Talk:Democratic Progressive Party/Archive 1

DPP facist?
I respect that you strongly disagree with the DPP government, but you cannot be serious to state that the DPP government resembled that of Mussolini's any other fascist government. Therefore it is necesary that it I did not only use wikipedia to study what fascism is. I do not like the way you censor me: to suggest that I pull out of the discussion. It is not up to me to prove that the present givewrnment in Taiwan does not resemble a fascist dictatorship. It is your thesis that it does and what I read in your statements, doesn't convince at all. The basic fact that it is not a fascist regime is that Taiwan is nowadays a multiparty democracy, in which the opposition could win elections. As far as I have seen the last National Assembly elections were not considered not to be free and fair. Free and fair elections are incompatible with fascism. BTW1: Nation-building is not the same as fascism. Every sovereign state had to go in a process of nation building. Would you consider Bismarck a fascist?
 * exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual.
 * stresses loyalty to a single leader.
 * uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
 * engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
 * engages in corporatism.
 * implements totalitarianism.

BTW: Since I am not Taiwanese I do not have a special loyalty to DPP, but ever when I met representatives of that party, as I did a couple of times, I got a complete different impression on that party. BTW 2. I suggest you read the book To be Free, by Chee Soon Juan which describes in its first chapter the struggle of the DPP against the opression in Taiwan during the one-party government. A fact is that opponents label the DPP government as fascist-like. I added an example of that in the paragraph on criticism. I also cited an scientific analyses of this labeling and a reaction by a DPP legislator. Electionworld 20:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand right. Can you put more clear for me. Thank you. Bobbybuilder 23:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

- Is it all right for us to report what the opposition accused DPP for? or all the sudden reporting is not NPOV anymore?

August 2003, Hualien local government election, DPP-led government only investigated pan-blue local representatives for bribery, and was called "Fascists".

20 May 2004, Lien Chan from KMT pointed out that DPP said "Vote No. 1 (Chen) is being Taiwanese; Vote No. 2 (Lien) is being Chinese", and said "this kind of racist leader can only provide a Fascist Taiwan". - source: from the pan-green newspaper, http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2004/new/may/21/today-p1.htm

Did I censor you? No, but I firmly believe that it is unwise to comment on things you don't know. It is not our fault that you cannot read Chinese newspapers to understand the politics in Taiwan.

You do not have to repeat the definitions of Fascism, I've already provided facts to back up my argument. I cannot control whether YOU accept those facts or not. However, not because you say "they are not convincing" then they must be dismissed. Who is censoring who now?

Are you saying because there are more than one party, DPP cannot be "Fascist"? All the sudden the neo-fascist parties in Italy now disappeared, well done.

"Since I am not Taiwanese I do not have a special loyalty to DPP", is that logical? When does "not being Taiwanese" mean "not giving special favour to DPP"? From your profile that you are a liberal person, are you saying because you are not American you do not have special loyalty to the Democratic Party? BTW, talking about being liberal, DPP supported Bush in 2004.

DPP did have oppression at the beginning, but they gained support from Deng-Hui Lee even when Lee was the president and the leader of GMT, that was the reason why many GMT members left and formed the New Party. After DPP gains power, it uses a similar tactic to oppress the opposition, it is doing exactly what it opposed before, that is also why the original leader Hsu_Hsin-liang, the spokeswoman Sisy Chen, parliament member Lee-Wen Cheng and many other people left DPP. Another past leader, Shih Ming-teh, The very person Chee was talking about in the book, left the party in 1998 for various reasons, one of those is he cannot stand for the current DPP's racial hatry. He also ran against DPP and GMT in 2004 Legistation yuan members election. Most of those people who really got oppressed left in the recent 8 or 7 years. Did you get all of these information from that book published in 1998?

Also, because they were oppressed before, it is all right for them to oppress other people now? Isn't that the very same reason Hitler killed so many Jews, because he felt oppressed? bobbybuilder, 06:09, 24 June 2005 (TST)

- Following information about DPP is extracted from Encyplopaedia Britannica 2003.

" Taiwanese political party formed in September 1986 by a group of independents who initially sought self-determination for the Taiwanese people, democratic freedoms, the establishment of economic ties with China, and a multiparty system. The DPP's advocacy of political liberalization led to the arrest and imprisonment of many of the party's leading figures. Despite a ban on new political parties (part of the martial law regulations that were in effect from 1949 to 1987), the DPP was informally organized in 1983. In 1986 it won 12 legislative seats, and in the election of December 1989—the first in which opposition groups could contest seats as organized political parties—the DPP won 21 of 101 seats in the Yüan, Taiwan's legislature. Amid debates over Taiwanese independence—the DPP committed itself to the establishment of a “Taiwanese republic with independent sovereignty”—the party's popularity declined in the early 1990s. By the late 1990s, however, it captured more than 30 percent of the legislature's seats, and its leader, Ch'en Shui-pian, was elected president in 2000. In December 2001 the DPP won 87 seats in the now 225-seat Yüan, replacing the Nationalist Party, which had ruled Taiwan continually from its founding, as the largest party in the legislature. "


 * I think the general concensus is that the DPP is not fascist. I spent the time to read over everything he wrote and my conclusion is that the DPP is not fascist just because the Kuomintang labels them as such. It is just like how we don't label the Falun Gong an "Evil Cult" just because the Chinese Communist Party refers to them as such in their official papers and memo's. This is Wikipedia, we have to be as bipartisan as possible, its supposed to be encyclopedic, not a venue for pushing one's propaganda. It is pretty obvious when someone is pushing something on you with fallacious arguments. Some people here think that doing so will influence others, but largely underestimate the intelligence of the masses using Wikipedia. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

DPP do fit most of the criteria for fASCISM, e.g. censorship, they did ban Jackie Chan's films from being shown in taiwan and even banned him from coming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.123.95 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Factions
Can someone elaborate on the different factions? The factions are frequently mentionned without explanation in English news sources based in Taiwan. wayne 23:00, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

"... traditionally been associated with the pan-green coalition...": since that label is a neologism and its other main constituent the Taiwan Solidarity Union is also fairly young, arguably the DPP has not been "traditionally" associated with it. The DPP has, however, been traditionally associated with the Tangwai movement, social movements (anti-nuke), political reform movements, Taiwan independence, etc. A-giau 23:04, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

disambiguation
Please do not move this page without discussing. This is by far the most famous and important DPP. The others are defunct or newly established. --Jiang 10:51, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi again. It is common use at the naming of parties Or other organizations, with the same name, to use a disambig page and add the country name to each of these parties. Indeed, the Taiwanese DPP is a famous and important party, but why should it be preferred to the presidential party of Malawi. So I just wanted to be consequent. Gangulf 10:54, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It is more famous and of consequence than the party in Malawi because of the history involved (the one in Malawi was only formed this month) and its importance in Taiwan itself, which is a global hotspot when compared to Malawi. Just look at how many pages link here versus there... So i dont see a reason not to favor this one--Jiang 10:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This is a classic case of "Primary topic" disambiguation: "if one meaning is clearly predominant, it remains...the general title. The top of the article provides a link to the other meanings." And we indeed should discuss before moving major topics, even only to see no comments (meaning no opposition). --Menchi 11:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

DPP advocates Taiwan independence ?

DPP adopted a resolution titled 'Resolution on Taiwan's future' in 1999. It said that Taiwan is already an independent state, its present official name is Republic of China. According to this resolution, DPP already renounced Taiwan independence in 1999. Althought its charter still containes a provision for creation of a Republic of Taiwan.

Everyone knows this the truth of DPP. Like KMT is pro-together. Bobbybuilder 23:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Criticism and Debating
After seeing what happened here and on similar political articles, I really don't think it's appropriate to include a seperate section on criticisms for any current political party, as the whole thing degenerates into a political debate with everyone throwing in points and counterpoints (See Kuomintang, Wikipedia is not a soapbox). It also raises serious questions on NPOV if we only include such a section for a single political party.

I have merged relevent info from the Criticisms section into the main body of the article and removed the rest. I feel that the most we should do is provide the party platform and where it differs from the platforms of other parties. Anyone who is really interested can feel free to dig deeper on the subject and form their own opinion without us telling them why some policy is right or wrong. --Loren 05:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I made a few changes based on the following:
 * 1. Pan-blue only apologised for the Nazi label, but it still believes that some actions adopted by DPP are racist.
 * 2. Taiwanese identity can consist of Chinese identity like Singaporian identity, it's the separating part Pan-blue is opposing, so I changed some words.
 * The final point is related to the following comment: At the other end of the political spectrum, the acceptance by the DPP of the symbols of the Republic of China is opposed by the Taiwan Solidarity Union. Here is a question for everyone: who knows where DPP is at in the political spectrum? I thought KMT was right, and DPP was left, but that's before 2000. Bobbybuilder 22:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore you is wrong. The racist DPP is because they don't like mainland people of China and aborigness. Bobbybuilder 23:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That is a very narrow interpretation of what a few extremists have said. The mainstream DPP position is that the Chinese identity is one of many that make up the Taiwanese identity. Just as the KMT platform isn't defined by actions or words of the "愛國同心會" or the few people who attempted to, and still try to surpress anything Taiwanese or remotely local or even advocate union under 1C2S. Does the presence of these people on the blue side mean that I can label the KMT as a whole racist or communist collaborators? I think not. --Loren 23:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Foundation date

 * September 28, 1986 (from infobox)
 * October 4, 1990 (formation of the DPP from #History)

