Talk:Culture of Taiwan/Archive 1

Parity to Taiwan Page
There is a culture section in Taiwan; At the moment, due to the small size of this page, these two should be identical. Although I feel as though the redundancy is unneccesary, this particular page COULD be greatly expanded, therefore I left it.--50Stars 20:45, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Colonial influence
can anyone tell me how much "Dutch and Spanish" influenced Taiwanese culture? Wareware 04:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting observation. How about the catholic religion(&#22825;&#20027;&#25945;&#21644;&#22522;&#30563;&#25945;&#38568;&#33879;&#35199;&#29677;&#29273;&#12289;&#33655;&#34349;&#21218;&#21147;&#65292;&#20808;&#24460;&#36914;&#20837;&#21488;&#28771;&#20659;&#25945;, I thought one of the three largest catholic churches in east Asia was established by the Spanish priest)? Architecture?(Fort San Domingo-red hair)? How about the heritage of the Pepo writing? Perhaps we can do some research and see if there is any more scholarly discussion on the webpage.Mababa 04:58, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you are right. One church building influences the entire country of Taiwan. How euro-centric of you...


 * Interesting article:&#33655;&#34349;&#32113;&#27835;&#20043;&#19979;&#30340;&#21488;&#28771;&#25945;&#26371;&#35486;&#35328;&#23416;. Even though this article seemed to deny Dutch's influence in the Chirstianism of Taiwan today, it could still be debatable. Moreover, I thought there is indeed a concentrated cohort of Chirstian/Catholics in the southern part of Taiwan, the area where mostly used to be ruled by Dutch.Mababa 05:15, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * So it's mostly religious? I was thinking more in lines of language, customs, cuisine, holidays or what nots, since the majority of Taiwanese people are Taoists/Buddhists/Superstitious, rather than Christians.   Wareware 06:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

According to the page Taiwan Tourism Bureau, Dutch's influence on Taiwan has been classified as Colonial Culture. It seemed that the romanized aboringinal writing at least lasted until the Japanese rule but lost under KMT rule. As for cusine, probably only the beef noodles (牛肉麵) was preserved, since the bulls were introduced by Dutch..... I am certainly not an expert on this topic and I am not sure whether my answer would quench your inquisition. It may not necessary to introduce a cuisine or costum to call it a culture either. Since this is being claimed by the government, I wonder if we should do more research and try to expand this since you brought this up or perhaps you would prefer to trim it.Mababa 06:51, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should add a section on the religions of Taiwan, and maybe add some history section including dutch influence that's not covered by the CIA world factbook.   Wareware 20:56, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * We can certainly do that. It would take some time on information gathering for that. Perhaps someone should write on a new article Taiwanese religion and incorporate parts in this article. We can certainly make it our first colloboration proposal on Taiwan-related notice board too. Embarrassingly, as you said, a large portion of Taiwanese are superstitious. I have no clue on where the origin of those superstition as religions come from. :(Mababa 06:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it had to do with early immigrants' need for religion when developing Taiwan, which was very difficult.   Wareware 06:35, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Spanish adn Dutch influence? No way. Proof? Blueshirts 03:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well...
 * The Dutch were the first to unite the plains aborigines under a single polity, putting an end to endemic clan warfare


 * The Dutch created systems of taxation for the plains aborigines and the 5000 han sesonal workers that remained were adopted and expanded by the Zhengs and the Qing.


 * The Dutch policy of banning abortion and encouraging an end to the age grade systems of marriage and matrilocal residence in Syraya and Makado villages resulted in a major social upeaval that led to many plains aborigines adopting Han customs...and increased population growth.


 * The Dutch deer trade depleted deer stocks to the extend of permenantly altering plains societies ways of life, forcing men to adopt farming as a means of sustinance, which encouraged acculturation into han.


 * The Dutch invited han farmers to become seasonal labor, igniting Han male immigration


 * The Dutch introduced Taiwan into the world market through the deer trade, which attracted the attention of other colonial powers including the Ming and Qing Dynasties, Britain, France, Japan and the United States.

It goes on... Maowang 03:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pupet show
Information Mababa 03:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

WikiProject designation
User:Certified.Gangsta has repeatedly removed from this talk page. "China" refers to the nation China, with no political implications. Moreover, articles about Taiwan also go under WikiProject China. Is there any rationale for not including this article in WikiProject China or for including this article in another WikiProject? Thank you. —dto (talk contribs)  04:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the talkpage of Chinese. I clearly pointed out the diff. theories of the relations of ROC and PRC. This template indirectly implies Taiwan is part of China, which is actually a controversial political issue since quite a lot of Taiwanese doesn't consider themselves to be Chinese. The inclusion has strong POV issue especially on a culture page since Taiwan and China culture differ. (similar only to marginal extent)--Certified.Gangsta 05:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't see any reason not to include this article in this WikiProject unless subprojects about Taiwan or the ROC are created (which I don't think is necessary). Kusma (討論) 07:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think Chinese and Taiwanese culture are similar only to marginal extent, you clearly don't know enough about Taiwan to edit articles about Taiwanese issues in an encyclopedia. As there was no Cultural revolution in the ROC, some parts of Chinese culture are stronger in Taiwan than in Mainland China. Kusma (討論) 07:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt if you ever been to Taiwan in your lifetime. In any case, most Taiwanese have been in Taiwan for centuries and I really don't see Taiwanese culture being any closer to Chinese culture than other east Asian culture. From a language perspective, yeah, it was harshly imposed by Chiang-Kai Shek, but the way of life, ideas, and overall culture are extremely different. Taiwan is a strongly westernized (Americanized) society with significant Japanese influence. The culture in Taiwan could be considering a blend of many cultures, thus creating its distinct culture.--Certified.Gangsta 18:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I get a sense that you are making this up, as the ridiculousness of the ideas you present seem to be not espoused anywhere else, even by independence supporters. The question is, have you been to Taiwan? I certainly have. And in many ways, Chinese culture is better preserved in Taiwan (think temples) than in mainland China. So should I remove the CHINA tag from Talk:Culture of China?
 * And perhaps you will want to read about the linguistic classification of Taiwanese (linguistics). Both Min and Mandarin are classified as Chinese.--Jiang 09:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we please finish discussing this before making any changes to WikiProject designation? I don't think that's too much to ask. (Marking such a change minor is somewhat irritating, too.) Thanks. —dto (talk contribs)  05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully decline although I do appreciate your effort to communicate on the ground that none of you ever thought about discussing it before introducing the project designation in the 1st place.--Certified.Gangsta 08:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

