Island of Republic of China revert issue

(Discussion from Liu Tao's revert of Mistakefinder's changes) Taiwan being part of ROC and being ruled by ROC is a fact, not POV. Are you not from Taiwan? Unless you got ROC mistaken with PRC. Please revert my changes back.--Mistakefinder (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, that's a fact, but it wasn't what you said. You said it belonged to the RoC. Whom Taiwan 'belongs' to itself is an opinion and in turn POV. It's best not to get politics involved and keep this article as geologically based as possible. Besides, in the second sentence we're saying that it makes up 99% of the RoC's territory, as well as saying that it is being administered by the ROC in the hapnote. There is no need to put in anymore statements. Liu Tao (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about when I revised to "island of the Republic of China" and that was POV? And is it POV because of the claim from PR China only, or also because the Taiwanese Independence movement people (the argument about the US/Allies improper handover to ROC)? Since it is ruled by ROC I didn't think it would be a problem and would be straight forward for any reader who would naturally want to know what country it belongs to. If the concern is due to Taiwan independence argument (or even PRC's, even though I dont't think is legitamate), then we can insert a statement with the political status of Taiwan entry, and refer to the related section below. What do you think?

As I've said, 'whom' Taiwan belongs to is a disputed issue. Them greens views that it is independant, the blues view that it belongs to the ROC, and the reds views that it belongs to the PRC. You can say who currently administered the island, but you can't say who 'owns' it or who it 'belongs' to. The said link you offered is already linked further down in paragraph 3 where appropriate. There is no need to add the link into intro 1. To do so would be pushing to describe the political situation, which is NOT what this article is about. Liu Tao (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Island vs. State

Several times in the past few days, there have been a number of insertions by IPs, notably to the introduction, where the word "nation" was appended after "island". On one occasion, this LIAR claimed that he was restoring to a "previously accepted revision". One, there are no pending changes to this page, though there is a case to apply them here. Two, it's clearly against common sense; ROC is not only one island. Therefore I believe all such reversions of the word "nation" have legitimate rollback application. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy is a sock of the Blocked user User:ProfessorJane, always adding flags and POV stuff about PRC and ROC being two countries. T-1000 (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Southeast Asia?

There’s a discussion here arguing that Taiwan is part of SE Asia and it therefor needs to be included on the Template:Countries and territories of Southeast Asia. My point is that discussion should be here on the Taiwan page to confirm whether it is in indeed in SE Asia, and if consensus is that it is, then the template should be updated to include Taiwan. No point being inconsistent between the two. Thoughts? --Merbabu (talk) 06:10, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on WP:RS and WP:V, and not the WP:TRUTH. If users want to include Taiwan in there, they'll have to prove that Taiwan is considered part of SE Asia by general consensus. (Get them to post a few URLs and ISBNs on the talk page or something.) If they manage this, then they can by all means do it; there is no policy stopping them. Otherwise, they cannot just do it on a whim. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

How much is too much information?

I'm new here so I'm not sure about a few things. A couple of years ago a gave a talk about Taiwan to some college students. Part of the talk covered Taiwan's population density. (overall Taiwan's population density is similar to that of American suburbs, but almost all of Taiwan's population lives in the extreme North or extreme East, meaning Taiwan has some areas of VERY high population density while much of teh island remains rural, in some cases even "wild."
Because I'm new, I'm not sure if that would be appropriate for an "outline article" so I'm asking for input before I make changes. Lemme know. Long island bob (talk) 19:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There isn't a solid marker for what is "too much information", however there is the saying "Quality, not quantity", and quality is preferred on Wikipedia over quantity. Anyone is free to make additions, however if they aren't properly sourced and verifiable, than the additional quantity doesn't improve the overall quality of the article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"In 1945 Taiwan was freed from Japan as a result of World War II."

Can't we have something a little more purely factual and neutral in tone? The existing statement implies that Taiwan during the period 1895-1945 was somehow a captive, imprisoned or otherwise illegitimately a possession of Japan...as it stands, the implication is that Taiwan being given to Chian Kai-shek and the ROC was some sort of act of liberation. A lot of the people here in Taiwan would vehemently disagree...! I would suggest something like, "As a result of World War II, dominion over the island of Taiwan was transferred to the Republic of China." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.224.135.198 (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This sentence, indeed, does sound very bias towards Japan. If that sentence is to be included, then the article should also mention something about the Chinese invading Taiwan afterwards with the permission of the U.S. authorities. Don't forget about the massive massacre of the Taiwanese by the Chinese. It should be given a proper title or term to it like the Taiwanese Holocaust of 228. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.229.45 (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

We don't make up our own terms on Wikipedia. Unless you can provide reliable sources that prove that the term "Taiwanese Holocaust" is common usage, then it's immediately a no-go. Plus, such a name would be a WP:NPOV violation anyway. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I concur with the unsigned suggestion. Clearly The Imperial Japanese empire was a dictatorship so clearly Taiwan was not free under their rulership. That said, the transfer of leadership did not necessarily make the people of Taiwan more free ( than they had been before so did it realy free them? While I support the proposed edit it is not the kind of thing I am comfortable doing w/out discussion. Long island bob (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This wasn't even a close call so I changed the language. Readin (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Shorten Intro section and remove history/economy coverage