Any idea which is correct? &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Never mind, found error. &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Transliteration
The article gives the Chinese transliteration as Mínzhǔ Jìnbù Dǎng. This appears to match the name given, 民主進步黨. However, both seem strange to me as I have always heard the party called the "Minjindang". I'm guessing the 5 characters is the official name, while the 3 characters are what are normally used. Shouldn't we have the characters and romanization of the more common Chinese name somewhere? Readin (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Assassination attempt
The section that describes the assassination attempt on President Chen appears biased. "effectively preventing the mostly pan-blue police and military bodies from voting"; is it true that the majority of the police and military were prevented from casting votes by the assassination? "which many of the population are questioning if the assassination was genuine" How many? Any citation? "despite the obvious corruption of the judiciary" What obvious corruption? Isn't the judiciary a long term job, meaning most judges got their start and high-ranking judges got their promotions under the KMT? "it was conducted by about 460 teams situated in 21 courthouses across the Taiwan area, employing Lee Tsang Yu, a famous American Taiwanese investigator questioned of having accepted bribes from DPP". How is it relevant that 1 person out of 460 teams in 21 different courthouses was questioned (not convicted, merely "questioned") about bribes? If he was the leader of the recount, then it might be relevant, but the article doesn't say he was the leader, merely that this questioned individual was 1 person out of 460 teams. Readin 18:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You'll find there's so much bias in these sorts of articles because they're rarely reviewed by people "in the know". I suggest you make so pro-active edits yourself to remove the bias. John Smith&#39;s 19:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Should we include information on how world famous investigator Dr Lee came to various conclusions that the assassin was likely not a professional, as well as whom the Taiwan police ultimately concluded was the assassin? I know there is controversy because there are KMT die-hards that will say that the police are DPP puppets, yet at the same time say that most of the police and military lean KMT (check the discussion page on the KuoMinTang article). If its controversial at least bring out some of the picture. Just saying the shooting was controversial doesn't really put much to it. --24.193.80.232 (talk) 14:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The description "controversial assassination attempt" is the most bizarre choice of words I've ever read on Wikipedia. Could an assassination attempt ever be uncontroversial? Suitsyou (talk) 07:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Support section
if anyone could write a "support" section parallel to what is in the KMT article... the fact that DPP receives support from the separatists should be very easy to write about. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 07:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Name Change to "Democratic Progressive Party (Taiwan)"
This article's title should be changed from "Democratic Progressive Party" to "Democratic Progressive Party (Taiwan)" to reflect the reality that there are parties of similar names in other countries. -Coffeetime8 (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

independence for tibet and xinjian
Does it support independence for tibet and xinjian etc?--Kaiyr (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

sabotage of name????
Um, it looks to me like someone as a joke changed the Chinese name of the party on the English page to 民豬妓步黨 (people's pig and prostitute forward party--ha ha) instead of 民主進步黨. Could perhaps a native Chinese speaker make sure I'm right about this and change it back? I'm a student of Chinese and not a native speaker so I didn't change it because I'm not 100% sure, but I'm about 99% sure. Thanks.114.35.81.215 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Center-Right ??
Despite some of their economic policy being center, barely even center-left, their social is Right-Wing. I think they should be classified as Center or Center- Right. Also in Taiwan social policy, regarding China and Chinese people in Taiwan,is far more important than economic policy. - D  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.240.166 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, economic liberalism is mentioned as part of their ideology, so clearly it is not centre-left. --Oddeivind (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, the DPP is the party constantly advocating for military spending and adopting a belligerent stance towards China. Definitely conservative and not liberal in that respect. They should be center; especially with their ties to Taiwan's Presbyterian Church. Cyberpunkas (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Democratic Progressive Party. 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 tag to http://www.pacificmagazine.net/news/2008/08/17/former-taiwan-president-resigns-from-party-over-corruption-charges
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527141450/http://www.tibet.net/en/flash/2004/0504/images/chen.jpg to http://www.tibet.net/en/flash/2004/0504/images/chen.jpg

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) 18:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Political position
If the DPP is leftist then why is it also taiwanese nationalist, nationalism is a right wing ideology. There is also a difference betwen leftism and liberalsim, left and right are defined by amount of equality while liberal and authotarian are defined by amount of freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.123.95 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No, no, no, DPP is not left. None of the major political parties in Taiwan can be considered as Left. During either the 2004 or 2008 presidential campaign, DPP claimed that if KMT got elected, parks covered by the phlegm of crude, and ill-mannered Chinese tourists. While the party was in power, the government made it unnecessary difficult for not only Mainland Chinese brides, but also women from various South Asian countries (who were married to Taiwanese men) to attain citizenship. Chen Shui-bian, the former president and party leader, award Shintaro Ishihara, an extreme right-wing Japanese politician, the Order of Brilliant Star (probably because he's pro-Taiwan, and anti-Communist China). One of the party members once declared on national TV, in a talk-show that gay-marriage was wrong and should not be legal because it would make men stop marrying women. DPP is less Right than KMT, but it's not a leftist party. 123.192.155.81 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Which politician said that about marriage? I'm interested, since our current article on same-sex marriage in Taiwan only talks about the opinion of a pro-equality DPP member, and implicates Ma Ying-jeou as reactionary. Shrigley (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * To 123.192.155.81 - your analysis, beside being original research is, to put it bluntly, is completely asinine. The Soviet Union banned homosexuality and so did the Communist Party of China until a little over a decade ago. It was punishable under the penal code. So were the communist part of the soviet union and the communist party of china right wing fanatics? You are confusing American politics with the world. During Communist rule in Eastern europe, there was zero immigration. China also supported right wing governments because they were anti Soviet.Rajmaan (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree the DPP is not a liberal party in the American/European sense. With Tsai Ing-Wen's social policies and economic policies, they have been moving closer to the left. But their nationalistic identities and agendas are definitely very conservative; also what liberal party wants to INCREASE military spending?! I support moving them to "center" rather then "center-left" or liberal. Cyberpunkas (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with this completely. I am going to make the change since the sourced article for the centre-left label makes no mention of the party being centre-left which leads me to ask why that is even the sourced article. Magicalbuddha (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Taiwan Independence
Although the DDP is not a party that has nothing to do with Taiwan's independence, it does not seem to be putting Taiwan's independence at the forefront at present. In terms of the cross-street position, DPP tends to be more of a "status quo" than a "Taiwanese state". That's why I think the infobox should describe Taiwan independence as a political faction.--삭은사과 (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

DPP's ideology
There have been a lot of edits regarding the DPP's ideology recently. It might be worth trying to get some consensus here on what that is and what constitutes a valid source. It might also be worth splitting into "factions" e.g. as in Democratic_Party_(United_States). Here are my two cents on some recent issues:
 * Taiwanese nationalism vs Taiwanese independence: I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between these two. "Nationalism" has a right-wing connotation though, which I think makes it a little less apppropriate.  Related: DPP's stance is that Taiwan is already independent, right?  So it's about 華獨 ("ROC independence") vs 台獨 ("Taiwan independence"), but this is more about practicalities rather than goals, and in the end both have the same goal: independence.
 * Anti-communism: I recently removed this one. I think it's a bad descriptor.  Pretty much all major political parties in the USA are "anti-communist" but it's not a useful descriptor of ideology.  In Taiwan, I think 反共 today doesn't mean anti-communism but anti-CCP, and in particular anti-unification.  It all boils down to unification vs independence and doesn't actually have to do with left vs. right ideology.  So I believe this is not a good description.

DrIdiot (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * "Nationalism" has a right-wing connotation Exactly, so the DPP is not a left-wing party. DPP is not very nationalistic though, compared to Statebuilding Party whose members speak in full Hokkien all the time. Ythlev (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To me, independence means having Taiwan be the official name. "ROC independence" is basically status quo. DPP is largely a status quo party whereas NPP and Statebuilding are support independence. Ythlev (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I almost agree with the Ythlev user. Therefore, I think we should add 'anti-communism' to the infobox and eliminate 'Taiwanese independence'. (However, I don't think nationalism itself is the ideology of the right-wing. DPP is clearly a center-left party and at the same time a nationalist.)--삭은사과 (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think DPP is more anti-communist than KMT. Rather, you should remove anti-communistism from the infobox of KMT documents and add anti-communistism to the infobox of DPP documents. I don't think we need to distinguish anti-CCP from anti-Communism in Taiwan's politics in the 21st century. This is because the pure-meaning communists in Taiwan have little significant political influence.--삭은사과 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm strongly against putting "anti-commmunism" in the infobox. "Anti-communism" mostly makes sense in a *national* context that pits communism vs. some other form of government, e.g. the Kuomintang was anti-communist while it was in China. However, there is no serious Communist party in Taiwan, and the DPP is only anti-communist in the sense that it is against unification with China, which is driven by the CCP.  So it's not an anti-communist party per se, it is anti-unification. DrIdiot (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * For the sake of internal consistency, Wikipedia defines "Taiwan independence" as a movement and "Taiwan nationalism" as an ideology. So I think we should stick with the latter in the infobox. DrIdiot (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I also agree that the KMT is no longer an anti-communist party, so it doesn't make sense to include it in the infobox for KMT. However, I still maintain it doesn't apply to the DPP either. DrIdiot (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