In response to Jiang, I'm not making anythin' up. Just because others don't advocate Chinese annexation doesn't mean my argument was ridiculous. I really don't care whether you've been to Taiwan or not since I have no way of finding out. Blank statement serve no purpose here. --Certified.Gangsta 02:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are the one questioning another user's credentials by asking whether that user has been in Taiwan. I took some pictures in Taiwan: Commons:User:Jiang/Taiwan. If you are not the sole source of your information, then back it up. Cite the books, magazines, websites, etc. that say what you say is true. Otherwise, we cant take you seriously given the absurdity of your assumptions.--Jiang 02:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is absurd. Based on your reasoning, Japanese project should cover this page or even Dutch/Portuguese/American as well since obviously Japanese has a lot of influence in Taiwanese culture.--Certified.Gangsta 22:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Who thinks Taiwanese are culturally different from mainland Chinese? No, I don't want to hear your opinion on this matter. Who? --Jiang 04:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the tag should stay: until WikiProject China's scope is changed to specifically exclude Taiwan, this article deserves to have the tag. enochlau (talk) 09:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Your reasoning is totally wrong. The project tag implies China has control over Taiwan and obviously violated the NPOV policy. Are you saying if WikiProject Japan claimed Taiwan as part of its "scope" then the tag should be there? The whole idea is strongly biased. We're talking about culture of Taiwan not China.--Certified.Gangsta 08:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No it doesn't. The project tag does not imply China has control over Taiwan. It implies Taiwan is somehow related to China. Please stop with this nonsense.--Jiang 10:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The only one making up a non-issue is yourself. It is worth noting that the initial addition of the tag was brought up by that sock of revolverocelotx all part his POV pushing, anti-bonafide.hustla campaign. I mentioned this before, culture of taiwan also has great influence from japann yet we don't put those projec tag up because it would cause controversies. For example, for culture of Canada, we don't put up a Culture of USA tag on there. Your reasoning doesn' make sense.--Certified.Gangsta 03:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta again
Now Certified.Gangsta can't understand that it is not necessary to include Culture of Taiwan in the cats Taiwan and Republic of China when it is already in the cat Taiwanese culture which is included in those cats. Please explain it to him, or, if he can't understand it, revert him. --Ideogram 04:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Preparatory to filing an RFC, we need to show evidence that at least two users tried to resolve the dispute. So please comment on User talk:Certified.Gangsta. --Ideogram 04:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have filed an RFC --Ideogram 05:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of template
I hate the navigation template. Links should be in the text, in context, not spammed onto some menu where they take up space without being interesting to the reader. Thoughts? --Ideogram 20:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * are you talking about the "culture of asia" template? Yeah I agree we don't need that kind of templates. It would be nice to have specific templates like WW2 template in WW2 related articles or "big picture" templates like chinese history template for dynasty articles. But this culture of asia template doesn't really add anything to the present article. Blueshirts 21:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was actually talking about the "Taiwan related articles" template I removed already. But I was going to remove the culture of asia template too, I'll go ahead and do that and see if anyone objects.  --Ideogram 21:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I opt for the removal of "dutch and spanish" influence. It's preposterous to include the two. The discussion from above mentions religion. But that's not really "dutch and spanish", it's more religious proselytization than cultural exchange with any particular country. Most people on Taiwan follow traditional Chinese folk religion and customs and one would be hard pressed to say if there's any "dutch and spanish" influence on Taiwanese culture. Even Japanese influence is faint in the current generation. Even my grandparents, who speak fluent japanese because they were colonial subjects, don't celebrate japanese holidays but always celebrate chinese new years and go to taoist temple often. So, please don't make the culture of taiwan article into an amalgation of some unsubstantiated mutlicultural "ocean's Taiwan" cringe-inducing page, please. Blueshirts 23:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. --Ideogram 23:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't assume you, your grandparents or whatever speak for Taiwan.--Certified.Gangsta 05:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and of course you do. All of which is irrelevant, since this is Wikipedia, and what happens to this article is determined by consensus, not by what any one person says.  --Ideogram 06:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * gangsta, you have proven yourself to be virtually brain-dead and know absolutely nothing about taiwan, so shut it and quit embarassing yourself. Blueshirts 19:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Be careful, you're just giving him an excuse to accuse you of personal attacks. --Ideogram 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen on this talkpage, it's more about a forum to attack me with incivil comments rather than constructive discussion about the relevant article. What should I engage in a discussion with someone who tells me to "shut it and quit embarassing yourself"? Respect goes both ways.--Certified.Gangsta 17:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You certainly aren't going to get your way by edit-warring. That will just get you blocked again.  --Ideogram 17:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are disrupting all over the place. Edit warring and stalking my contributions will get YOU blocked. People aren't stupid here. Don't assume you are always right. DISCUSS--Certified.Gangsta 17:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I already stated my reasons above. You haven't replied to them.  --Ideogram 17:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The only reason you stated is that you don't like the template. That's not a valid reason to justify removal.--Certified.Gangsta 18:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Templates take up a lot of space with links that are unlikely to be interesting to the reader. Those links belong in the text in context.  And what is your reason?  --Ideogram 18:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * When readers are reading this article, it is likely that they will want to read similar articles to have a more thorogh understanding of Taiwanese culture. Removing them will not give them the choice. Unlikely to be interesting? That's your POV.--Certified.Gangsta 18:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Those links will be in the text. We also have categories for navigation.  Not to mention there are a lot of redlinks there.  And so far you haven't said anything that isn't your POV.  --Ideogram 18:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, what the only thing we could do right now is to stop edit war, revert it to the pre-edit war version, and actually discuss. You don't seem willing to do that. --Certified.Gangsta 18:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am discussing with you right now. It will not stay in your preferred version unless you get consensus behind you.  Did I mention that Blueshirts agrees with me?  That's what consensus means, getting people to agree with you.  --Ideogram 18:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to cut the talk about consensus. There's a reason why wikipedia doesn't always follow consensus but content factuality. Since there are more 1 billion Chinese and only 20 million Taiwanese. (possibly similar proportion on wikipedia too) Consensus will make all Taiwanese article pro-China and all US-related article anti-US. Again, discussion could only take place if we go back to the pre-edit war version and cease edit warring. Hopefully, come up with a compromise.--Certified.Gangsta 18:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Consensus is Wikipedia policy. If you don't understand that, you don't belong here.  You are not allowed to make discussion contingent on what the current version is.  --Ideogram 18:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You're not respecting my proposal for a ceasefire? Apparently, you're not willing to compromise but just making blank statements as long as your version stays. That's not the way it works.--Certified.Gangsta 18:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We have a cease-fire. The fact that it is not your preferred version is irrelevant.  And I am not making blank statements, I have stated my reasons and you have not responded to them.  And don't try to tell me how it works.  --Ideogram 18:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We can't discuss if one of our preferred versions is one there currently. What's your response for edit warring on John Profumo?? You have anything to say about that?? Note that there was no opposition to my change except you who stalked my contributions.--Certified.Gangsta 18:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * _I_ can discuss if my preferred version is there. But so far the evidence is that you can't.  Did you notice I had stopped reverting you at John Profumo?  --Ideogram 18:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a fair way to discuss if my preferred version or your preferred version is there. We need to get this article back to the pre-edit war version (the one with no visible objection). What you did in John Profumo and Michelle Marsh is a harassment campaign against me.--Certified.Gangsta 21:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, there is no Wikipedia policy about what version should be there during discussions. And allegations of harassment are not relevant here.  --Ideogram 21:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I know there isn't, so you're saying you want to go back to edit war? or compromise? or is this just a stalling tactic to keep your version there?--Certified.Gangsta 22:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * If you respond to my reasons, I will continue talking to you. Anything else you say will be ignored.  --Ideogram 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, you didn't have any reasons other than assuming the related articles are not appealing to other editors. My business is done with you. And don't ever post on my talkpage again unless you have something important to say, anything else will be interpret as harassment.--Certified.Gangsta 22:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You're reverting more stuff than the templates, and you haven't provided any relevant or convincing reasons to do so. All you've ever done was yelling "pro-chinese!" and write some very egregious misrepresenations about the people of taiwan, which shows that you know very little on the subject. Obviously you are not taiwanese, so don't pretend to be one and try not to misconstrue this thing into a "china vs taiwan" issue to cover up your ignorance on the subject. Blueshirts 23:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Gangsta, both Blueshirts and I agreed that the navigation template is a waste of space. You are the only one putting it back. Now would be a good time to demonstrate that you are capable of reasonable discussion without edit-warring. --Ideogram 17:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know... you mean that sidebar deal? I like it. It gives the reader a nice portal to wiki-off to another place. Gives ideas.Maowang 00:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The links should be in the text, where they are related to the article. There's no point putting links where people look at them without reading the article.  --Ideogram 01:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

From looking at the article....
First of all, I don't see why this page can't go under the Taiwan project and be done with it - its placement in three different Projects is a bit extreme. Secondly, most of this article is links to other articles and a bits of not very relevant trivia ("Ang Lee is a Taiwanese director popular in the West") - it this article even necessary if it's covered everywhere else? MSJapan 22:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not really a problem for an article to be in multiple projects, it happens to WPCHINA articles a lot because the topic is so broad. See Go (board game) for instance.