Since this entry is supposed to be just geographical, I suggest removing any history/politics/economy discussion and moving/merging them into the ROC article but leave a brief mention of the disputed handover and link to political status of Taiwan and History of Taiwan. I think most English speakers looking for info on Taiwan are looking for info on the country, not the geographic entity (island). However it's important to point out the "ownership" of the island (along with Penghu) is disputed from the Japanese handover. In the opening section of ROC article, toward the end, this should be pointed out too. On a different note, since Penghu and Taiwan are historically one unit (1895-1945) and even now as Taiwan Province, how about combining Penghu into this article? --Mistakefinder (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is a geographical one. Penghu is administratively part of Taiwan Province, but it is not graphically part of the Taiwan island. T-1000 (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Currently there is no history section and the "poltical status" section consists on little more than a few links. I'm not opposed to shortening the "economy" section, but I noticed that the reason this article has not been rated "good" is because it is not complete enough. Can we make it a "good" article by eliminating even more information? I dunno. I'm new here.

Long island bob (talk) 20:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This article should not be limited to being "geographical" in the strict sense of a piece of land bounded by water. There is a region of similar history and culture. For Taiwan this includes Penghu. The Republic of China article is about a government that started in China and moved to Taiwan. It has no reason to contain information about Taiwan's history prior to 1945. As Mistakefinder says, "I think most English speakers looking for info on Taiwan are looking for info on the country". The country is "Taiwan" in the sense that Ireland is and was a country even when controlled by the British Empire. A country is a region of similar history and culture that may continue to exist regardless of who is in control. The Taiwan article describes history and economy for the same reason the Ireland article does. Readin (talk) 22:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Ancient Names of Taiwan

Wiki's "outline of Taiwan" indludes a dead (and mispelled) link for Names of Taiwan. I note in relation thereto:

"In ancient Chinese documents, Taiwan was once referred to as "peng lai," "dai yu," "ying zhou," "dao yi," "yi zhou" or "liu chiu."" . . . . "Many scholars believe that the so-called "liu chiu" in the Yuan Dynasty and "xiao liu chiu" in the Ming Dynasty in fact indicated Taiwan. The name "Taiwan" came from "taiyuan," as it was termed near the end of the Ming."

http://twgeog.geo.ntnu.edu.tw/english/history_geog/history_geog.htm and

"the Chinese first called Taiwan "Ying-chou." In the later Han Dynasty it was called "Tung-ti." In the Three Kingdoms period it was referred to as "Yi-chou", and later in the Sui dynasty a much more popular name was adopted "Liu-chiu."

http://www.ioe.sinica.edu.tw/chinese/staff/c9101/etliy-0017.pdf
IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT SECOND SOURCE although the consistent use of the term "chou" and "chiu" above is probably an indication of "zhou" "建" or Prefecture, (as in "Fuzhou") the second source goes on at great length to describe the relations Taiwan had with China and distinctly does ::not:: describe those relations as territorial-ownership relations.

Your thoughts would be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Long island bob (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Unsigned? sorry. Long island bob (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That looks like well sourced information. Why not add it to the article? Laurent (talk) 07:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am tempted to do just that but anything involving Taiwan's Ancient names might be poltically interpreted (e.g. anythingthat names it a prefecture of China). Since I'm new here I thought I'd check it an avoid rocking the boat. oops again Long island bob (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well I've poked around Google an apparently the people of Taiwan (regardless of polticl bent) embrace the fact that their island was once called Peng Lai 蓬萊. Both parts of the word refer to medicinal plants and according to Ancient mythology, Peng Lai was one of a group of three myterious islands P'eng-lai, Fang-chang, and Ying-chou where once could obtain an elixir of imortality.

Perhaps later the Ancients decided Taiwan ws not Peng Lai at all but was instead Ying Chou. Either way a lt of Taiwanese name tehir stores and busnesss after Peng Lai. Peng Lai rice (ponlai rice) is famous in Taiwan (the main ingredient in Taiwan Beer.) There is a water fall in Taiwan called Peng Lai and the geogrpahic disturbance that created Taiwan in the Plio-Pleistocene time, is called the Penglai Orogeny.

I guess I'll collect my thoughts and put something togther in a day or two. feel free to do it for me tho. Long island bob (talk) 20:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Penglai refers to the mythical Penglai Mountain, where supposedly you can find ingredients to the elixir of life there. Qin Shi Huang sent Xu Fu to find Penglai, and it's said that he ended up in Japan instead. "Liuchiu" was the name for a mythical archipelego of islands in the East China Sea, that might have been Japan, the Ryukyus, Taiwan or Luzon (Philippines). Today "Liuchiu" refers to the Ryukyu Islands (and from the 18-19th Centuries, the Ryukyu Islands were known as "Loo-choo" on European maps). Plenty of Taiwan's old names have origins from Chinese mythology it seems. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am slowly developing my edits/additions in my sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Long_island_bob/Sandbox I thank you in advance for you help and input. Long island bob (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC) ~Bob

Sovereignty again... (sigh)

An editor has made the edit that claims that the notion of the Japanese Instrument of Surrender effecting a sovereignty change being "without basis in international law," with a bunch of citations to questionable and fringe sources. I find the statement non-neutral and an attempt to sidestep the complicated situation documented at legal status of Taiwan. I would appreciate comment. Ngchen (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No need for comment. Both sides of the argument were stated but the editor felt the need to step in with his opinion. It was clearly biased. I removed it. Readin (talk) 22:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

File:NationalPalaceMuseum.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:NationalPalaceMuseum.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan army

Taiwan plan to make voluntary the army.

