Portal talk:Taiwan/Archive 2

More Mediation
Two questions. Do you mean then that Portal:Taiwan would include infomation about, for example, the dutch and spanish occupation of Taiwan, something that portal:ROC would not?

Secondly, seeing as would you agree to not hae a green colour scheme on Portal:Taiwan seeing as it has such strong political implications?

Thanks, Th e Halo (talk) 10:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, basically Portal:Taiwan will be everything about the island of Taiwan including ROC rule, Dutch rule (some even call it just occupation because Dutch were in Tainan southern Taiwan while the Spanish were in Keelung in northern Taiwan. So there were essentially Dutch and Spanish on Taiwan) Ming, Qing, Japan rule. I think I can understand why Chiang thinks I support pro-independence, even the Naruw'an article uses words of "Taiwanese" instead of "Chinese" despite the fact that "Taiwanese" are actually Chinese (98% of the population, while 2% are aborigines from Southeastern Asia (like the Philippines, some actually speak a language that's understandable by Filipinos)


 * The color is actually the least important issue of the dispute. Whatever color Chiang fancies is fine if it will put his mind at ease. I am worried however about him not accepting that many viewpoints including independence etc should be allowed because they are issues concerning the island. He removed Naruw'an for example just because it's about aborigines (pro-aborigine localization, anti-ROC, pro-independence, etc) when really it's just a greeting promoted by the Tourism Bureau of R.O.C. to welcome visitors to Taiwan island. — Nrtm81 10:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've archived pretty severely because I want to emphasize these last two points. Chiang Kai-shek, Nrtm81 is perfectly willing to let you choose the color for the Portal.  And Nrtm81 does not have a pro-independence political agenda.  Ideogram 11:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here, I have an idea. We can rename this portal: Free Areas of the Republic of China, which will talk not only about Taiwan, but the islands of Fuchien and other current ROC territories. Basically, since 1949, the other islands, besides Taiwan have basically become closely intertwined with Taiwan. Then, another portal should be created: Republic of China which will include the ROC on the Mainland and after coming to Taiwan (present). This plan makes life way easier. -Chiang Kai-shek 11:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm...Portal:Free Areas of the Republic of China doesn't really roll off the tounge ;) My initional reaction to this is that Portal:Taiwan is not mostly about post-1949 taiwan, a subject that would be covered in Portal:ROC, but rather it is concerned with pre-1949 (spanish and dutch, the japanese ocupation, etc). However, it is something to consider, so we need to see what Nrtm81 has to say about this proposal. Th e Halo (talk) 11:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this is getting complicated. Portal:Free Areas of the Republic of China sounds ambiguous and confusing. I will speculate but I think many people confuse PRC and ROC as "Beijing, China" due to the "China" in their title. I've suggested on User talk:BlueShirts that maybe we can resurrect the Portal:China to be about geography and change the Portal:People's Republic of China into a political portal with Portal:Republic of China. This way it might solve the dispute problem by linking Portal:Taiwan to Portal:China (geography), "Portal:PRC" and "Portal:ROC" (political portal). The political portal of PRC/ROC will use the national flags, have topics about military history, disputes, etc ROC/PRC-centric topics, then the two political portals (PRC/ROC) can link to Portal:China and Portal:Taiwan for their corresponding current territorial rule.