 * The article is in really sad shape, but the subject is important and I'm hoping people will come along and improve it. --Ideogram 22:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

LionHeartX
An admitted sockpuppet of banned user RevolverOcelotX, this user has a history of pro-China, pro-Communist edits. Anyway, it was previously agreed that he should stay out of these pages in exchange of his unblock. Please don't edit again. Thank you--Certified.Gangsta 22:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No personal attacks. If you object to LionheartX's edits, please discuss your objections to those edits.
 * ad hominim attacks are not acceptable on Wikipedia. --Sumple (Talk) 23:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

He forfeited his right to edit here. Anyway, follow your own advice. From your talkpage, you and ideogram have made many personal attacks toward me and Bishonen.--Certified.Gangsta 06:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Groundlessly accusing me of personal attacks is a personal attack. Pray retract your accusation or substantiate it with evidence in the form of diffs.
 * In either case, I am not the one disputing another editor's edits, you are. You still have not put forth a reason of what is wrong with LionheartX's edits. --Sumple (Talk) 10:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Gangsta RFC
Please comment at Requests for comment/Certified.Gangsta. --Ideogram 23:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Please also comment at Community sanction noticeboard. --Ideogram 01:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This talkpage is not a forum to discuss individual behavior. Learn how to use it.--Certified.Gangsta 07:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

culture
it's some japanese and western influences, not an equal blend. Taiwanese culture is largely a variation of Chinese culture, and it's definitely not some equal mixture from various places. Blueshirts 07:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

That is your POV. "Taiwanese culture is largely a variation of Chinese culture, and it's definitely not some equal mixture from various places"?? Yeah right. Y'all are trying to establish that Taiwan is culturally Chinese (which is debatable, controversial, and in many cases, untrue), so therefore Taiwan is part of China. This is very, very obvious POV pushing. Also please refrain from removing large chunks of info from the article.--Certified.Gangsta 07:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cultures
Ummm... I think we should discuss this in terms of cultures as there are many we are dealing with. To say Traditional Chinese Culture, is to assert that there is an identifiable authentic "Chinese Culture", which can be identified and defined into a fixed set of criteria that encompasses all Chinese...can this be done and be done NPOV? Will it be chauvinistic? Cultures are not fixed. Which Chinese culture are you discussing? Educational? Linguistic? Legal? Economic? Popular? Religious?...etc... I don't think in the continuum of time, we can measure amounts of greater or lesser influence. All we can really assert is that there was influence.

I think this is a major structual flaw of this article. How do we propose measuring degrees of Chineseness? What constitutes mostly? The current usage is POV and incongruent with contemprary concepts of culture, cultural change, and cultural identity. Maybe a change of focus to looking at Taiwanese culture as the result of a common socio-political experience?Maowang 01:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * we can follow the chinese wiki version. It's more organized along historical divisions. But it's undeniable that Taiwanese culture is derived from Chinese culture, there's nothing "chauvinistic" or pov about it. Blueshirts 02:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It actually is. That is called "essentialism" and it is a politically motivated ideology, fixed in time. Whether intended or not, it does not jibe with contemporary understandings of culture or cultural change. If you can find the Harrell/Huang book I listed, they do a really good job looking at what Taiwanese Culture means and how it has been continually changing. I can try to paraphrase if I have time. Feel free to put in the old sidebar with links, but include the new lede.Maowang 02:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a play on words. Of course there's different degrees of influences upon the culture, to treat them each equally is wrong. Of course culture is changing, but to what degrees? Is the degree of American/European/Japanese influences equal to tradiitional confucian influence? Of course not. And the intro is needlessly complicated. I think it can have its own section like "formation" or "political connotations" or whatnots. I think it'd be helpful to translate from the chinese wiki, and add more "concrete" stuff like holidays, popular sports...etc. Blueshirts 06:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

That might be misleading, narrow and whether they know it or not...POV. I don't think Chineseness can be defined in a way that can be applied evenly over time to all people reputed to be Chinese without creating a system of a chauvinist Han as "Chinese" and lesser peoples who are not ; which gives rise to ethnic conflict. It sounds like primordialism. Check the wiki on culture and cultural identity. I don't think it is possible to measure influence, nor define influencing cultures in a quantitative degree. Furthermore, trying to fix a solid definition of culture in a continuum where cultural identities are being negotiated and re-negotiated on a constant basis is not possible. When does Chinese stop and Taiwanese begin? Han is a good starter, because there are several varieties of local Han that share some, but not all, marks of Confucian Culturalism and sticks to non-nationalized patterns of meaning. One of the major symbols of cultural identity is literature and this page could probably add something about Taiwanese literature and New Cinema as an expression of culture. The current definition sticks to the anthropological understanding of culture and does not attempt to imply greater or lesser degrees of influence that are clearly subjective. I omitted the Taiwanese Aborigines part because it, too, suggested Aboriginal culture is not Taiwanese and that it is monolithic. This topic is pretty difficult and there is still a lot of debate being generated in academia and politics regarding Taiwanese culture, so I hope we can move forward with politics aside and create the most even article we can.Maowang 08:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Still sounds full of hot air. There are some norms that can define the "Chineseness" of Taiwanese culture. Chinese holidays, confuscian values, folk religions and so forth come to mind. Where are the japanese and western influences, at comparable level? How about "dutch and spanish" influences per discussions above? Anything specific? To treat all influences in the same degree gives undue attention. The very least we have to mention that much of taiwanese culture is influenced (or a part/variation of) by chinese culture, and there's absolutely nothing pov about it. For example, we can definitely mention taiwanese hand puppetry, how it was invented and developed in Fujian, and came to taiwan with fujianese immigrants. But during the japanese colonial period it was altered by the japanese government, like the banning of using chinese language and instruments. Thus, modern hand puppetry, although its story doesn't deviate far from traditional chinese wuxia sagas, contains some theatrical elements developed during the japanese period. Something like this where it is clear which source had more influence. Blueshirts 10:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to be describing are examples of Han culture that have changed with time, you can not list a set of values shared by all Confucian culturalists as Chinese or all Chinese as Han. Han in some parts of Taiwan bury their dead at home for instance. Japanese, Koreans, Singaporians and Vietnamese share similar holidays. Uighers? Are they Chinese? What about the Muslim Hui? So if Confucianist does not equal Chinese what does? Simply put, it is the shared socio-political experience that matters. Traditionalism then? What happens if hand puppetry becomes an extinct artform...has it remained static or has it innovated over time? Then there is the Taiwanicization of China...where Taiwan's experience and contact with Chinese is changing local cultures in China. How about "Western" what does that mean?Maowang 11:29, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Gangsta,

I don't know what kind of situation existed here before regarding yourself and these other editors, but your last edit removed the Lede, which was properly referenced, and replaced it with the prior one, which was not referenced and arguably POV. I am trying to contribute to the Taiwanese articles from the non-nationalized, NPOV standpoint of good, reference material, which does not get all wrapped up in the politics of identity. This method avoids particular nationalized narratives of Taiwan. Please respect my contributions to making this a better, more accurate, topic. Also, please read the discussion above to fully understand my objections. Maowang 06:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I got no objections to the heading but the problem is the addition of Culture of China to "related articles" and the mass removal of popular culture and convenient store culture without prior discussion.--Certified.Gangsta 08:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They are still in the bottom of the page. The whole thing needs to be re-made. I don't think this page has shown a very good understanding of Taiwanese culture thus far. Just leave the lede as is.