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2011/03/30/296630/Premier-sets.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.114.51 (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Request to merge this with the Republic of China article

Under the Common Name principle, the People's Republic of China was mereged with China. Under the same principle, Taiwan and the Republic of China article should be merged as well, Taiwan is the ROC's common name and what the world over recognizes it as surely as they equate the PRC with China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan is an island, and a geographical location. The ROC is not. The ROC is a geopolitical entity, and Taiwan as an island is not (there is Taiwan Province, but modern-day relevance and significance is quite questionable). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

---The common name for the People's Republic of China is China. The common name for the Republic of China is Taiwan; Taiwan is a sovereign state. The common name principal should be applied equally and fairly. You're splitting hairs. Unequally at that.

Would it be fair for me to make a request to centralise this discussion at Talk:Republic of China#Request to merge this with the Taiwan article? I'd rather all the points be made at the one place, and not have things happening here and there. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editrequest}} To change the leading note from "This article is about the island. For the state governing it which is also commonly called "Taiwan", see Republic of China." to "This article is about the island and its accompanying islands. For the state governing it and other islands, which is also commonly called "Taiwan", see Republic of China.". 116.48.87.86 (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This is really a question of scope (is this article about just Taiwan, or Taiwan and its island group?) that merits some discussion beforehand. The article is currently inconsistent on this point. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This article clearly covers, e.g., Green Island, Pengjia Islet, Orchard Island, the Pescadores. All these islands are geographically, culturally and historically associated with Taiwan the main island. What aren't covered are Kinmen, the Matsu Islands, Wuchiu, the Pratas, and Itu Aba, which are renmants of the Republic of China beyond the Taiwan islands. 119.237.156.46 (talk) 02:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If China changes to a democracy country, will China unified with Taiwan?

US admits one China... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.82.252.37 (talk) 12:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a WP:FORUM. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Republic of China - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 08:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus; lack of significant participation. Cybercobra (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Taiwan → Taiwan Island – This move is part of the proposed moving of Republic of China to Taiwan. Follow that link to view the debate. Crispus (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose move to Taiwan Island, but I support the counter proposal, move to Taiwan (island), below. --Born2cycle 07:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Counter proposal

Taiwan → Taiwan (island) - The most common name of the island is just Taiwan, not "Taiwan Island", and the title should reflect this, which Taiwan (island) does.

• Support as nom of this alternative. --Born2cycle 07:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Multi-move

This proposal makes no sense unless you take it together with the Republic of China → Taiwan proposal, so I have bundled them together here. Kauffner (talk) 08:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Monsoon times

Months of Jan to March in the article, is this right? Monsoon is not during wet summer season in middle of year?Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

NC-TW straw poll

A straw poll has been opened on the question of whether WP:NC-TW represents current consensus and so should remain a current guideline. Opine at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)#NC-TW straw poll. Shrigley (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Taiwan (disambiguation) - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 00:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Taiwan Dao

Why remove the fact "Táiwān Dǎo (台湾岛) means Taiwan Island." ???? Huayu-Huayu (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Article is about the island

The article in the intro says it is about the island. In the text sometimes the expression "Taiwan" and sometimes the expression "island of Taiwan" or "main island of Taiwan" is used. This is not logically justified. I harmonized. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Please understand that there is not consensus to use the term "Taiwan" to refer to only the island, even though that is what the article title currently does. See also the discussion at Talk:Republic of China and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese). Thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

But in this article "Taiwan" ALWAYS does refer to the island. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

But this could be confusing to readers, considering that most recent English language sources use "Taiwan" to refer to the country, not the island. Mlm42 (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan refers to the country, which includes the smaller islands as Mlm says, this is why "the island of Taiwan" is fine. For somebody who is a newbie Huayu you seem to be unusually well acquainted with templating and linking on here and to message veterans with "Welcome to wikipedia". I usually like to assume good faith but we have a great deal of nationalist POV pushers on here, most of them who hvve been previously blocked under different account, so one can't help but be suspicious.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think either that the island is the primary topic, independent of where I live. I did provide evidences at Talk:Taiwan_(disambiguation)#Move_request. I only changed "island of Taiwan" to "Taiwan" within this article, an article that pretends that the island is the primary topic. But I also think the statement "Taiwan refers to the country" is not a world wide view as one can see at Talk:Taiwan_(disambiguation)#Move_request. Huayu-Huayu (talk) 23:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Republic of China - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 23:40, 17 February 2012 (UTC)