RfC on replacing left–right position with cross-Strait position
In articles about Taiwanese political parties, should left–right position be replaced with cross-Strait position? Ythlev (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The left–right spectrum is not useful to describe Taiwanese parties. Ythlev (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Which instances are you referring to specifically? DrIdiot (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox. Ythlev (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I think both should be written. (left–right position & cross-Strait position)--삭은사과 (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that all parties in government are actually considered right-wing, based on the above sources which are specifically about left–right instead of the cited sources that just mentions left–right. Ythlev (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Those two pieces are opinion pieces. I don't think it's correct to characterize DPP as right wing.  It definitely has a left-of-center component, and tends to embrace traditionally leftist positions than the KMT. DrIdiot (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, DPP has traditionally embraced labor issues more, though they've also walked back on those issues for a variety of reasons (popular opposition, implementation issues). DPP also has far more support for same sex marriage than KMT. DPP has always been a mix of left and right elements. Some commenters in above threads mention Taiwanese nationalism, but this in itself isn't left/right (see Sinn Fein for example).  Currently on the page it says center to center-left which I think is OK.  DrIdiot (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 * In general, DPP tends to swing between the centrist and the centre-left in Taiwanese politics. The Democratic Party of Korea does not call itself a right-wing party, although it has a social conservative tendency that is unfriendly to minority rights, including LGBT. Because the left-right distinction itself is very relative. DPP is the mainstay of reform and liberal forces in Taiwan.--삭은사과 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree to both, as per 삭은사과 Idealigic (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The DPP has passed several laws that can be seen as right wing, including the privatization of electricity, tax cuts, pension cuts, cutting holidays, continuing capital punishment, and even timing it for political gains. Their support for nationalism is in itself arguably a right-wing ideology, given some of their supporters' xenophobic and racist attitudes towards Chinese and Hongkongese people. Yel D&#39;ohan (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * On social issues, the DPP is certainly left-wing. And economically, I don't think the DPP is right-wing. Left-wing media such as Jacobin magazine and The Nation also call them center-left parties, so they should not change their political positions recklessly. And there is room for the DPP's anti-China orientation to be seen not as a right wing like Trump but rather as a left-wing nationalist.(South Korean media say Taiwan's DPP government is rather trying to actively accept Hong Kong people who are trampled on by Communist dictatorship as refugees.#)--삭은사과 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Taiwan, along with Thailand, is the most open country to LGBT among Asian countries. Taiwan is the only Asian country where same-sex marriage is legal. In the 'People Power Under Attack' report selected by CIVICUS, Taiwan was classified as the only 'Open'.--삭은사과 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Exception for displaying both simplified and traditional characters in Infobox Chinese
Please use this space to discuss whether this article should be one of the exceptions to displaying both simplified and traditional Chinese characters in Infobox Chinese. This was originally brought up here in a broader discussion about the general rule, which was then clarified with: the consensus at this RfC is that both the simplified and traditional characters should be generally displayed in Infobox Chinese with room for case-by-case consensus on exceptions. Please remember to be civil! — MarkH21talk 10:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello all. Per this edit, I am opening a discussion regarding creating an exception under the concept that "both should be displayed unless there is consensus for an exception". The Democratic Progressive Party is not known to have members who use the characters 进 and 党 to describe the name of the organization they are part of. The DPP is not demonstrated to publish materials in the society in which they live in which an official, native language name for the DPP includes the characters 进 and 党 (and that name is used in actual native-to-native communication). The members of the actual society the DPP is in are not known to use 进 and 党 in the name of this organization when they describe it in their native language between themselves.  进 and 党 are part of an alternate linguistic system not found in the principal place of operation of the DPP organization. The form of the name of this organization using the characters 进 and 党 is documented on Wiktionary, a dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but is an encyclopedia, and only needs to display the name in use in the society in which the DPP is actually operating. Old style dictionaries would never include non-native linguistic material in an entry on a foreign language topic. Display of 进 and 党 with reference to the DPP on the Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia article IS warranted since Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia is also for people who read those characters, and that form is in use in areas that are not Taiwan. However, display of the form with 进 and 党 side by side with the real, actual name used by the actual party gives the false impression to English Wikipedia readers that the name with 进 and 党 is equally acceptable to the actual DPP name for itself, or that the DPP has ever used the other name historically- both points are not proved and don't seem to be provable. Also, Taiwan is an actual free society that is under constant threat of invasion by a power that would seek to force Taiwanese society to use the characters 进 and 党 throughout normal native-native communication and hence inclusion here is a dangerous pro-PRC linguistic policy POV that denies the fact that Taiwan has its own linguistic standards separate from those of China- see Taiwanese Mandarin, Taiwanese Hokkien, etc. Inclusion of the form with 进 and 党 on ENGLISH Wikipedia is clearly outside the scope of what an English Wikipedia article needs in terms of foreign language material. I have been overcoming bad precedent in Wikipedia and Wiktionary on this front for a long time- for instance, see the names of many of the districts of Kaohsiung and Tainan which are clearly to be derived from Tongyong Pinyin-- Wikipedia has often been cowed to ignore that reality. Taiwan has an independent military force from the PRC and Taiwan is not actually subject to PRC policy, nor will it ever be. I urge you to be sensitive to the actual situation in the actual location and the actual organization, and not include unsourced, POV superfluous foreign language material in English Wikipedia's article for the DPP. When, I ask, on English Wikipedia do we add foreign language names to an article that the organization subject of the article has never called itself by in its own society? Only here? Thanks for your consideration; I welcome any responses. (Also, I advocate hiding and not outright deleting the naming not used by the DPP- it may be proved that this form is actually used by the DPP in some respect and that this form deserves to be displayed.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * There is no specific argument presented here that there is a justification for keeping an artificial non-Taiwanese name using the characters 进 and 党 for this Taiwanese organization on this English language Wikipedia article hence I have hidden the form from the page waiting for any further confirmation or clarification. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The continued reverting is a failure to observe WP:BRD, I suggested on at least one occasion that an RfC be opened, but this was not heeded. Instead, the above wall of text present identical WP:RGW arguments to those found in the MOS discussion: commies / mainlanders bad, long live invincible independent Taiwan something something, but but these entities only exist in Taiwan. The Ministry of Civil Affairs, AFAIK, does not have any jurisdiction outside the mainland, and was founded in May 1978, well after the normalization of Simplified on the mainland. That is not an argument to exclude traditional there. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence yet provided that the DPP uses this form in at its own name or that Taiwanese call it by this name. Why continue to attempt to force a name that is not used by the DPP onto this page? How does that inform the reader of an English language encyclopedia? Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This argument has been rejected at the MOS RfC. Nothing is being forced, it isn't even displayed inline in the first sentence with zh. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 17:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The RfC consensus is that both forms should generally be used for all articles (including Taiwan & ROC articles) because both forms are considered the same name.I think there is a valid point that the DPP not using the simplified characters themselves is not different from most other articles about Taiwan. Otherwise, the argument would lead one to remove all of the simplified characters from articles about organizations in Taiwan and remove all traditional characters from post-1960s mainland China (as well as corresponding cases in HK, Macau, Singapore, etc.) and that would contradict the RfC consensus. So an exception should probably be based on a different argument than "XYZ doesn’t publish materials using simplified/traditional". — MarkH21talk 17:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that traditional characters on PRC articles can be referenced to proven historical or artistic usages. Traditional characters are still part of the linguistic system in the PRC, whereas most of them never were or are in Taiwan ROC. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of organizations and names in the PRC formed after the 1960s that never used traditional characters, but we should still generally display both according to the RfC consensus. — MarkH21talk 18:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Traditional characters are a secondary part of the legal and linguistic system of the PRC China society they are a part of whereas Taiwan doesn't have most of the simplified characters. That's an important distinction. The big PRC dictionaries like Xiandai Hanyu Cidian ALL have traditional characters (in a secondary capacity of course, which aligns with the Wikipedia policy of putting them after and below simplified forms). The Taiwan dictionaries don't have many of the simplified forms and most of them aren't in acutal use in Taiwan society. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But again, that's a general argument that would exclude almost all Taiwan articles (and many places outside Taiwan) on the large-scale scope that the RfC considered. Taiwan/ROC was explicitly mentioned in the statement of the RfC and that exact argument was presented early on in the RfC. The consensus of the RfC was ultimately to include both simplified and traditional characters, with editors arguing on the basis of accessibility, the prevalence of simplified characters in international Chinese-language publications, and reducing time-wasting WP disputes (like this one). — MarkH21talk 18:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * PRC names for Taiwan locations and content can and are documented in the dictionary on Wiktionary, while the simplified characters actually used in Taiwanese society can be shown on the Taiwan-exclusive pages when sourced. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. It is POV to add foreign language lingustic forms not used by the society in question or in the area/organizaiton/person in question to an encyclopedia article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is an argument for not including both forms in the infobox. But it is a general argument that was considered by the RfC, and the community consensus has been established to include both forms anyways.As a side note, simplified characters are not just PRC names. Many independent international publications use simplified Chinese; for this article (民主进步党) alone: BBC News, Deutsche Welle, New York Times, Radio Free Asia, Reuters, etc. The Simplified Chinese characters are also the standard in publications from Singapore and Malaysia. — MarkH21talk 18:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Other jurisdictions make the choices they want about what they want to do. That's fine! Taiwan makes it's own choices too, and that's fine too! I'm talking about Taiwan itself. It's not "one size fits all". The facts have to be taken into account.Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And Wikipedia articles are written for an international audience, they do not solely reflect nomenclature by local populaces. The RfC consensus is what it is. — MarkH21talk 20:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The general principle here is that something implemented in one place may not be fully implemented in another. Traditional forms are clearly part of (in a very secondary capacity) PRC society in the legal, artistic, academic and historical realms, and those characters are clearly put in a secondary position on the relevant Wikipedia articles. Simplified forms only have a limited scope of usage in Taiwan society. On Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia, that's a Wikipedia servicing people who use all kinds of forms, so that Wikipedia version seems somewhat justified in including all forms of all words everywhere. But on English Wikipedia, I'm just trying to document foreign language forms that are in use or have been in use in some capacity in the society in question. Taiwan uses simplified characters in very limited situations. Some topics cover things related to both PRC and ROC, so forms of language from all sides are naturally relevant. But it is an unwarranted extension of PRC influence to make everything the PRC wants to come to pass in Taiwan language a focal point on English Wikipedia articles. The English Wikipedia articles can't put extraneous forms not actually used in Taiwan on the page without good cause. It's a violation of the concept of an encyclopedia. Now OF COURSE the PRC version of the characters for the DPP's name are part of human language in general, hence I personally created the Wiktionary page for it- 民主进步党. That's a dictionary, and a great one. However, that form is not part of the legal or social system in Taiwan as far as Wikipedia knows at this time, nor is/was it endorsed or used by the DPP organization itself (or at least that fact has not yet been demonstrated). Wikipedia is pushing PRC linguistic policy in an unsettling way if we allow lingustic forms not actually used in Taiwan on Taiwan-exclusive pages. I don't mean any ill will to Cahardas at all by this of course. The user has an important perspective on PRC-ROC etc situations and that needs to be part of the equation when we write Wikipedia in the most neutral manner possible. But there's "neutral" and then there's adding the names proposed by a conqueror to the territory sought to be conquered despite the fact those forms are not shown in particular cases presented to have currency in the territory in question. That second type is not neutral- it's biased POV. The simplest course is to let Taiwan tell us what Taiwan is using/has used/etc. That is done by referencing secondary, reliable sources. In the case of this particular article about the DPP, I think we can say that the DPP has not used the foreign language name form including 进 and 党 yet, or at least it is not yet demonstrated to do so. Since the DPP is wholly within the Taiwan zone (as far as we know now) it just seems more plausible that adding 民主进步党 on this page is not a reflection of Taiwan society or the actual native langauge usages of the DPP, but is instead unwarranted (in the context of an encyclopedia article). Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * These points about that form is not part of the legal or social system in Taiwan as far as Wikipedia knows at this time, nor is/was it endorsed or used by the DPP organization itself, that it is on Wiktionary, that the PRC uses simplified characters and has a POV against Taiwan, etc. are still just relitigation of the RfC where the same point was already raised but where the consensus was to include both forms. If there isn't anything specific to this article that was not part of the closed RfC, the general consensus still stands and I don't think there is much else to say. — MarkH21talk 20:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are trying to say, but this is actually about the names for organizations and places actually proven to be in use in Taiwan. There is a limited scope of simplified characters in use in Taiwan society which can be demonstrated to be used in names in certain contexts. Names not yet actually documented in the region are just that: names that are not yet documented- not sourced to a secondary, reliable source- and hence are not yet demonstrated to be valid for inclusion on an English Wikipedia article. Adding extra foreign language names that haven't been shown to exist in the society in question is not upheld in any context on Wikipedia. Here, an exception to the apparent standing rule that "anything the PRC residents might hypothetically use to call a place should be included everywhere, with exceptions" is sought with regard to this specific Chinese character name for this specific organization, on the basis above presented. 进 and 党 are not yet documented to be used as part of a foreign language (non-English) name for this organization, and this extra form (the form with 进 and 党 not used by the DPP) is not yet shown to be part of the native language interaction between members of Taiwanese society. (Again, there's a million qualifications that I don't want to go through about how Wiktionary (not Wikipedia) is a dictionary documenting PRC/simplified/etc names for locations, etc etc.) Does it make sense to prove a foreign language name for this organization from sources that do not come from Taiwanese society native-to-native communication? Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * You're not listening anymore. You have repeated the same exact thing at least seven times now and are just fighting the consensus at the RfC. The consensus is that both forms should generally be included, and you haven't provided an argument for this article is any different from the broad-scope argument already raised in the RfC.If you continue repeating this same argument from the RfC, I won't waste any more of your or my time here. You can open an RfC for this particular article, but if you just use this same argument then I don't think you'll convince anyone that this is an exception. — MarkH21talk 09:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I cannot actually stop you, but I urge you to consider carefully what you are doing here. The DPP is not using the name in question, yet the non-used name is presented side by side with the actual name as if both are equally part of Taiwan culture. No extra foreign language names are added on any other Wikipedia article in this manner. For the sake of the protection of my account, I have to stop editing related to this exception for this page. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What has to be done is to implement the community consensus until a new one is formed. Right now, the RfC consensus is to use both forms in articles except where there is a separate consensus for an individual article to be exclude a form. Right now, there is no such consensus that this article is an exception and the only arguments that have been presented for this article to be an exception are the general arguments from the original RfC.Briefly, again, on some of the individual points here: Wikipedia is not solely based on usage in local jurisdictions, accessibility to an international audience is important to the encyclopedia, and I personally do not think that the presence of the simplified characters in Infobox Chinese implies that the simplified characters are used in Taiwan. Regarding No extra foreign language names [...], the result of the RfC is that editors considered the simplified and traditional forms to be the same name, so the simplified form is not considered to be a separate foreign language name.You can disagree with what CaradhrasAiguo has said to you here. You can disagree with I have said in response to you. You can disagree with the consensus of the RfC. But you need to accept that it is the consensus even if you disagree with it; a failure to get the point is considered disruptive. I do not intend on revisiting this. — MarkH21talk 09:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can I be allowed a question based on your remarks? True or False: It is part of a general argument from the original RfC to say that the DPP organization itself never used / is not using the extra form of its name. If the answer is "false", then the statement "the only arguments that have been presented are general arguments from the original RfC" is false. If the answer is "true", then my argument is not actually perceived in the correct sense- I am saying something about this organization specifically. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You are applying the same argument that "___ never used / is not using simplified characters", but replacing ROC with DPP. The subject is different, but the argument itself is the same. — MarkH21talk 10:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that there's an explicit rule on Wikipedia that requires (or just allows?) posting foreign language (non-English) linguistic forms not proven in Taiwan in the 'Infobox Chinese' for Taiwanese-topic Wikipedia articles? Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I never said that there is an explicit rule. But there is the RfC consensus that has been explained countless times now. Please stop. — MarkH21talk
 * I know your patience may be taxed, but I offered to stop discussion, at which point further points were made. I think this is getting somewhere now. Are you saying that there's an explicit RfC rule on Wikipedia that requires (or just allows?) posting foreign language (non-English) linguistic forms not proven in Taiwan in the 'Infobox Chinese' for Taiwanese-topic Wikipedia articles? Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I know you're tired. You're thinking, oh god, another internet troll. But I changed the names of many of the districts of Kaohsiung and Tainan based on reliable, secondary sources. I have added Wade-Giles forms throughout Wikipedia and Wiktionary despite impassioned resistance from Hanyu Pinyin only people because those forms are undeniably part of the historical record (at minimum). I am doing a great job, and so is Cahardas and so are you. All I'm saying is that I have a different understanding of the nature of the rule or consensus that you are trying to implement here. So again: Are you saying that there's an explicit RfC rule on Wikipedia that requires (or just allows?) posting foreign language (non-English) linguistic forms not proven in Taiwan in the 'Infobox Chinese' for Taiwanese-topic Wikipedia articles? Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You wrote the words "there is the RfC consensus". Which is it? What day was it achieved? Could you cite to it? How exactly does it apply in this particular case? Allusion to an unsourced authority is not evidence of anything. I'm having a hard time believing it is being implemented correctly, especially when many districts in Tainan and Kaohsiung were clearly using Tongyong Pinyin derived names for themselves (and those names are used in media and scientific literature) but Wikipedia was showing the Hanyu Pinyin derived names and was hence wildly biased. I am saying there may be a bias here on this page right now too. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * " most editors noted that there is room for case-by-case exceptions." is what I'm talking about. I don't know what part of the decisions you may be/are referencing. The exception is that the DPP is not shown to use the form with 进 and 党. Other organizations and people may be shown to do so via a secondary, reliable source. There is no consensus to force forms not used on Taiwan onto Taiwan-exclusive topics (DPP operates in ROC not PRC or elsewhere and is not known to publish material in which its name is displayed using 进 or 党), which is what I'm saying this seems to be. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Let me give an example. I just added the traditional character form of the name for the Communist Pary of China on that Wikipedia article. . I justified my edit based on a website I found within five seconds of searching that showed the CCP using the traditional character name on a Hong Kong government website. What I'm saying is that you didn't do that with the DPP and the decision RfC did not mean you can impose PRC linguistic policy on Taiwan topics willy nilly. The general rule for topics relating to Chinese characters is that all forms should be shown, but when there is no clear evidence that a simplified form is part of the local culture/personal life/organization/etc, there's a clear reason to think about an exception, which I'm saying applies here. It's patently ridiculous to include a name the DPP doesn't use and never used on its article masquerading as if it is equally legitimate with the actual name in native language usage in the area (again note: there is of course another form of the DPP name using 进 and 党 which is documented on Wiktionary and note again the comments about PRC usage of traditional above). There can be no consensus to include extra foreign language context not used by/in the subject of the article, and the RfC didn't impose PRC policy on Taiwan. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no meeting of the minds among Wikipedia users that overturns WP:WEIGHT. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." It is undue weight to display lingusitic symbols not used by this organization on the page as if they were of equal legitimacy or are used by the DPP organization. No misunderstanding of a CfR consensus cancels that. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What is the content of the RfC you are proposing that I open? Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:RfC. However, any argumentation that smells of "to hell with the PRC commies" (which ironically ignores the usage of simplified in Singapore and increasing numbers of diasporic Chinese) will not be looked kindly upon. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 01:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you committed to making a real decision on whether the English Wikipedia DPP page should include a foreign language form of its name not used by the DPP organization? If so, can you tell me what you think I would propose in a RfC? How is this article about the PRC in your mind? Why do you think the exception from the RfC you are talking about doesn't apply here? This is definitely an at least borderline candidate for an exception under that rule, right? To you, are all my arguments "PRC bad!"? Is there even a scintilla of logic in what I'm saying to you, editor to editor, or do I need to be (in your personal judgment) consigned to the flames for removing/hiding a foreign language form not used by the DPP at this time from the English Wikipedia page? You paint me as insane fringe person, but I have made enormous contributions in the districts of Kaohsiung and Tainan that proved the existence of names for areas there that are not in Hanyu Pinyin. I'm just telling the people what the sources are saying. And I'm saying that Wikipedia may be biased away from the actual situation in Taiwan in the case of this page- the DPP page. Could what I'm saying be even slightly true, or is the value of some kind misguided "law and order" "my-understanding-of-the-RfC-or-the-highway" idea more important than everything I have done on here? Have mercy on me. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)