I re-added the deleted info about hip-hop culture and removed Culture of China from related link unless we want to add Culture of Japan and American Culture to related link as well.--Certified.Gangsta 09:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * My two cents: I agree that Taiwanese culture is influenced by different cultures, especially Japanese culture, but I don't see how you can discount it being "mainly" Chinese ... everyone speaks Chinese, writes in Chinese, believes (mainly) in Chinese religions, no? --Sumple (Talk) 12:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Lead section
I can't seem to make sense of the new lead section. It seems as if it said a lot while saying nothing at all. It contains so much jargon that no laymen (like myself and likely someone has significantly less social science background) will be able to understand it:
 * "The cultures of Taiwan are a hybrid blend of Confucianist Han Chinese cultures, Japanese, European, American, global, local and indigenous influences which are both interlocked and divided between perceptions of tradition and modernity (Harrell/Huang 1994:1-5)." - What is "hybrid blend"? (delete "hybrid) What is "Confucianist" culture? There are elements of Han cultures that are not chiefly associated with the Ruist school, so "Confucianist" is not a proper term. Call it "traditional". The Chinese don't have a term for it and "traditional" is the best we've got in English. What is the difference among "global" "local" and "indigenous"? Isn't it implied from the origins in the previous list? "both interlocked and divided" which two elements does "both" refer to? And I don't understand how exactly "perceptions of tradition and modernity" cause these influences to be "interlocked and divided". One could say that the "Chineseness" is traditional while the Western/Japanese influences are modern, but this is not evident nor something we should claim.

Maowang: Hybridism or hybridity results following contact between two or more cultures. From the moment one encounters the "other" and is aware of the "other", both change into something new. Cultures simply don't eat up other cultures without a trace. terms like "Chinese" and "traditional" are actually POV because they imply a set criteria of belonging or commonality or being fixed at a particular "authentic" point in an "authentic" reading of history. To say "traditional" would imply establishing a "true" tradition as opposed to others which are false and exclude many beliefs, functions and meanings that apply to Taiwan. I'll discuss more below. What most people refer to when they say "Chinese Culture" is actually Han Culture. The markers of being Han are almost entirely rooted in the Imperial Confucianist state beliefs and structures of society. This is called Confucian Culturism. This term also allows space for the reinterpretation of Confucianist culture over time to flow with dynastic change. Concepts of filial piety, social and state structure, naming culture, differeing between "one" and "other", had formerly been conceived underthe principles of Confucianism and promoted by the state. Taiwan has also been in contact with global cultures for a long time, those are the symbols of modernity which we are seeing with increased "globalization". My use of "local" allows for us to undertand that regionally, Taiwanese cultures differ and many Taianese values, meanings and symbolism change between locality and between the city and the country. Western is a poor term for its colonial history and artificiality. "American" works due to the influence of American servicemen stationed in Taiwan between 1954 and 1979.


 * My main issue with this wording is that it uses jargon (e.g. hybridity) I cannot understand. I haven't been trained as an anthropolgist, and nor have the vast majority or readers finding this article of any use. If it's a blend, then call it that, not a hybrid blend. Likewise, "global" and "local" imply nothing in laymen's terms of what you want them to mean. Can we not say that certain cultures had more effect on what is today "Taiwanese culture" than others? The definition is giving equal weight to all these influences when it is far from the case.
 * We throw around terms that are not precise all the time. For example, what are we supposed to mean by "modernity"? Practices departing from customs? What if these practices are part of the customs of another culture?
 * The term "Confucianist" does not exist in Chinese. In Chinese, its equivalent is "Ru" which means "scholar" and is meant to refer to those transmitting the traditions of the past. And it is this term, rather than "traditional Chinese," that implies a specified doctrine on the characteristics of the culture. Using the term completely ignores what changes to Chinese culture occured over the thousands of years after Confucius. Think Tibetan Buddhism (sanctioned by the Qing court), philosophical Taoism (leading to a whole set of cultural beliefs independent of the state orthodoxy), existing Cantonese funeral practices (influenced by a culture once regarded as "barbarian"), etc. --Jiang 00:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "A common socio-political experience on Taiwan gradually developed into sense of Taiwanese cultural identity and a feeling of Taiwanese cultural awareness, which has been widely debated domestically along the lines of authenticity and falsehood." "socio-political experience" and "authenticity and falsehood" are jargon. What is it supposed to mean. What is the difference between identity and awareness? How about "gradually developed into a common cultural identity whose standing in relation to other cultures has been domestically contested."

Maowang: Social scientists have found the creation of ethnic and cultural identities are framed, not by national borders or concepts of a common ethnic past, but by a shared experience in society under a single polity. Than means a shared common government and the systems used by that government to govern, frame how people within a society form group identities and imagine other people to belong to their "in group".

Maowang: "Authenticy" and "falsehood": Both Chinese nationalists and Taiwanese nationalists have sought to mobilize support for their POV by choosing selected historical narratives, cultural symbols, ethnic markers, genetic science..etc... Each side claims they are "true" and the other is "false". Under the KMT, Taiwanese were reputed to be "Chinese" because XYZ...Taiwanese culture was "Chinese culture". The KMT promoted Taiwan as protecting "authentic" Chinese culture, which the party/government defined and promoted. Calligraphy, kite making, Beijing opera, Tai-chi, Qing style clothing...etc... This authentication of "what is Chinese" was a purely invented definition as peoples all over China did not practice most..if any of those activities. The authentication of culture resulted in determining the Taiwanese, who were viewed as being far from the center, to be lacking due to their Japanese colonial experience. Taiwanese nationalists have used a similar means to exclude those Taiwanese who came from China in 1949. Taiwanese nationalists have defined Taiwanese along lines of selected histories, cultural traits that are "true" against the "false" Chinese. These divisions and definitions do not account for cultural diversity, chosen cultural identities, continued cultural change...and most of all....hybridity, which marks Taiwan's and China's cultures. Defining Chinese and Taiwanese based on X-Y-and Z is more the production of politicians mobilizing people to gain or retain power.


 * I understand and agree with everything you have to say here, but would like to edit out all the jargon. That may require more words than what is allotted in the lead.--Jiang 00:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "The discourse on Taiwanese culture has periodically shifted between historical, political and ethnic frames in reaction to the essentialization Taiwan's culture by competing political movements." I don't think I understand this. What is the "essentialization of culture"? Does it mean "The debate over Taiwanese culture has varied according to claims made by various political groups over the status of Taiwan."?

Maowang: Essentialization: See above


 * "Prior moves to essentialize Taiwanese culture have, in recent years, given way to internal rhetoric of Taiwanese multiculturalism to replace the Taiwanese-Mainlander dichotomy of mobilized cultures." "mobilized cultures" is jargon. --> "In recent years, political movements have tended to stress an all encompassing Taiwan identity that stress similarities between native Taiwanese and Mainlanders over their differences."

Maowang: Mobilized cultures is what was described above. When politicians define people, culture and ethnicity in a fixed frame for political movement despite actual experience. "We are the descendants of the Dragon...we have over 5000 years of history" or "We Taiwanese have been opperessed and our language has been stolen...our cultures have been erased...we are not Chinese because we are mixed with Ping pu tribes". Both examples show the essentialization and framing used by politicians. Both attempt to erect artificial boundaries that divide and alienate the other.


 * Agreed and understood, but "essensialization" and "mobilized cultures" are jargon that should be edited out.--Jiang 00:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * "The re-framing of Taiwanese cultures as the product of Taiwan's socio-political and historical experience has allowed for the inclusion of mainlanders and other minority groups into the discourse of Taiwanese culture as collectively held systems of meaning and customary patterns of thought and behavior". Isn't culture itself based "collectively held systems of meaning and customary patterns of thought and behavior"? Why not just call it culture? --> "The re-framing of Taiwanese cultures in light of recent political developments has expanded the scope of Taiwanese culture to include Mainlanders and other minority groups."