 * This would also allow Portal:China to include many more topics such as the dynasties, cultural development, Chinese writing, mythology, different ethnic groups and their individual heritage, foreign rule by Koreans (their ancestors at least) Mongols, Manchus, Silk Road, the Goguryeo dispute (Manchuria area being part of Korean territory, Koreans being descendents of Manchu/Jurchen people), Tibet and Sinkiang issues, basically topics which are controversial to both PRC and ROC but should be included as being open to many viewpoints and NPOV. This way people can understand more about these issues without being politically biased (i.e. have an equal say). — Nrtm81 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an equally interesting idea, and personally one that I think might work. I think it allows Chiang Kai-shek's idea while simplifying it a little. What do you think Chiang? Th e Halo (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Portal:Free Area of the Republic of China has a nice neutral term to use. Taiwan should and can no doubt be covered under that title. All history of Taiwan can be covered, since it exclusively deals with the present jurisdiction of the ROC, so you can't accuse one of "ignoring the fact of the ROC's official borders." And I am actually a supporter that the ROC is the sole and legitimate government of all of China; however, your agenda to put Portal:Taiwan is unfounded and is voicing pro-Taiwan indepedence (ROT) rhetoric. Again, we cannot ignore the fact of the ROC's existence. The Free Area title should be perfectly acceptable for Taiwan and Kinmen/Matsu history. Then, the Republic of China portal will cover politics and history of the ROC as a whole from 1911 onwards to its present status on Taiwan. -Chiang Kai-shek 12:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Chiang Kai-shek, please assume good faith here. Nrtm81 has said time and time again that he does not work off a political agenda, as shown by offering that you can choose the colour scheme for portal:Taiwan so that there is no chance there will be a political bias. It is my understanding that you aren't found of Portal:Taiwan or Ntrm81's idea above, and Ntrm81 is found of your Portal:Free Areas of the Republic of China. This means then that we shall have to try and find a different compromise. Th e Halo (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Portal:Free Area of the Republic of China is not at all ambiguous or confusing. It is a defined statement used by the ROC government in official documents and legislation and other things. It is known that it is the current jurisdiction of the ROC government, meaning Taiwan, Kinmen/Matsu/Penghu. So, history of Taiwan about the Dutch/Spanish can be under that title. The name is politically neutral. If you put a Portal:Taiwan, it raises eyebrows immediately, because of the sensitivity of the Political Status of Taiwan. Naurwan is a aborigine saying promoted by the Tourism bureau, which is controlled by the pro-taiwan independence Chen Shui-bian. It is not surprising he chose such a phrase to separate Taiwan from the ROC. By the way, the Aborigines (Native Americans of Taiwan) proudly and strongly support the Kuomintang which is anti-Taiwan indepedence. The DPP supporters are mainly those that "came from China before 1949." and aren't Chinese, but "Taiwanese." -Chiang Kai-shek 12:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see your point Chiang, but do you see that anything containing Taiwan will have to have pro-Taiwanese articles and references as this is such a big issue in Taiwan. Leaving those sorts of things out would not provide all the infomation. It would be like Portal:Ireland having no reference to the IRA (which, for those of you not familiar with the situation, is a terrorist group devoted to uniting Ireland). It simply wouldn't work.
 * I also think that it might be confusing to outsiders, such as I am. If you are not well infomed about the Republic of China, you wouldn't know exactly what the portal was about.Th e Halo (talk) 12:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not well read in Taiwan/ROC politics/history but I am learning via Wikipedia. I didn't know/think that Chen Shui-bian's administration promoted the Naruw'an greeting to seperate Taiwan from the ROC. Also, can you give me a link where the aborigines are pro-KMT/anti-independence? I've never heard of their stance concerning this issue. Another thing, is "Free Area of the Republic of China" accepted internationally? I don't think we can use terms which only one political entity uses. If it's an internationally recognized term (even if just a few countries recognize it) then it would be reasonable. Though Portal:Taiwan is just easier to go by.


 * I don't know why this portal name is not to your liking. Most Wikipedians refer to Taiwan as it is understanding it's not a Taiwan nation but "Taiwan Province, ROC". The intro box already mentions about "Taiwan Province" being ruled under ROC and that Kinmen and Matsu are part of "Fukien Province, ROC". By the way, Kinmen, Matsu are part of mainland Fukien, so it wasn't ruled by Dutch or Japanese or previous Chinese dynasties (mistake). Penghu/Pescadores however has been part of Taiwan Province and was in the history of Dutch. They originally used Pescadores as a base to trade with Ming China before the Ming court told them they'd open trade with the Dutch if they moved to Taiwan island. Also Pescadores was ceded to Japan along with Taiwan island.