This is absolutely disruptive WP:IDHT behavior. The consensus of the MOS RfC is to include both forms of the Chinese name, as has been explained to you ad nauseum, and there has been no consensus whatsoever here that this article is an exception to that general rule. You have also been advised to start a new RfC on this topic already, but you are continuing to not listen to other editors and continuing to edit war over this. — MarkH21talk 02:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's nothing let to explain then. I am wrong then. The only option is that I am wrong and must be completely and utterly banned for being wrong. There was one advocate for keeping a foreign language name not used by the organization in question in a Wikipedia page, I objected, and then I was determined to be insane. Or...maybe the DPP English Wikipedia article is not a dictionary for characters not used by the organization? Maybe it's actually less neutral to include forms of a name not used by the DPP on the DPP page? Keep in mind, I personally made the entry for the mainland PRC name for the DPP on Wiktionary, a dictionary. I am wrong apparently, despite having lived in Taiwan and having never seen these characters used with reference to this organization in that area. Is there room for reasonable doubt, or is it blindingly obvious that I am totally wrong? Geographyinitiative (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't even about wrong or right. You need to understand that Wikipedia is built on consensus, that you are disruptively editing against the existing consensus, that you are refusing to use suggested methods to achieve a new consensus, and that you are edit warring. — MarkH21talk 02:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