Maowang: This paragraph above breaks with the Taiwanese nationalist view of an authentic Taiwanese by accepting the "waishengren" experience on Taiwan and accepting their cultures and the culture that emerged from their experience on Taiwan as part of Taiwanese culture as they have impacted everyone and come into contact with all peoples...at the same time, many of them have come to view Taiwan as home, many have intermarried outside the "waishengren" community etc... Taiwanese have mixed like this for centuries. Migrations cause cultural change and the result is neither a copy of either the from culture or the to culture...but something new.

Maowang: Lastly, I used the broad anthropological definition of culture in contrast to the humanities definition and wrote that into the end to show basically, a definition and why that works for Taiwan.

Maowang: I hope this helps.

Please try to clarify these sentences so we can simplify the language.--Jiang 13:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The intro still feels very loaded, and sounds like it's saying a lot but not really. This is an encyclopedia not some school term paper. I would like to read some concrete examples like religion, holidays, stuff that people would understand rather than wading through the metaphysics. The lead section has nothing to do with the following sections, perhaps move it to a new heading like "philosophical background" or something like that? Blueshirts 01:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "Culture" is very loaded itself, and there are all kinds of political points of view that would love to define what "Taiwanese Culture" means to support their own agenda. Since I think this community is above that, this Lede should suffice as it takes the least politicized path to describing culture on Taiwan and even the nature of culture. There are wiki links to terms, which can also serve to educate the reader rather than to indoctrinate. Judging by the page history, this has already been a battleground between opposing definitions of "Taiwanese Culture". To avoid partisan bickering, the Lede is a great place to start. It lays bare all the assumtions that make a POV article. If it does not jibe with the text below, that is because this in not a finished article and there is a lot left to be done. The examples listed below are debatable and often contradictory to earlier assertions. "Culture" is a very personal and sensitive subject to many people, so it should be treated with extreme care. The entire Lede can be supported with sources and contemporary understandings of "culture" that serves its purpose to distance the definition from any particular point of view so we can all enter as equals and treat all cultures on Taiwan as equals. The prior Lede suffered from major flaws in logic and structure as well as politicized view points and essentialization. Follow the wiki and learn the definitions. They are there for a specific reason.Maowang 02:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Still sounds a lot like lawyer talk from a term paper. No user is gonna read this up front and get what on earth are "authenticity" and "essentialization". Can't we just follow the lead from culture of the United States? Simple and to the point. A readable lead section which is then followed by a section on what is culture. Blueshirts 09:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan is in a totally different situation where the idea of a "Taiwanese Culture" has been hotly debated and is a part of the current political rhetoric. Critics call it a false "culture" and a "Chinese" culture, or "true" Chinese culture, while others call it a "new Culture". In my experience on wikipedia, I know there are Chinese and Taiwanese nationalists out there in the community who would love to turn this into a soap-box for their POV as they look for every opportunity to do so...that is not us...we are above that. My only motivation is to make sure Taiwan related articles are supported by good material that is NPOV and to make sure the best information is available to the reader. I will not add anything that is not supported by good references. Now, when I get done with a few more things I'm going to unleash a tour de force of material on this page. I have volumes on Taiwanese culture. You can see I have a pretty good track record for sources.

The current version of this page reminds me of the movie, "Better Than Sex" a movie filmed in Taiwan. At the beginning, a group of Japanese want to go to Taiwan to catch Taiwanese teens for a make-over show. The cast gathers and says, "Oh, Taiwan. Taiwan is agricultural, they have pineapples and sugarcane there." It really doesn't say much about Taiwan at all.Maowang 13:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't matter at all. The point is that the lead still sounds like something from a term paper, loaded with sources no less. It's not encyclopedic at all and leaves the readers more confused than anything. Blueshirts 15:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Culture is a BIG topic and we have to treat it that way. Lots of issues and lots of issues with the issues. We can then plug sub-issues into it and use the BIG topic to wiki off from. The general toplic of "Culture"could, if done properly, be a major pillar of the Taiwan project. To do it right we should stick with the BIG understandings of the issue. The lede needs to introduce the whole thing and NPOV, so the language should be deliberate. Look at Taiwanese Aborigines. There is an article that deals with a very sensitive subject, in an intelligent way. Is it useful? Yes! I met a girl a couple weeks back, and we started talking about wikipedia. She mentioned the Taiwanese Aborigines page got her an A in her anthropology class. We need to make sure we supply the best, and most accurate information. "Culture" is a major field of the social sciences, anthropology, sociology, political science...etc. So, it should be dealt with as close to the best contemporary understandings as possible or it will not be useful, then we can plug in as many Mickey Mouse articles into it as we want.Maowang 00:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Apart from accuracy, neutrality, and concision, there is accessibility. What is our audience? Wikipedia should not be used as a serious reference (one you would cite in a journal article or assignment) for academic study past high school. (I've been warned on multiple occasions not to use Wikipedia as a university student.) Wikipedia is the first point of contact for people seeking brief and general information on a subject in which they are not an expert. The audience we are dealing with is inherently non-specialized. We cannot assume any sort of specialized knowledge.--Jiang 13:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to dumb it down and it says what it is. If you want to talk culture this is the broadest definition and also very economical. Any special terms are wikified, which will help elucidate the meaning of the topic. The idea that Taiwanese culture is "bubble tea" is plain silly. If people are looking to know about Taiwanese Culture they can come here and then wiki-off to all the sub categories and examples. The body should be the most accurate and supply the overview. When discussing "culture" you are treading on a sensitive issue. Wait about a week or so. This should really come together if all the fighting stops.Maowang 13:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Explain please
Why was I reverted? Calde 01:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved the citations tag below the lede. As you can see, the lede is VERY well sourced.Maowang 01:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes
I have started adding to this article. There will be a lot more edits to come, but I am out of time for today. This is still a work in progress, so please don't get too upset. Culture is a big issue and I provided an overview with the majority of information regarding the KMT Authoritarian Period. I know there are earlier influences, but this is the history of the polity which is still governing Taiwan. There is still a lot for you all to grouse about, but it is still in progress. Maowang 07:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok! So I've got a busy weekend, so I may be a couple of days. As you all can see... the plan is to expand this out to the listed subjects, with Bentuhus being larger as the history and contemporary movements in culture should be larger, then have a couple of good, strong paragraphs, for each subject with a link to a spin-off page, some already exist. Give me a few days.Maowang 00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Still not done..please not mess too much right now...it will make things messy

Ordinary readers
The current lead paragraph is clearly not written for ordinary readers. It introduces unnecessary complexities into what should really be explained quite simply. Words and phrases like "discourse", "essentialism", "internal rhetoric" "socio-political and historical experience", etc, do not serve the ordinary reader and should not be in the lead paragraph. This is not an academic paper. See Culture of the United States and Culture of the United Kingdom for more accessible introductions. See Lead section, especially the importance of accessibility.

I still have doubts about this "cultures" business. Even articles on declaredly multicultural countries like Australia or the United States don't use a plural for "culture". Given the article title, I might suggest that the singular is better in this context.

Inline references should be moved to footnotes for ease of reading. --Sumple (Talk) 04:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * yeah me and Jiang have voiced our concerns too. Apparently this is a nice term paper but not too encyclopedic so far. Blueshirts 06:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a work in progress...I need space to work to get things lined up...then we can go from there. awright!