 * This is why ROC representing everything about Taiwan island is so problematic, it turns everything to politics. I don't like that the political status of Taiwan text is given so much prominence on the page, even Taiwan article has way too long information on it when most of the text should reside on Political status of Taiwan or Legal status of Taiwan. The portal is being too politicized. — Nrtm81 12:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If possible, I would like Portal:Taiwan to be inter-related to Portal:Republic of China, leave all the politics to the portal page (Portal:ROC), so the "political/legal" status issue can be moved to the Portal:ROC, and just leave Portal:Taiwan NPOV to deal with actual topics concerning the island's long history, culture, etc. Although there's a "Politics of the Republic of China on Taiwan" in the Category box section, if you consider this not suitable as part of a general history of a geographic Taiwan portal, this could be moved to Portal:ROC. What I'm suggesting is to make "Taiwan" and "China" geographic in nature (no national flags) in order to avoid political dispute. Then have political portals Portal:PRC and Portal:ROC for the actual politics. — Nrtm81 13:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So, am I currect in thinking that Portal:Taiwan would be an almost sub-portal, deling with only the history of Taiwan before the ROC, and with the geogarpical nature of the Island? Th e Halo (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, almost sub-portal, as in related portals. The history of Taiwan island does include ROC but ROC is not Taiwan. ROC is a rival China government to PRC. Both ROC and PRC are legitimate entities but controlling different areas of China. That's why there's a political issue. Neither PRC nor ROC has renounced claim to China and Taiwan. Here's one problem: Can we ask "Was ROC once a colony of Japan?" Not possible. But if we ask "Was the island of Taiwan (and Pescadores) a colony of Japan?" Yes. I offered that Portal:China be resurrected to be a geographic portal as Portal:Taiwan is. This is meant to be a compromise so that Portal:PRC and Portal:ROC can contain the political entities and leave Portal:China and Portal:China neutral (whilst also allowing the expansion of topics concerning their graphical history, culture, etc). — Nrtm81 14:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Well there we have it, unfortunately, Nrtm81 is realtively new to Chinese history, politics, culture, etc. That is quite unfortunate. The last thing I want is to have an alien try to correct me on what is my blood. You have misunderstood my comments. The Free Area of the Republic of China is quite acceptable. The intro will give info to those that don't quite get the concepts of China and Taiwan. I absolutely hate it when Westerners and outsiders try to simplify the complex situation of China & Taiwan. It is absolutely ridiculous. They don't understand Republic of China or People's Republic of China. To them, they see one China (Communist Red China on the Mainland). They don't see another one. They just see a presumably Republic of Taiwan. They always think it is a separate country from any China. Having Portal:Taiwan is an example of the oblivious ideas of these outsiders. However, I know have another idea that I am willing to put forward:Rename the Portal:Taiwan to Portal:Taiwan Province, Republic of China. That name is factual, correct, and neutral. And definitely you can talk about Dutch/Spanish and all that Taiwan history that you are so dying to tell everyone. -Chiang Kai-shek 13:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have "nationalistic" sentiment and racist tendencies? For your information, I'm half Taiwanese (mother). Your "not Taiwanese blood" argument is irrelevant. At least I've acknowledge that I'm not very knowledgeable only because I'm not a history major. What about you? Are you completely qualified on ROC history? Were you a history major? There might even be a "foreigner" who is more knowledgable than you concerning KMT/ROC politics/history (especially those that specialize in that area of history/politics). Sorry to say this but you're acting just like those pro-PRC students I've met who are crazed over politics saying "Taiwan is part of PRC, ROC is illegitimate, long live Mao Tse-tung, etc". Doesn't seem much different since you use a Chiang Kai-shek username and call people who use Simplified Chinese characters "bandits". The more I hear your comments, the less NPOV your tendencies appear to be. — Nrtm81 14:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, that was totally uncalled for! I remind you to fallow the rules set down in WP:CIVIL, and to not be uncivil here, or anywhere else, to anyone. Wikipedia is not just for people who come from ROC, nor is portal:Taiwan just for people who come from Taiwan. It has to be clear and understandible to everyone. Now, please, appolgise for your comments, and lets move this mediation along in a civil and productive manner. Now, do you like Nrtm81's idea of having portal:Taiwan part of Portal:ROC? Th e Halo (talk) 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * He never said anything about having Taiwan portal being part of the ROC portal. I think our best bet is to use the title: Portal:Taiwan Province, Republic of China. This quells fear of Taiwan independence and politically motivated moves. -Chiang Kai-shek 13:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right, he only said that they would be inter-related, which is not the same thing. Please read his above idea and my comment about to clarify what I meant.