NPOV on Extra Foreign Language Terminology
I am now opening an official NPOV complaint on this page. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." NPOV I contend including the foreign language terminology including 进 and 党 which is not demonstrated to be used in Taiwanese society by this organization is a violation of the neutral point of view of the encyclopedia.
 * There is not even a minority in Taiwan or in the DPP that uses the characters 进 and 党 in the name of this organization (as far as we yet know, but that could be overturned with specific evidence). Hence, it is untoward and unencyclopedic to include that data side-by-side with the actual name used by the DPP organization in the native langauge between the inhabitants in present-day Taiwan, today, right now. No need to anticipate future events. No need to add extra information that doesn't come from Taiwan itself. Extra foreign language data that does not come from Taiwan is good for a dictionary (will be mentioned below).
 * Keep in mind that on the Mandarin Chinese langauge version of Wikipedia, they serve people who read various forms of Chinese characters, so all forms are needed there for convenience of reading. But here, we are talking about foreign language forms displayed in an English language encyclopedia. Since when do English language encyclopedias display foreign language material for an organization/location that are not used (or have never been used) in that region/organization?
 * The form of the name of the DPP using the characters 进 and 党 is documented on Wiktionary, a bona fide dictionary- I myself made that page on that Wiki . But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it is not neutral to the DPP to include a term that it doesn't use and never has used on this page.(And don't worry: mainland China includes traditional characters in Xiandai Hanyu Cidian (basically the official dictionary), Table of General Standard Chinese Characters and elsewhere: traditional forms should be included on all PRC etc articles if only on the basis of historical merit anyway. If there is a case for simplified only in some situations, then that may be legitimate!)
 * I'm saying that there's a clear case here that the DPP is or may be under the exception mentioned in the RfC above, but that if there's a need for a new RfC, then let's do a new one, because it is just not neutral to display things the way they are being displayed right now: it is contrary to Taiwan's culture, contrary to the DPP's actual usage, and represents a pro-PRC bias- pushing forms not used on the island into English Wikipedia as if they are of the same legitimacy to Taiwan culture as the characters they actually know and use. (Keep in mind that Taiwanese people do use some simplified/alternate characters in some circumstances that can be documented.) I tried to get some clarification on the specific points that would need to be covered by that hypothetical RfC, but got no response
 * I have nothing against the PRC itself- I used to live there. I have criticized the USA on Wikipedia. I have criticized the PRC on Wikipedia. I have shown a trust in the reliability of USA government sources on Wikipedia. I have also shown a trust in PRC government sources. That's all natural and normal. But there's a POV bias in including an extra foreign language name on an English Wikipedia article when that name is not used in the area in question or by the organization in question, and I'd like to have the situation reviewed by the community at large. Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC) (modified based on below comments)
 * You're repeating the same points that have been responded to multiple times, including from the section above. You've been advised by both and myself to just start an RfC for this article. It could literally just ask Should this article include the Simplified Chinese characters in the Infobox Chinese template? Further discussion where you just repeat the same points will not be any more productive than in the last talk section.There's also no such thing as an official NPOV. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Examples of formal discussions are those at WP:DR, such as an WP:RFC. — MarkH21talk 06:12, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, I can open an RfC on your behalf if you don't know how to open one. — MarkH21talk 09:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I reworded my above complaint based on what you said here. That's an interesting wording for an RfC question that directly talks about this page. Can I wait a few days so I can think about it more or get suggestions from others? I never get into these policy level discussions for Wikipedia, but now I'm really taking the bull by the horns if I get into making an RfC, so I want to get prepared and make it nice. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this is about an NPOV question, I would like to center the potential RfC around the question of whether including the forms of the name for the DPP with 进 and 党 on the English Wikipedia article is actually neutral or is (as I would contend) biased in a disrespectful way to the actual culture in actual Taiwan. I might word an RfC question like, "Is it consistent with Wikipedia NPOV policy to include forms of the foreign language name of the DPP which are not yet proven to be used by that organization, its membership or Taiwanese society at large side by side with the name actually used by the organization?". I think it will be hard to draw analogies to other cases on Wikipedia where this kind of situation is allowed. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC statement should phrase a proposed change to the article. Whether the inclusion is neutral would be an argument that you can make in the RfC itself, which participants would consider and discuss.Otherwise, the RfC would be too indirect as a judgment on your specific argument, rather than a judgment on the change. For example, the RfC should include the possibility that there is consensus that inclusion is neutral but also violates some other policy. The RfC statement should focus on the material change, while you can then bring up your argument for/against the material change. — MarkH21talk 20:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying here is, if we sustain your interpretation of the March 2020 RfC, you've basically got a North Carolina Amendment 1 versus the U.S. Constitution type of situation. It's obviously a violation of NPOV (neutral point of view) guidelines to include foreign language content not yet demonstrated with sources to be in use (or formerly in use) by this organization (or members of Taiwanese society, etc.) on its English Wikipedia article. (Again of course, there are some non-traditional character forms in use in Taiwanese society in a limited capacity, and there are some topics that touch on both mainland China and Taiwan in a way that both forms are warranted on the article.) But if we ""put it to a vote"", yeah, you might string together enough users to break the fundamental principles of Wikipedia that you yourself acknowledge would otherwise have rendered in favor of letting Taiwan tell us what the non-English forms it uses are. I'm just saying: stick to the sources from Taiwan to demonstrate the forms with 进 and 党, and then you're no longer violating NPOV (neutral point of view) guidelines. That has been part of the fundamental idea behind my complaints all along, but I wasn't sure how to directly approach the issue. When I came on the scene, Wade-Giles names and non-Hanyu Pinyin forms were treated less than dog manure, but through painstaking work, I have proved that those forms exist in a more than nominal sense and have documented them throughout Wikipedia and Wiktionary. Back to the topic: if you can't demonstrate the non-English forms of the name for the DPP that include 进 and 党 with reference to literature coming off the island in native-to-native communication, doesn't that raise a red flag for the English version of Wikipedia? (Again, I'm not talking about Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia- they serve people who read lots of different forms of Chinese characters.) Without that type of evidence, English Wikipedia is quite clearly giving undue weight to forms not used in Taiwanese society in a manner that goes beyond the function of an encyclopedia. Again, I, me, MADE the page on Wiktionary, the DICTIONARY, for the forms of the name of this organization using the 进 and 党 characters. Those forms exist in a non-Taiwanese context. I was just documenting an existing linguistic form. But inclusion here on the English language encyclopedia side is different. What we are doing is not neutral- it's biased to include "non-native native language material" in an encyclopedia article. Why are you including non-native stuff here? Or just prove those forms are native to the areas the DPP is located in or operates in, or that the DPP is using those names for itself. That's why I have opened this NPOV-related complaint: it seems clear we're breaking the rules of Wikipedia to get the results of PRC linguistic policy onto this page. Why do that? It's not neutral. Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * I’m not sure why you’re repeating yourself at me again. All of this is something that you can argue in a new RfC on whether this article should include Simplified Chinese. If editors agree that it’s POV then they agree. If they don’t agree then they don’t agree. That’s how Wikipedia works. It’s not complicated. — MarkH21talk 16:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have been made fun of as being of a 1970s anti-PRC mindset, so it's not really a friendly environment for discussion. I am very off-put by that, but it's hard to say anything for fear it will be construed as an attack. I am saying whatever grounds you may think you have from some past or future RfC to keep material not proven to be Taiwanese on this seemingly clearly Taiwanese topic is in direct conflict with the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. I drew a new analogy to the NC Amendment 1 constitutional amendment, voted in by the people to ban gay marriage- analogous to a full-throttle biased RfC in this case, if it existed- and the US Supreme Court ruling that overturned that amendment- analogous to the NPOV rule here, which does not need to be bent. What specific argument if any do you have against my biased POV argument here? Are you contending that the current form of this page is truly in a state of neutral POV? How can that be maintained if there's no source from the island's culture with the additional forms of the name (including 进 and 党) in native-to-native communication? In the context of Taiwanese life and this organization specifically, this is massively undue weight on the English Wikipedia page, right? Do you not agree? On what grounds did you say, "I honestly understand your point and I am sympathetic to that sentiment." on my talk page? (Surely this communication will not be considered repeating myself at another.) If you believe this is not neutral POV, then stop supporting it- it is as simple as that. I would add more words here, but I'm afraid you will repeat that I am repeating myself. For the sake of avoiding another loop, I will just say "see above for specifics/clarifications".Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * I hope you don’t think that I have made fun of you for anything, because it is not clear if you are referring to me or something else. I have only called for respecting consensus and to not edit war.I know that you don’t think it’s NPOV. I already discussed my own view, besides the existing RfC consensus, in the section above. Articles are written for a broad audience and does not solely reflect local usage or local points of view; the consensus is that the two forms are not inherently different names; international media in the Chinese language (e.g. BBC, Deutsch Welle, NYT) have used the Simplified form to refer to the DPP; NPOV says to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources, not just what is used natively. (By the way, I can understand your argument, but that does not mean that I agree with it).We have gone back and forth over a dozen times on this. If you still insist that a broader consensus is required for this particular article, a solution is to open a new RfC for this particular article. — MarkH21talk 17:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are those sources writing for a Taiwanese audience? Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:AUDIENCE. WP articles about Taiwanese topics are not solely written for Taiwanese audiences. — MarkH21talk 17:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are they written for an English speaking audience? Why include extra materials not used in Taiwan if English Wikipedia is written for English speakers? Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:AUDIENCE: "Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia." Yes of course- but the English version is for English speakers, and English speakers just need to know about the foreign language forms directly connected to the topic at hand, not extra non-native forms from outside the cultural group of the topic in question. Just cite '民进党' to the natural, native-to-native communication of the islanders between themselves, and you're right at my threshold for proving it should be included here instead of wandering in a morass of Wikipedia policy questions. I keep asking for a source from the island, but I feel that this gets ignored as if it was irrelevant. How could it be irrelevant that the form you all are trying to add in here is not in use in Taiwan man! haha It is as simple as that. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did a search for "民进党 site:.tw" on Google. I found an article at "http://nihao.tw" that includes discussion of President Xi Jinping in the lead article and uses simplified characters. It is run by China National Radio's 中央人民广播电台对台湾广播中心. I also found a seemingly Taipei-based group called 統一聯盟黨 . But the content of the article is sourced to an article  on Toutiao. I'm looking for the evidence that the Taiwan culture group is internally using the 民进党 form of the name for this organization, but the evidence of that is beyond paltry. I would suggest that before any decision is made below on the RfC that you fearlessly do a full analysis of how Wikipedia will be representing Taiwanese culture and language by carrying out some kind of Google analysis of usage of the form 民进党 in Taiwan. What's the harm in doing the analysis? If your arguments are right, it doesn't even matter what Taiwanese people call the DPP- no skin off the nose of those arguments. F* the Taiwanese and the linguistic forms of the name they actually use to discuss the DPP, amirite? But I think in truth that the analysis might be so shocking for the advocates of including 民进党 on this page that you may change your mind. What would be wrong with doing the analysis? All I want are the facts. If you can prove your case that 民进党 is used among Taiwanese, then I will agree with you. But if the results all show that there's nothing there, haha, I mean- then what are we doing here? Come on now. We don't add extra foreign language forms not used in the area in question to Wikipedia articles, do we? It's not neutral- it's the definition of biased. What happens if we do a Google analysis, and it shows that nobody in Taiwan (or at least an extreme minority?) is calling the DPP 民进党 in Taiwanese-to-Taiwanese communication? How will the idea that including 民进党 on this page is neutral be sustained at that point?  With the frail cloth of the arguments presented above, or the cover of a past or future RfC that could never be used to overcome NPOV policy anyway? Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