I had other people say the lede is the only quality part of this article. I have even tried to smooth it out to explain better. I was looking in the Wikipedia writing guide and they suggested not writing too simple either. The lede will give this article the strength to be stable. Give me a little space to work and I will solicit opinions later when there is more to compare it with. I would like to ask for your cooperation on this so we can make this a strong, useful page.Maowang 07:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC) The current lede has all the ingredients. It introduces the subject, explains the fundamentals, the conflicts and provides a definition. Maowang 08:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's my proposed draft for the lead paragraph, working from the current version:
 * The culture of Taiwan is a hybrid blend of Confucianist Han Chinese cultures, Japanese, European, American, global, local and indigenous influences which are both interlocked and divided between perceptions of tradition and modernity . A common socio-political experience on Taiwan gradually developed into a sense of Taiwanese cultural identity and a feeling of Taiwanese cultural awareness, which has been widely debated domestically along the lines of its "authenticity" or "falsehood". . The discourse on Taiwanese culture has periodically shifted between historical, political and ethnic frames in reaction to the essentialization of Taiwan's culture by competing political movements. Prior moves to define Taiwanese culture in concrete terms have, in recent years, given way to internal rhetoric of Taiwanese multiculturalism to replace the Taiwanese-Mainlander duality, which drove concepts of culture from a largely political point of view. The re-framing of Taiwanese cultures as the product of Taiwan's socio-political and historical experience has allowed for the inclusion of mainlanders and other minority groups into the continuing definition of Taiwanese culture as collectively held systems of meaning and customary patterns of thought and behavior 
 * Proposed version:
 * The culture of Taiwan, though rooted in traditional, Confucianist, and Han Chinese culture, has been influenced significantly at various stages of its development by Japanese, American, and European cultures, and the impact of global, local and indigenous influences . The Aboriginal culture, especially, has been emphasised in recent years.


 * The common socio-political experience in Taiwan gradually developed into a sense of Taiwanese cultural identity and a feeling of Taiwanese cultural awareness, which has been widely debated domestically . Reflecting the continuing controversy surrounding the political status of Taiwan, politics continues to play a role in conceptions of a cultural identity, especially in the conception of a Taiwanese-Mainlander duality. In recent years, a concept of Taiwanese multiculturalism has been proposed as a relatively apolitical alternative view.
 * I have tried my best to reframe the information in a form that would be comprehensible to the average reader (without a tertiary degree in sociology), without removing any substantive statement or source.
 * The key differences are threefold:


 * 1) Avoiding jargon - terms which ordinary readers would have no idea about are avoided as much as possible. Thus, things like "internal rhetoric" or "modernity" (in its specialist sense as used here) or "discourse" or "systems of meaning and customary patterns of thought and behavior" have been removed.
 * 2) Establishing context - for a reader who is somewhat unfamiliar with the subject matter, concepts should be introduced in a logical fashion, one at a time. Thus, the Taiwanese-Mainlander dichotomy is explained first, before the multiculturalism which is supposed to replace it.
 * 3) A shift away from emphasis on the study of Taiwanese culture (i.e. discussions on ways of framing or conceptualising Taiwanese culture) towards Taiwnaese culture per se, which is afterall the subject of the article. Thus, slightly less discussion on the minutiae of academic conceptions, and slightly more description of sources and influences.
 * This is meant to initiate discussion. I will move this into the article if there is a concensus for it. --Sumple (Talk) 02:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The body really discusses the formation of where it comes from and what shapes it. Just give it time. I am working hard on it


 * Well, WP:consensus. Discussion and collaboration produces the best work, hopefully. --Sumple (Talk) 07:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes per your requests, though the parts I left in are what I feel are integral to understanding the subject in a meaningful way. Each of the sets at the beginning will be discussed in the body and will give the reader a full understanding of how things fit together (it should be fun). Hybritity provides the NPOV understanding that does not give undue weight to a subject that can't be quantified and we avoid chauvinism, colonized writing and POV. The tail is the basic definition of "What is "c" culture?" to give us more room to work beyond the humanities version of "C" Culture which is currently in play. The "c" culture is the driving force behind "C" Culture.

好吧！？Maowang 08:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

STOP IT!
All you guys chasing each other around in an edit war, sometimes just to piss on the other guy, creating puppets, endless reverts, pointless name-calling...etc. Stop! Go somewhere else. Go to a Taiwan\China discussion forum on the internet or take it outside. I don't want to see it here anymore. Wikipedia does not have a Wiki-kids encyclopedia yet, so until then, don't contribute.

You guys chase each other all over wikipedia looking for a fight and then get all primed for conflict, so when a guy like me comes along to add quality information from quality sources, I have to put up with a bunch of impulsive, angry, POV people, who, because of conflict with someone I don't even know, or care to know, can't/won't cooperate. I am really beginning to think you all enjoy the fighting and perpetuate it. Would someone please take the high road?

This page has the potential to be a really great, really useful, really informative page...but that is not going to happen if you keep fighting. I am willing to put in the effort and make this happen and I want everyone to have a part in it, but this page will continue to be a nothing-waste-of-time for you and for me if you keep it up. How long have you spent getting nowhere on this? Could you use this time better?

I am looking to cooperate with people who can operate in good faith and are not looking to push any POV. I have a good background in this field and could lend a hand for good NPOV articles. I could be a good ally down the road for future cooperation, but I do not want to work in such a negative environment with suspicion over every edit.

Again,

Stop and breathe.....

Maowang 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Neither of you are adding anything substantive, and are clearly not taking the advice or counsel of the ArbCom to heart.  -- Folic Acid 02:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I really like all the information Maowang put up there. Why don’t we just let him work on this article? He seems to know more about this topic than all of us.--Certified.Gangsta 01:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

A warning to Certified.Gangsta
You are continuing to make disruptive edits, blindly reverting others' edits. You are on revert parole, and if you persist in this behaviour you will be blocked *again*. --22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, I was referring specifically to this edit, with edit summary "leave Maowang's source addition alone". Let the record show that what the edit actually achieved, quite contrary to the edit summary, was to:


 * Reintroduce experiment line [[Media:Example.ogg]]
 * Revert my (referenced) edits to section "Religion" to the previous, unreferenced version.
 * Revert my factual edit to the "Bubble tea" section, which had been to correct a factual inaccuracy.
 * None of the edits reverted by User:Certified.Gangsta disturbed any material added by Maowang, and especially did not delete any source added by Maowang. --Sumple (Talk) 06:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank's for the support Gangsta. But let's avoid the appearance of instabilty by looking for more creative ways to deal with edits than reverts. We're working, so it's ok. Since this is still a page under rennovation, I expect a lot of fluidity, so if I see an unacceptable edit to my contributions I will take up the matter. I know you mean well.Maowang 04:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The Big Plan
Ok! I'm trying to make a solid plan to give the reader the different frames for viewing Taiwanese culture. These are broad topics that should be dealt with in overviews and then wiki off to their own page where, if they wish, the reader can gain more detailed info. The examples which made up the bulk of the old page are great examples that should have their own page as they are all results of the convergence of the larger issues. For example, you can't really expect a reader to understand Chinese contemporary film without knowing the background of say...the Socialist realism movement as the result of...

So the direction I am looking at for this page is:

KMT Authoritarian Cultural History

Bentuhua History

Economic Culture->Link(Page)
 * Development
 * Practice/Influence

Political Culture-> Link (Page)
 * Overview
 * Cultural Development and Traits

Religious Culture->Link (Page)
 * Overview
 * Contemporary
 * Cultural Change

Confucian Culture->Link (Page)
 * Traditional
 * Contemporary

Educational Culture->Link (Page)
 * History
 * System
 * Culture Overview

Globalization->Link (Page)

Popular Culture Wiki off->
 * Sports
 * Food
 * Cinema
 * Etc...

feedback? Maowang 01:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good. Can the two history sections be grouped under one level 2 heading, just for logical consistency? --Sumple (Talk) 04:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure!Maowang 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Japan
People have argued project designation on this page should be cultural-base not politically-motivated. Given that Japanese culture has profound in Taiwan, why are people constantly removing the project while leaving WikiProject:China to stay? This is double standard (likely to be politically-motivated) and should not be tolerated.--Certified.Gangsta 07:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * ... err... people? One person (you) is not "people", if what my primary school teacher taught us was true. Are you Japanese? Because the last time I checked Taiwan did not speak Japanese nor was it a part of Japan. --PalaceGuard008 01:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * At this point if an active member of WikiProject Japan (i.e., NOT GANGSTA) wants to claim this article, I would have no objection. It's quite obvious to me that Gangsta is engaged in WP:POINT.  --Ideogram 07:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it'll be fine for this article to be part of WPJ, because the Taiwanese culture is in fact affected by the Japanese not only in the colonial period, but other times as well.--Jerry 19:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Taiwan was a colony of Japan until end of World War II; a lot of the older people in Taiwan can speak Japanese for that reason. Whether it should be considered part of WPJ, however, should be left to the decision of project members. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps


 * Taiwan being a part of WPJ just because of Japanese cultural influence doesn't make much sense to me. By that logic, the U.S. should be part of WPJ (everyone in the States knows karaoke, sushi, and anime for starters) ... and just about every country in the world should be part of WP United States, for better or for worse.  Save WikiProject designation for articles that are primarily associated with that Project's subject domain. CES 03:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't see how this article can really fall under WPJ.MightyAtom 03:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's necessary, either. The WPJ members are 0-3 on this one now. I think it's okay to remove the tag. Dekimasu よ! 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with CES, MightyAtom, and Dekimasuよ!. Oda Mari 05:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. India, Egypt, United States of America shouldn't be part of WikiProject Britain. Japan shouldn't be part of WikiProject America. The Land 20:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough.
Edit-warring isn't the way to go. On one side we have someone potentially gaming the 1RR parole, on the other side we have someone potentially baiting. If this continues, an admin will bound to block both parties for edit-warring. Start conversing. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 08:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

okay I was just reading a commentary by Stevan Harrell, who was quoted in the lead section regarding the nature of Taiwanese culture. His criticism of Hong and Murray (other researchers in the field I presume) is pretty scathing. In particular, Harrell says that Taiwanese culture is not the same as Chinese culture in the sense that is is not representative of China anymore than other regions (like Hebei...) are. He specifically wrote "we cannot say Taiwan is culturally anything but one variant of Chinese". Now this is different from what is quoted in the lead section. I'm not sure if it's taken out of the context or it's too general or unclear as it appears in the introduction of the book. Or maybe my understanding of double negative plus all but is incorrect. Blueshirts 18:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

anyone with an answer to my question a year ago? And I don't have the time and patience to deal with blanket revert of copyedit and addition of sourced information. Use the edit summaries, and please do not use sneaky removals and mark them up as minor edits. Any more edits in line of this will be treated as vandalism here on, especially from an editor involved on the same topic with his disruptive edits. See both: Requests for comment/Certified.Gangsta and Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Blueshirts (talk) 08:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

warning to members of WP:China
Seeing my edits as disruptive is a testament to blueshirts as PalaceGuard008 (Sumple's sockpuppet)'s arrogant mindset and POV-pushing intent. More than a year ago, a neutral editor, Maowang, made a whole bunch of contributions with strong sources to this article. Since then, there has only been POV pushing from members of WP:China spreading Chinese propaganda and discreting Taiwan's unique culture. As plainly apparent in the talkpage, blueshirt has also been edit warring with Penwhale on this article, among others, which violate the spririt of WP:OWN. Future reverts from these 2 editors without discussion will be consider vandalism and reverted on sight.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your past history has shown you to be an uncooperative, disruptive, and vandalizing editor. And please show evidence that I was edit warring with Penwhale, right on this page as you said. In addition, none of the editors I'm aware of, and certainly not me, were edit warring with Maowang, who did absolutely a great job with his sourced material, but hasn't replied to question regarding his citation in the lead paragraph. Now, please avoid more wikilawyering and throwing off loaded terms like WP:OWN and immediately stop blanket revertion of copyediting and addition of cited info. Blueshirts (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And your involvement? Randomly calling established editor a troll is frankly dickish behavior. I suggest you read WP:DICK for your own benefit. And don't try to stalk me. It's harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Certified.Gangsta (talk • contribs)
 * Okay, can you please enlighten us what does this diff show besides the fact that I put all your arguments into one paragraph, without changing one word, because you apparently don't know the markup for indentations? Blueshirts (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, if you think I'm a troll, boot me off the project. You and Sumple are just pissed off because Ideogram's sock got busted by me. You think I don't know y'all? The arbCom case pretty much got started because I busted RevolverOcelotX's sock farm, so y'all from WikiProject:China got pissed off because y'all are essentially using Ideogram and Lionheartx as bad-hand accounts to troll the project anyway.

Check out Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram for blueshirt and Sumple/PalaceGuard008's debating style. I'm still waiting for you to explain yours and PalaceGuard/Sumple's unilateral edits.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * If it makes you sleep better, please request a checkuser on me, Palaceguard, and Ideogram. I am not really waiting for your excuse for blanket reversions of sourced additions and copyedits, because I know you won't say it's vandalism. And please show where I was edit warring with Penwhale and Maowang, as you made in your accusation. Blueshirts (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)



I don't see my edits as vandalism either. The fact that you are undermining Prestyberian Church's effect on politics, toning down Chiang Kai-Shek and Chinese Nationalists brutality against ethnic Taiwanese, and undermining Taiwanese contemporary popular culture (the section was endorsed by maowang) is at best WP:GAME and at worse deliberate trolling. You know what I think of you. You know what you think of me. It is best we stay out of each other's editing scope. This page wasn't edited for over half a year until a few days ago. Then you and Sumple suddenly see the need to make POV-pushing edits just because I updated a few things. I don't know what to say. It looks like wiki-stalking, baiting, and being in dick (WP:DICK). I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I'm having problems doing that if you don't start explaining your edits to the article. I'm not a mind reader but note that one can be a dick without the subjective intention of being a dick. Keep that in mind. You're in danger of committing dickish behavior either deliberately or subconsciously.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

As for your suggestion about checkuser, I don't think it would be accepted so it's pointless. I never accused all 3 of you as the same person. But there is a concerted effort to boot me off the project by quite a few people, most of them Ideogram's blind supporters. My point was that you like Ideogram's and Lionheartx's Chinese propaganda edits and edit warring/stalking style, so you can achieve what you want without actually getting into the middle of it yourself, essentially using Ideogram as a bad-hand account. That's all I'm saying.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You have not explained any of your blanket reversions of sourced statements and copyedits and I am frankly tired of repeating the same question with the same simple wording. Also you have not pointed out where I was edit warring with penwhale and maowang. Adding a couple more paragraphs straying from the main point is not really helping you much. Blueshirts (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have to explain anything until you start explaining your unilateral changes, which I removed, then you edited back.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Certified.Gangsta, it would be more productive if you discussed content issues in good faith instead of 1) blank reverting substantive edits and 2) making wild and baseless accusations of other editors. No one really cares who you dislike, but if you have a comment to contribute about the content of the article, this is the place to post it in. If you have nothing to contribute on the content of the article, then please refrain from touching the revert button. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Suppression of Taiwanese nationalism
Why is the statement that the KMT suppressed Taiwanese nationalism being deleted? Readin (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you have a cite for it? The sentence, even if true, was in the wrong context. There was no such thing as "Taiwanese nationalism" in the 1940s to 1950s. It was a Taiwan autonomy movement coupled with a pro-Communist, anti-Kuomintang movement. It wasn't until the 1980s and 1990s that a Taiwanese "nationalism" arose in any significant way. This was the time when the CPC turned from supporting and sponsoring the DPP to gradually turning against it and towards the KMT. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Parties' cultural identifications
When saying that the election of the DPP is an important step in localization, it helps to point out that this is because the KMT was a Chinese party (to what extent is still is can be debated, but its origins are certainly Chinese and many of its members consider themselves Chinese) while the DPP is a Taiwanese party. Readin (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, this is very misleading. Most of the KMT members, their elected officials, and their voters are not mainlanders, who only make up a small proportion of the population of Taiwan. The party itself has undergone many reforms to re-invent itself as a native Taiwanese party. In addition, the presidential election in 2000 is rather late to be labeled a turning point in localization. First of all, the 2000 election was not the first sweeping election that the DPP captured. They did that in the 1990s and early 2000s when they defeated the KMT in legislative, county and many other local elections. The cultural scene has already made huge transformations way before the 2000 election. It was not an important step in localization in the cultural sense. Blueshirts (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