 * You're idea sounds exceptable to me, maybe just as Portal:Taiwan Provice, or a redirect from Portal:Taiwan Province to Portal:Taiwan Province, Republic of China, as it's full name is a bit long for users with only a mild interest. We should now wait for Nrtm81 to see what he thinks about it. Th e Halo (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't accept Portal:Taiwan Province because that is still politically biased. Was Taiwan a "Taiwan Province under the Dutch? the Japanese? it was part of Fukien Province before. What I'm saying is stop making this portal a political one. Chiang obviously isn't interested in NPOV portal. My impression is he is pushing for a more limited ROC portal which will forbid "anti-ROC" topics. Being too politically sensitive. Sorry Chiang, but you are not trying to compromise, just pushing for politics whereas I'm hoping for a neutral portal because ROC is not Taiwan, and a "Portal:Taiwan Province, ROC" is no more different that "Portal:ROC". You are basically suggesting the same thing without any compromise. At this rate, a RfC is probably the only way to get progress. Have the majority of Wikipedians vote and decide. — Nrtm81 14:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like my idea very much indeed. I think it's a nice compromise. Basically what should be done is for anyone who types in Portal:Taiwan, it will take them to the portal offically named: Portal:Taiwan Province, Republic of China. Then we should put some disambiguation at the top directing to a portal:Republic of China for information about the state that currently governs Taiwan Province. I believe this is very fair and appealing and I apologize if I offended anyone in my previous comments. Thanks mediators for working almost 24/7 on this issue. -Chiang Kai-shek 14:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK then, let me just say this. It is currently Taiwan province, so it is currently it's correct name. With this in mind, would you both accept just Portal:Taiwan Province, removing the ROC after it? This is a compromise to a compromise, if you want. Also, I don't think it matters what Taiwan was in the past, that is what the history sectio is for. It would be like saying Portal:Hong Kong couldn't be under the China portal because it used to belong to the UK. BTW. thank you for apologizing Chiang, and thank you for your thanks. Working almost 24/7 is what we mediators are here for ;) Th e Halo (talk) 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If there's a "Portal:Taiwan Province, ROC" then there needs to be a "Portal:Fukien Province, ROC" because the ROC currently governs two provinces. This would be pointless. Besides, a "Taiwan Province" is favourable to ROC and PRC as long as you don't tag "ROC" or "PRC" to the name. But it would be against the people (approx. 10% of population of ROC) who want "Republic of Taiwan". Hence User:Captain0's four-point list of why the portal should be "Portal:Taiwan" (See: Portal talk:Taiwan/Archive1) — Nrtm81 14:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What about Portal:Taiwan Island then, which is similar to Portal:Taiwan Province, but without the unwanted connotations that Nrtm81 is worried about? Also Nrtm81, I know the comment's that Chiang made about 'aliens' etc, weren't nice, but I warned him about them and he apologized, so please don't add fuel to the fire. This situation is tough enough without it. Th e Halo (talk) 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nrtm81 is becoming a bit too aggressive and has been closed to my various compromises. I mean what's so bad about the name Taiwan Province, ROC. That is the correct factual name. Aren't you trying to push the NPOV? Are do you have a political "green" agenda behind your back? The current name is Taiwan Province, Republic of China. It doesn't matter about the past, just like Halo said. And I said..we should put what you want to put (geography history exclusively on Taiwan) for that portal, meanwhile putting politics and the entire history of the ROC from 1911 to present for the Portal:Republic of China. More and more do I see the political agenda of Nrtm81. He is slowly revealing it to us through his reasoning. Taiwan Province seems too ambiguous. Some might think it is a PRC province, so that's why I put ROC in back of it. Clearly, Nrtm81 doesn't want the word province to appear at all. He thinks it offends the 10% of ROT supporters (i think he is one of them). But this is an encyclopedia and it must be 100% factual. Taiwan is too blunt and confusing. It is a province, not a country. -Chiang Kai-shek 14:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Portal:Taiwan Island" would only be clarifying it's geographic nature, so it wouldn't be that much diferrent from "Portal:Taiwan". Why not make "Portal:Ireland" into "Portal:Ireland Island"? It's just geographic clarification. In many instances "Taiwan" is used in Wikipedia articles and leaves out political bias (1. ROC, 2. PRC, 3. Independant nation. This bias is the source of heated dispute which is what Chiang is now doing.) Just as was said about Portal:Ireland. Chiang is bringing in too many problems by dragging politics into the equation. — Nrtm81 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is, though, still an Island, so would you two accept Portal:Taiwan Isalnd and Portal:ROC as two seperate portals which are closly linked? Th e Halo (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see Chiang has accepted the compromise of having a Portal:ROC to be about the politics of ROC (1911-present) but is still pushing for "Taiwan (ROC)" tag for the geography. Please keep your nationalist tendencies away, it's dangerous. PRC, ROC, Independence are the problems that arises if you put a political tag to this portal. Next thing you know it, PRC or Independence supporters will come and make this situation worse. "Portal:Taiwan" is neutral just like "Portal:Ireland.