think tank
http://www.dppnff.tw/about.php

okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.65.132 (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC on including Simplified Chinese in Infobox Chinese for Democratic Progressive Party
Should this article include Simplified Chinese characters in its Infobox Chinese template? 17:28, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Background: A March 2020 RfC established in the Manual of Style on Chinese that both the Simplified and Traditional Chinese forms should be included in Infobox Chinese articles, with room for case-by-case exceptions. This RfC asks to determine whether this article would be such an exception. 18:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Survey (!votes)

 * No- don't let biased POV creep onto Wikipedia like this. No source from the culture of the island itself is yet shown to be using the forms of the non-English name of the DPP with 进 and 党 in them. The DPP is not using the forms with 进 and 党 in them. The Taiwanese culture at large isn't either. It's all about the island. Let the island tell you what it wants. Let the sources from the island speak for themselves. No truly neutral POV encyclopedia article would include "non-native native language forms" in an article like this. This RfC question is not actually a question that can be decided on this level- it's just a blatant violation of neutral POV policy on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's English version encyclopedia just needs to document the forms of native language used in a specific area/by a specific organization/by a specific person, not add extra forms. The extra forms not used by the subject of the article are in the territory of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Wiktionary is a dictionary, and it has the forms of the name of the DPP with 进 and 党 in them- I made that page myself, to document a non-Taiwanese linguistic reality- see 民进党, etc. Not every topic needs simplified and traditional characters paired together as if they are considered equally legitimate or have equal status according to that person/organization/location- only the ones where that is demonstrable. So to me the question is: in Taiwanese society, is the DPP called by the name 民进党? Isn't it sad on some leve that we have users advocating for adding material not sourced to Taiwan to this article? Why do that? Isn't that a red flag? Of course, don't worry about mainland China articles needing to delete traditional Chinese forms- Xiandai Hanyu Cidian (the official mainland China dictionary of Mandarin Chinese), Table of General Standard Chinese Characters (2016) and historical/artistic sources all confirm the existence and usage (in a now secondary role) of what they call traditional characters. You can't overrule the NPOV policy of Wikipedia- it would be like the North Carolina Amendment 1 in which the people banned gay marriage by a vote, but the Supreme Court overruled it. In the same way, this question cannot actually be used to overrule neutral point of view (NPOV) policy for Wikipedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Below, MarkH21 says, "NPOV says to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources," not just what is used natively." How could seemingly admittedly non-native non-English linguistic material be part of a Wikipedia article? Think about that- the user is calling on us to include an admittedly non-native linguistic content on this article. How is that neutral? Encyclopedias don't document all the various forms of language- that's the role of a dictionary. Does this mean that every blade of grass in Taiwan must have the approved form of its name from Beijing included on the article? No traditional character is allowed to stand by itself unless the simplified is there to? That's biased against Taiwanese culture, not neutral POV. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In the context of Taiwanese society and this organization specifically, which this article is about, the form 民进党 is a minority view or aspect, at best. We don't even know Taiwanese people use that form of the name in native-to-native communication. Its display next to the actual form used by the organization is deceptive in that it leads readers to believe that the organization uses (or has ever used) this form of their name on some level in their society, which is not demonstrated via the sources. I read the RfC quoted below within the context of the NPOV policy above to allow hiding (pending confirmation in the sources) or potentially deletion of the 民进党 form of the name from this page. It's not from Taiwan (as far as we know now). Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If there was one good source that showed Taiwanese people talking to a Taiwanese audience using the form 民进党, then it would be easy for me to give up and say "okay, that's a legitimate form of the name of this organization." But I'm not even seeing that minority view. I'm just seeing content for a dictionary, outside the scope of an English language encyclopedia. This content IS appropriate for the Mandarin Chinese version of the DPP Wikipedia article- that Wikipedia serves an audience that needs to see all kinds of different forms of Chinese characters. But an English language encyclopedia article is just going to give you the native language information at best, and potentially historical names- not the names outside that culture and history. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * There's too much detail for information not sourced to Taiwanese society in the article- undue weight. 民进党 is placed right next to 民進黨, the actual form of the name used by the DPP, as if it were equally legitimate in Taiwanese society, or perhaps a "second place", like the tradtional characters are considered in mainland China and other places. The problem: this other form is not shown to be in "second place" in Taiwan- it's not shown by the sources to even exist. That's way too prominent a placement for foreign language content not sourced to the society. UNDUE man! Clearly not neutral.  There's no reliable source support provided for the form with 进 and 党 in Taiwan culture- when in an encyclopedia you go outside a cultural group to find more native names to include? Just include the native names used (or previously used) by the natives between the natives, and you're done with the encyclopedia's coverage of foreign language content. A dictionary can get into detail about other forms, which is totally legitimate- for instance, Wiktionary documents all names for all things in all forms of all languages.  If these forms are a part of Taiwanese culture, it's a small part. I have created pages on Wiktionary to document 民进党 and 民主进步党[, but I don't mean by that to say that anyone in Taiwan uses these forms when they talk to another Taiwanese person in their natural native language communications. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Summary: In the absence of evidence of usage of the form 民进党 in the Taiwan society/ cultural group, it's not proportionate to add additional forms of the non-English name for the DPP not used by the organization itself or in that cultural group at large to this English language encyclopedia article. It's not neutral for Wikipedia to display an extra form next the actual form as if the extra form is in use in Taiwan or is legitimate in Taiwan on some level (it may be, but we don't know that yet- "citation needed!"). There's a "prominence of placement" (to use the words of the WP:NPOV page) problem: the extra form is way too prominent given its amount of usage in Taiwan (seemingly zero) and thereby biases the page, making it no longer in conformity with NPOV (neutral point of view) policy. I ask you: when do we go outside of a distinct cultural group to find some more native names for the topics of that cultural group? Never, or maybe only if those extra forms are etymologically connected to the English language name. It's more neutral to just let readers know about the native names the Taiwanese cultural group uses for its topics, without needing to consider the non-native names other cultural groups use when talking about Taiwan. If you need more info about other cultural groups and their languages and words for this part of Taiwan society, you can go to their Wikipedia version or to a dictionary like Wiktionary and read about it. This is an English language encyclopedia article, and the "prominence of placement" given to a form of the name of this organization not used by this organization in native-to-native communication is intolerable. It's a biased perspective on the DPP to give the forms of the name including 进 and 党 the "prominence of placement" they get here. It's not a neutral perspective for sure, since no one in the DPP is using it in Taiwanese-to-Taiwanese natural native language communication. That's why I think this qualified for an exception under the old RfC, and the issue would not really be solved by this RfC. To draw an analogy, an RfC vote in favor of the topic here would just be like a gay marriage banning state-level constitutional amendment that would meet its downfall at the US Supreme Court (in the analogy, the RfC is the amendment, and the NPOV policy is the Supreme Court). You have to be neutral with respect to the organization and cultural group you are documenting in a Wikipedia article, so if an RfC actually exists or existed that asks us to break the core rules of Wikipedia and violate the core principle of neutrality, it should ideally be rendered null "on appeal". That's the neutrality we want to see on Wikipedia- not forcing extra non-English forms onto Taiwan because other groups might use those forms when describing Taiwan topics. I enjoin you to stick with the higher principles of what an encyclopedia should be and avoid the false neutrality of adding forms of the name of the DPP that aren't used by the DPP or by the distinct cultural group the DPP is part of. (Also, if the DPP really does use the forms of its name including including 进 and 党 in the context of Taiwanese society natural, native language communication, that would change my mind. But notice how no one ever attempts to prove that.) I feel that the sources from the island can tell us what we need to know about the native language usages of the island, and there is a distinct lack of the characters 进 and 党 in discussion of the DPP being generated in the society extant on the island. Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * tl;dr: Display of the form '民进党' on this page violates the "prominence of placement" aspect of undue weight in WP:NPOV because it's not documented in natural native-to-native communication in the distinct culture group on Taiwan island and associated islands; BBC articles about Taiwan in simplified characters are not directed toward a Taiwanese audience. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * (PS No offense is meant to MarkH21 or CaradhrasAiguo by my arguments, but I think there is a real problem with the arguments they present.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes: By the recently-established general MOS consensus for all articles related to the Chinese language, the usage of Simplified Chinese for this subject in international media, and lack of arguments for removal specific to the Democratic Progressive Party:




 * Note: this is not a prominent inclusion in the article, nor is it even in the lead/body of the article. This is in the linguistic infobox on the right side of the page. — MarkH21talk 17:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC); second set of underlined words 18:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC); bolding & first set of underlined words 09:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * In the aim of not allowing this RfC to be bludgeoned to death, I will briefly respond to the main points of Geographyinitiative's arguments that: 1) the DPP and Taiwanese/ROC media do not use the Simplified Chinese characters when referring to the DPP; 2) the inclusion of Simplified Chinese characters implies that the DPP uses those characters.
 * From my !vote and all of the previous discussions, nobody has argued nor disputed that Taiwan/ROC sources use the Simplified Chinese characters; this is a complete straw man. But focusing only on things sourced to Taiwanese society misses the entire point of NPOV, which says that all significant viewpoints need to be represented, not just local viewpoints. A hyperlocal focus on the Taiwanese audience violates both WP:NPOV and WP:AUDIENCE accessibility for an international way of writing the same name in the same language. The usage of the Simplified Chinese form for the name is very common in international media in Chinese-language sources (e.g. BBC, NYT, and Reuters) as well as in English-language sources with parenthetical Chinese names for clarification. There are even English-language sources that only provide the Simplified Chinese form without the Traditional Chinese form like:
 * This academic book (by Anne-Marie Brady and Steve Tsang) by Springer
 * This academic book by the City University of Hong Kong Press
 * This academic book by Routledge
 * This academic book by Logos Verlag Berlin
 * This academic book by the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
 * All articles by AsiaNews (example 1, example 2, example 3).
 * The inclusion of this particular form of Chinese is neither in the article nor the body. Its presence in the Infobox Chinese does not assert anywhere that it is locally used. The infobox is purely to show a Chinese name, word, term or phrase in various renderings, it does not imply local usage of the various forms of Chinese it lists. This is the same as alternative names in an article not implying that the subject of an article uses the alternative name. The different forms of a name in the infobox is also not comparable to foreign languages; the various entries are different writing forms for the same language tucked into an accessible infobox.