KMT's view of localization
"While both major political parties, the KMT and the DPP, are generally supportive of localisation, the DPP made localisation a key plank in its political platform". How has the the KMT been "generally supportive of localisation"? Readin (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The main issue here is the time frame. The KMT has been pro-localization since the 1980s, or even earlier when the KMT gave up retaking the mainland and when Chiang Ching-kuo stated that he was also a "Taiwanese" and began promoting native Taiwanese people to high party ranks, including Lee Teng-hui, Lin Yang-kang, and a whole bunch of others. It would be incredibly misleading to simply label the KMT as "pro-China" or anti-localization without giving a time frame, especially when most of the KMT members and their constituents are native Taiwanese and many of whom hold high ranks of the KMT hierarchy. I believe the sentence itself is rather extraneous and it does not clearly state the fact that the issue of localization and which party is "more native" has been used mainly for political opponents to smear each other. Blueshirts (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I inserted the sentence to balance out the previous content which seemed to simplistically label the KMT as pro-China and anti-localisation, and the DPP as the sole and unalloyed champion of localisation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The timeline needs to be clarified then. The fact that it was mainly KMT and other pan-blue parties that opposed renaming attempts, putting "Taiwan" on passports, and other localization measures should not be ignored.
 * I question Blueshirts's timeline. Chiang Ching-kuo may have stated he was also Taiwanese, but what evidence is there that his sentiments were shared by the rest of the party.  Lee Teng-hui is a particularly bad example of KMT embracing localization as he was expelled from the party.  If I remember correctly, wasn't Ma's position during the campaign that he didn't really care one way or the other about localization issues like renaming organizations?  That hardly sounds like "generally supporting". Readin (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny, I finished writing the above and went to read the Taipei Times. Look what I found ‘Taiwan Post’ sent into history


 * Asked for comment, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Kuo Su-chun (郭素春) said it was “reasonable” for the company to change its name back now that the KMT was in power.


 * She said the legislature never approved the postal service’s proposal to change its name to Taiwan Post, adding that as a result “Taiwan Post never existed.”


 * Anyone want to guess which party's representatives prevented the name change from being approved by the legislature? I doubt it was the DPP.
 * Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Yeh Yi-ching (葉宜津) told a press conference that “few people outside Taiwan know where letters with the Chunghwa Post postmark are from.”


 * She said the company should at least keep “Taiwan” on the postmark, as it would allow more people abroad to know that Taiwan is a sovereign state.


 * DPP caucus whip Chang Hwa-kuan (張花冠) said it was ridiculous for “the post company to spend NT$20 million to diminish ‘Taiwan’ and reinstate ‘Chunghwa.’”
 * Readin (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, renaming is NOT about localization anymore. It's identity politics and most people in Taiwan are frankly tired of getting played by the DPP with this kind of crap, and that's one chief reason they voted overwhelmingly for the KMT in both the presidential and legislative elections. Chunghwa Post was changed back to its name because that's the name for the past fifty years, and plus many people and most importantly the union were against it, and it was also an "illegal" change by Chen, much like the renaming of the CKS memorial hall. It has nothing to do "localization", because frankly, Taiwan has been "localized" enough. Blueshirts (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Blueshirts. Tearing your national institutions apart with a crowbar is not "localisation". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

School curricula changes
"changing school curricula to focus more on Taiwan's own history to the exclusion of China". So no Chinese history is being taught at all? They aren't even learning about it as a foreign history? They don't learn anything about the Chinese Civil War or how the KMT ended up in Taiwan? China isn't being "excluded", it is simply no longer the focus. Readin (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement of Sun Yat Sen is being treated proves that China isn't being "excluded". Readin (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the sentence again. It does not say that the curriculum is to the exclusion of China; it says the curriculum focuses on Taiwan's own history to the exclusion of China, as opposed to treating Taiwan's history as part of Chinese history, as was the norm previously. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Previously the norm was to not pay attention to Taiwanese history at all.


 * Perhaps better wording would be "revising textbooks and changing school curricula to focus more on Taiwan's separate history rather than treating Taiwan's history only as it related to China."Readin (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's simplistic and sensationalistic. The curriculum changes were more about excluding China than focussing on Taiwan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Inconguities
"These policies sometimes led to incongruities such as the "Father of the Country" Sun Yat-sen being treated as a "foreign" (Chinese) historical figure." That statement isn't very encyclopedic. Readin (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't add this sentence, but stuff like this happened. I remember when the minister of justice (DPP) was asked by reporters whether he considered Bao Zheng, the Chinese god of justice he was dressing up for an event, a "foreigner". In addition, some textbooks began referring to historical China in history books as "China" rather than "our country" as customary. Blueshirts (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why isn't it encyclopaedic? It is an example of how the school curriculum changed, and adds content to what is otherwise a generalising statement. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I reworded it so make it more neutral as to whether Sun was foreign or the father of the country.

on the incongruities theme
How can this be: "Mobile penetration rate stands at just over 100%" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.246.133 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Taiwanese Cuisine
The section on Taiwanese cuisine talks almost entirely about the foreign foods from places like China and Japan. Bubble Tea, which originated in Taiwan, gets a mention, but hardly anything else that comes from Taiwan. I don't have sources to use, but it would seem that an article about the cuisine of a nation of 23 million people, 90% of whom come from families that have been there for hundreds of years, and another portion being aboriginies, would have some dishes that were developed in the country. Some should be listed, even if they are simply changes to dishes that originated elsewhere (like the American hot dog started as a German food, but achieved its present form in America and can thus be called an American invention). Readin (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

-_- Oh come on Readin. Are you seriously telling me that Taiwanese cuisine is not a branch of Chinese cuisine? It's comprehensively based on Fujian cuisine and developed with influence from all the other cuisine styles which have become widespread in Taiwan since 1945.

Just because the development of the regional cuisine has been influenced by decidedly foreign cultures does not make it necessarily separate. Shanghainese cuisine is hugely influenced by continental (European) and Russian cuisine. Does that make it non-Chinese? I doubt it. Ditto for Hong Kong cuisine.

Aboriginal cuisine is, of course, different from Chinese cuisine. But widespread is its influence in mainstream Taiwanese cuisine? I would say - very little. It should be mentioned but treated separately from mainstream Taiwanese cuisine.

I keep saying this, but Taiwan is not America. Taiwanese is not to Chinese what American is to German/Anglo Saxons/French. The base assumptions are just too far apart for the analogy to work properly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it is exactly that. If you call American cuisine different from European, or deny that it is a mixture of European cuisines, then it is exactly the same with Taiwanese cuisine. Indeed, it has Chinese, Japanese and even Korean influences, but even it's own dishes from the aborigines. Or did you ever eat bat in China? &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; 14:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuaile Long (talk • contribs)

Culture of Taiwan and views
The book: Wachman, Alan. Taiwan: National Identity and Democratization. M.E. Sharpe, 1994. ISBN 1563243989, 9781563243981. Pages 122-123. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ... talks about how some groups view Taiwanese culture as a part of Chinese culture, and some don't

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Culture of Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731072739/http://www.7-eleven.com/AboutUs/InternationalLicensing/tabid/115/Default.aspx to http://www.7-eleven.com/AboutUs/InternationalLicensing/tabid/115/Default.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culture of Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070526015030/http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/brief/info04_19.html to http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/brief/info04_19.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culture of Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061128153701/http://ecommerce.taipeitimes.com/yearbook2004/P351.htm to http://ecommerce.taipeitimes.com/yearbook2004/P351.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)