 * The Halo, the problem with "Portal:Taiwan Island" is that it also specifies that it's only Taiwan island, whereas Pescadores is also an island (just nearby to the west of Taiwan island) and has a connected history. Whereas other islands were later incorporated by the ROC with Taiwan Province, and also rules Kinmen, Matsu islands (part of Fukien Province, ROC). A "Portal:Taiwan" doesn't specify these things and avoids the political problems that's now arising. — Nrtm81 14:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok everybody stop, I have to archive, and after that I will comment. Ideogram 14:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be island, but it should be province. We know it's an island, but for sure we need to know that it is a province of the ROC. If Taiwan was a separate Republic, then we should put Republic of Taiwan, but it's not, and it's a province of the ROC. Portal:Taiwan Province, ROC or Taiwan, ROC. The main fact is that viewers must know that Taiwan is a province under the ROC. Having some intro info won't do it. The name has to be correct, because the bland term, "Taiwan" implies that it is a country. It appears mainly in the world as "Taiwan," and then people mistaken it for a country, when it is NOT. What is so bad about having the factual name of Taiwan, ROC. The bland name of Taiwan has political implications. It implicates that it is a sovereign country, when it is NOT. Now even more clearly, I think Nrtm81 is pro-Taiwan independence. (Keep my nationalist tendencies away eh?) I support the Republic of China and I also love Taiwan, both can be accomplished at the same time. -Chiang Kai-shek 14:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What in the world are you talking about? The main fact is that viewers must know that Taiwan is a province under the ROC. Having some intro info won't do it. The viewers know it from the info box. What more do you need to say that Taiwan is governed as Taiwan Province, ROC? The bland name of Taiwan has political implications. Jesus, it only has a political implication because you choose to make it so. Portal:Taiwan as a name on it's own has no political bias. — Nrtm81 15:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I said stop already. Ideogram 14:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Portal naming dispute
The Portal:Taiwan is intended to be an NPOV portal about the island of Taiwan. Due to people trying to limit the scope of the Taiwan portal by making it into an ROC-centric portal (Portal:Republic of China), a mediation request has been made. If this doesn't resolve the dispute, a Wikipedian community concensus will be requested. Arbitration is the last option (hopefully not needed) which will impose a binding solution if the dispute cannot be settled by all other means.

According to Wikipedia's official policy and definition of NPOV:
 * NPOV (Neutral Point Of View) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes maps, reader-facing templates, categories and portals.

As such, a Portal:Taiwan is NPOV as it is intended to avoid bias, every topic will be given equal status in the effort to expand knowledge and information regarding the island of Taiwan. Whereas a Portal:Republic of China limits the scope to controversial and politically biased content.


 * See also:
 * Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Portal:Taiwan — Mediation request
 * Requests for page protection — page-move protection request.
 * Requests for comment — seeks the comments and input from the Wikipedian community.
 * Arbitration Committee — If the dispute has not been settled a request to the Arbitration Committee will be made which will impose Wikipedia-binding solution to the dispute.

— Nrtm81 14:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You might want to try an RFC if the mediation fails before going to ArbCom. I will be happy to assist in this process.  Ideogram 14:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ideogram, this is the first time I've had to request any kind of mediation for Wikipedia so I don't know the full details. There's a lot of stuff to read :) — Nrtm81 16:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)