 * It's a straw man to continue to focus solely on local usage. Nobody is arguing that Taiwan uses the Simplified Chinese form nor that Simplified Chinese should be the preferred form. However, the arguments for the removal of the Simplified form ignore its usage by international Chinese-language & English-language sources, international accessibility, and the WP:NPOV and WP:AUDIENCE issues from focusing solely on local usage. The argument presented for removal so far are so general that it is a relitigation of the March 2020 RfC. Hopefully other editors can determine and guide the rest of the conversation, because Geographyinitiative and I have said more than enough here. — MarkH21talk 10:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, per the general RFC from March 2020. (I also think it's helpful to readers—most people who can read Chinese are more comfortable with one form of characters or the other, so it's useful to provide both, regardless of which Chinese-speaking area the article is about.) —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I am not convinced by the NPOV argument that GeographyInitiative has attempted to present, by the mere fact (which I have mentioned previously) that Simplified is the standard in Singapore, frequently used by Malaysian Chinese and by Overseas mainland Chinese who have immigrated after the economic reforms on the mainland began in 1978. It is presumptuous WP:OR to assume these three groups oppose the DPP / pan-Green coalition as vociferously as the Communist Party of China does. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 01:44, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes GMPX1234 (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes this should put the simplified because as much as it is true that Taiwan usually does not use simplified chinese and as much as I wish that newspapers in the west use traditional, newspapers and books also give this as the chinese name for DPP. Adding both is better for world readers, especially western readers, to find this article and learn more about the DPP and see what most articles give as a name for DPP. I read many Wikipedia articles that provide names from the region and names from outside the region.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.65.132 (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Pinging editors from the previous discussions here and here:, , , . — MarkH21talk 17:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)


 * What does "In general" mean to you in the wording of RfC? That we can force forms of language not from Taiwan onto Taiwan in the English Wikipedia articles of seemingly exclusively Taiwan articles? If it meant that, then the RfC violated the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. Where on Wikipedia do we add foreign language material not native to the area to the English Wikipedia article???? Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The above comment was moved from the "Survey (!votes)" subsection underneath MarkH21's !vote. — MarkH21talk 18:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In general means for China and Chinese-related articles outside of the mentioned exceptions to the general rule. As editors mentioned in the March 2020 RfC (in which I did not participate), the Simplified Chinese characters for the Chinese name is not an inherently different name. It's not a foreign language. — MarkH21talk 18:04, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s not clear what you mean by That's why I think this qualified for an exception under the old RfC, and the issue would not really be solved by this RfC. This RfC is to determine consensus as to whether this article qualifies as an exception under the March 2020 RfC; this is not a replacement of the March 2020 RfC nor a contradiction of the March 2020 RfC. — MarkH21talk 19:52, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The wording of this RfC is flawed and should ask for the old RfC's exception directly rather than obliquely. "Under the old RfC, they talked about exceptions. Should an exception apply here?" would be closer to the mark. But I'm saying that regardless of what anyone may think this current RfC means or a previous RfC and its exceptions means, or the way I understand the exception in the old RfC, Wikipedia is not a dictionary of foreign language terms (like Wiktionary is), and when you give "prominence of placement" (WP:NPOV) to a form of a foreign language name not even used by this organization or used in the specific cultural group where this organization operates, you've clearly giving an undue weight to that extra form, and that's biased- a violation of the NPOV rules for Wikipedia. A flawed RfC or a misapplied RfC can't undue the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. The argument that including 民进党 here is neutral is to say that people outside Taiwanese culture use the form 民进党 and that 民进党 is "not inherently different" from 民進黨. I would argue that since the two forms are not the same thing, that their difference is inherently obvious- you're saying a=a, but I'm saying the two a's are not the same. It's like I'm arguing about the Trinity or something. "Jesus and God the Father are both God"- but they are different in some respect- one of those respects being what they are recorded as doing in the Bible. Similarly, yeah, maybe you could pretend that on some level 民进党 is "not inherently different" from 民進黨, but that's on a theoretical level- the forms are actually different. The double negative in the words "not inherently different" means "inherently the same", but do the people in Taiwan culture think that? If they do, why aren't they demonstrated to be using the 民进党 form interchangeably with 民進黨? The whole point is that they are inherently different, and that's why we have people trying to add the extra form from outside Taiwan culture here- they want to add what constitutes a different form from 民進黨 on this page. Whether the difference is "inherent" or "not inherent", they acknowledge some degree of difference. The fact is, these two forms have a different scope of actual usage in real life. It's not "wherever I see a traditional character, a simplified must be there too" (that's dictionary thinking, or thinking for the Mandarin Chinese version of Wikipedia, where the readers need all forms of all characters for all topics, otherwise they can't read). The 民进党 form has a different historical scope of usage. An encyclopedia would be sensitive to that and display usage concordant with their actual usage in the societies in question. It would be different if we could cite sources from Taiwan that use the form 民进党, but no one even tries to do that. I tried it above, and got below paltry results. The policy proposed in opposition to my opinion believes in just ignoring what the linguistic situation is on the islands controlled by Taiwan and just adding things from the outside to otherwise seemingly exclusively Taiwan topics. My position is sensitive to the native language situation in Taiwan and leans on sources cited to the internal native language communications of the Taiwanese. Those sources can prove non-standard, simplified, Japanese-derived etc forms used by the Taiwanese, between the Taiwanese. Come on now- isn't my position more nuanced and neutral than the cookie-cutter "simplified right next to traditional even when they don't use it" position? Which sounds more like a neutral encyclopedia? The second position sounds like a neutral dictionary entry documenting Chinese character forms, not an encyclopedia article documenting / explaining foreign language usage in areas outside the English speaking world. In the context of an encyclopedia, it's adding extra foreign language content from outside Taiwan to Taiwan encyclopedia articles. That's the bias I'm talking about. It's undue "prominence of placement" to add 民进党 right below 民進黨 as if Taiwan culture puts 民进党 in a "second place" in amount of usage to the form 民進黨. In mainland China and elsewhere, they do seem to have a tiered system where their simplified character forms are given prominence over their traditional forms. Both of those forms and their relative cultural/historical status can be documented with relation to the actual usage situation in those areas. But English version Wikipedia is not a dictionary of various foreign language terms and forms of terms- that's Wiktionary. I personally document alternative forms of non-English names for Taiwan geography and organizations on Wiktionary, whether or not those forms are used in Taiwan. That's what a dictionary does. Wiktionary is a dictionary of all terms for all things in all languages, so we want to know what Mongolian names for Canadian geography are. We want to know what forms of CJKV characters Singaporeans and Japanese and mainland Chinese people use to describe Taiwanese concepts. We want to know what terms Russians use to describe Estonian geography. English Wikipedia only covers the native language terms used by the natives between the natives of the area in question to talk about their geography/religion/organizations/people/concepts etc. Therefore I say that the previous and current RfC do not restrain the operation of the NPOV policy of Wikipedia in relation to preventing giving "prominence of placement" (WP:NPOV) to the form 民进党 like it is given, without citing any sources in Taiwanese-to-Taiwanese natural native communication. I invoked the exception of the old RfC because it seems like the right place to start- even in the strongest RfC that can be found to bolster making English Wikipedia a dictionary of non-Taiwanese forms of foreign language terms about Taiwan topics, they made a clear indication that there are definitely exceptions. But those exceptions are forced by NPOV policy anyway. The answer "simplified for a seemingly exclusively Taiwanese organization, regardless of native usage in their cultural group!" is jarring to the conscience with respect to a truly neutral encyclopedia. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC Wording
I have modified the question for the RfC based on our discussion to change it to the actual basis for the non-NPOV claim I am making. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not WP:RFCNEUTRAL. You are not supposed to make an argument in the statement itself. Your argument is made in the RfC itself. — MarkH21talk 18:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you don't agree to the current rewording, let me know. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The above comments were moved from the end of the previous section. — MarkH21talk 18:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your rewordings and  do not adhere to WP:RFCNEUTRAL. RfC statements should be neutral; not inserting potential arguments for one direction. — MarkH21talk 18:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's because the effect of the RfC you are creating here is renedered null by the undue weight part of NPOV policy. There's a page for 民进党 and a page for 民進黨 on Wiktionary, so the claim that there is not some degree of difference is absurd- there are two pages. The question is what you intend to mean by "inherent". I'm saying that if 进 and 党 are not used by the DPP or in Taiwanese society, we have reached a threshold to say that they may not want to use those forms for a reason, or that they never learned them or know them. Following from that, I'm saying that inclusion on this encyclopedia article is a violation of NPOV policy by giving undue weight to material not sourced to the organization or Taiwanese society. Where do we do that on any other Wikipedia encyclopedia page? Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're making an argument for/against inclusion. This isn't a point about RfC wording. That's a point to contained within the RfC itself. — MarkH21talk 18:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No I am not. As I understand it, I am making an argument that inclusion of 民进党 on the page is a violation of NPOV (neutral point of view) policy on Wikipedia. That question is not subject to RfC, unless NPOV policy is subject to RfC, which it isn't. Therefore, this RfC does not address my issue directly. Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Everything pertaining to NPOV is subject to RfC. From the very first sentence of WP:RFC: Whether to include Simplified Chinese in this article is a dispute; WP:NPOV is a policy; the infobox in Democratic Progressive Party is article content; these are all subject to RfCs. Just look at how many RfCs on NPOV at WT:NPOV and RfCs on NPOV at WP:NPOVN there have been. Not only have applications of the policy been decided by RfC, but the policy itself was largely written by RfC. — MarkH21talk 20:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I intend no disrespect toward anybody here- maximally pro-PRC editors are part of the environment of the ideal form of Wikipedia, in that they would modulate inaccuracies and POV problems they find from their perspective; thanks to all of all opinions for participating in the discussion. These are the honest conclusions I have reached. Yeah, there is a process to decide what's neutral and what's not. But how are we going say that the result is a neutral encyclopedia if we just ignore what forms they are actually using in Taiwan? What I perceive as the opposing position to mine would totally ignore anything happening in linguistics on Taiwan, while my position is sensitive to the actual situation on Taiwan. The proposed understanding opposing mine seems to force a form of the name of this organization not used in the native language on the island onto this page. The "prominence of placement" (WP:NPOV) given to 民进党 on this page right now is well beyond the existing cultural situation. There is no "second place" form of 民進黨 in Taiwan cultural existence, at least nothing analogous to the way traditional characters are relegated to "second place" in mainland China's official dictionaries, official standards of characters and etc. No one even tries to send me links from .tw websites using the form 民进党 in use between Taiwanese people. Isn't that a red flag? I'm trying to imagine the situation to myself. If I were in the shoes of the opposing opinion, I would think to myself: "Hey, I'm not finding anything from Taiwan to legitimate the position about a native language-related proposal I'm taking about in a Taiwan topic. Maybe I am adding stuff outside the extant cultural context of Taiwan to a Taiwan article." If the Beijing government decided to change the simplified form of 进 to 井, hence creating the form 民井党 in their cultural context, according to this way of thinking, we would just go "Yep, and now I'm adding it to the English Wikipedia article for the DPP, regardless of any opinions in the DPP or usage in the Taiwanese cultural context." Is that the kind of neutral we are looking for here? In my ideal of what an encyclopedia and a dictionary would be, 民井党 would be added as an entry to Wiktionary, not to the English language version Wikipedia. It would probably be added to Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia's DPP article too. The "prominence of placement" (WP:NPOV) given to 民进党 is undue, and that is shown by the facts on the ground in Taiwan, including for instance, no specific evidence discovered after my Google search above that 民进党 is used in natural native-to-native communication in Taiwan. That result can be overturned, but the users in favor of including 民进党 on this page don't even try because their proposed position totally ignores what's happening in Taiwan in terms of linguistic forms. That's not neutral, is it? Also, I was there for the 2020 election in Taiwan, and I walked past some minor DPP campaign headquarters all the time. I never saw any indication that any Taiwanese person was talking with another Taiwanese person and using the form 民进党 or 民井党 in natural native language handwriting. I did see the character 区 everywhere in handwriting in Taiwan (along with 區）. I did see 台湾 everywhere (along with the more traditional forms). It's all about facts and sources and actualities, not dreams about what Taiwan coulda, woulda, or shoulda been/done/etc. To my mind, this attempt to include 民进党 here is thinking. "I see Chinese characters on English Wikipedia, therefore I must see mainland China's perspective on those Chinese characters." Well, what I'm saying is: not necessarily. I'm not saying "get all the simplified characters out of stuff related to Taiwan!" I'm saying this article is not yet justified to give the "prominence of placement" (WP:NPOV) it gives to 民进党- the current "prominence of placement" seems biased and not neutral if anything that happens in the culture of Taiwan matters at all to the decision on this question. If we throw out what's happening in Taiwanese culture as determinative of what shows up on this page, then yeah, we can add the Russian and Ethiopian forms of the name of the DPP to this English Wikipedia article too. I'm saying they don't use the form 民进党 yet (as far as we know) in their native communications with themselves. That's it. They very well may one day in the future! Who knows? They may use more and more simplified characters from mainland China or Japan over time, and that could be demonstrated. It's all about them and their unique cultural evolution. We should follow that cultural evolution. They may write it as 民進党 to avoid writing the bottom half of that character, but retaining the more traditional form in the middle. I saw hodgepodges of Japanese simplified forms, etc all mixed in together. What I'm saying is I didn't yet see "民进党" from a Taiwanese to a Taiwanese in the Taiwan cultural context. It's not neutral to run over other people's cultures in this fashion- "Whatever Beijing wants must appear on English Wikipedia's articles on Taiwan." Huh? And that's to be called "neutral"? No, it's biased against Taiwanese culture. Everything used in the reformed system of language for China from Beijing can be documented in Wiktionary, a dictionary, and in the Mandarin Chinese version of Wikipedia. The question is: are the Taiwanese buying it? I'm saying that in the case of the form "民进党", we don't have evidence that Taiwan is buying what Beijing is selling in terms of usage in Taiwan's internal native language communication. You may say, "Why respect the opinion of this idiot on the internet?" I'm just letting Wikipedia know we are making a grave mistake by ignoring the actual linguistic situation in Taiwan with respect to the DPP when deciding to display the form 民进党 on the English language Wikipedia article. How could something that's not sourced from "there" be part of the native language from "there"? Where do we show non-native foreign language content on Wikipedia articles? I know there are some exceptions for etymologies and historical situations, but a wide ranging exception just to wedge in forms which originate from the PRC that Taiwan isn't even shown use is not only not neutral, it's absurdly non-neutral and biased against Taiwan's existing cultural context. It's like saying: "Here are the form of the name of the DPP those dumb-ass Taiwanese could be using if they would just wise up and realize how simple and easy this form is compared to the complex character form they use." It's a slap in the face. That's not reflective of a normal, neutral encyclopedia. Here's another example or two of some big non-neutral nonsense that I have fixed in our Wiki community: Reversal of Insane Extirpation of local language material by otherwise important user: /  Xizang/Tibet: / District names in Kaohsiung, Wikipedia more pro-Hanyu Pinyin than Xinhua News Agency / etc etc. I am re-balancing the situation toward genuine neutral based on sources according to the guiding principles & rules of Wikipedia and I would caution you that I might be at least close to correct here too, and my viewpoint is likely not "one in seven billion". I know people are getting offended by this stuff. From a moral perspective, it's just crude and disrespectful to the people of Taiwan to add stuff on the English Wikipedia not reflective of Taiwan's cultural reality, and especially in this case. It's freaky to see stuff not from Taiwan on this page, treated like "oh yeah, and that's neutral buddy: accept that." Huh? But it's not neutral with respect to the culture in Taiwan though- not even close. We are editors, not a dead-hand for implementing some kind of misconstrued view of a past or future RfC. The old RfC called for exceptions and I'm telling you that my viewpoint is following the actual conditions and habits of language in Taiwan with respect to this specific topic. I'm awaiting rebuttal from that perspective, not vague allusions to simplified characters in BBC articles. That has no bearing on the issue. No disrespect is intended toward anybody; thanks for participating in the discussion. These are the honest conclusions I have reached. Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)

Subsection break
Inserted subsection break since this has nothing to do with the RfC wording anymore. — MarkH21talk 22:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! Your statement implies that Wikipedia is a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. The "most people" you are talking about is outside of Taiwan, right? Are we documenting non-English language usage by this organization or are we making a dictionary of Chinese character terms? That's the job of the crew over at Wiktionary- here's the dictionary entry you are looking for: . Yeah, that entry is of course appropriate for Wiktionary- in fact, I made that page myself- it's appropriate content for a dictionary. Did you consider anything about Taiwan culture or the DPP organization itself and whether or not people in Taiwanese society call the organization 民进党 before you said "yes" above? What other cultural groups/countries/etc have extra foreign language terms not sourced to their own culture on their English version Wikipedia articles? (Keep in mind- traditional characters are still an integral though secondary part of mainland China's linguistic standards- Xiandai Hanyu Cidian (the official mainland China dictionary of Mandarin Chinese), Table of General Standard Chinese Characters (2016) and historical/artistic sources all confirm the existence and usage. Do you acknowledge that you're voting to add extra material not from Taiwan to the DPP English Wikipedia article? If you do acknowledge that, how can you justify it? Do the organizations in your home country have foreign language material not sourced to your country given the kind of "prominence of placement" (WP:NPOV) on their English Wikipedia articles we are seeing here with the form 民进党 on this page? You'd have to admit that Taiwan isn't using the form 民进党, right? Is there any presence of the characters 进 and 党 in Taiwanese natural, native-to-native communication, especially with reference to the DPP? Is there any evidence the DPP is using the form 民进党 in their own cultural group? I got a Google result of about nothing when I searched for "site:.tw 民进党" on Google. I would urge you to reconsider and change your vote to neutral at very least if any of these arguments make sense to you.  Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * This is not about imposing on anybody's culture. It's helpful to readers for us to include both sets of characters, and that was the consensus in the general RFC. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. Why is it helpful for an English language encyclopedia article to violate NPOV (neutral point of view) policy to give "prominence of placement" (WP:NPOV) to dictionary content like 民进党 that is not sourced to the organization or the cultural group the organization is part of? Notice how no one tries to argue that Taiwanese people call the DPP 民进党 in their natural, native-to-native communication. Think about this my friend. What neutral encyclopedia would give an analogous "prominence of placement" (WP:NPOV) to content from outside the culture where the organization operates for any other topic that we are giving to the form 民进党 in this article? What is actually representative of Taiwanese cultural reality? Don't you see the bias here? Keep in mind, the 民進黨 form of the name on this page is linked to Wiktionary, a dictionary where users can explore various names for the DPP used in various languages and linguistic systems not native to Taiwan culture, including 民进党. There are a lot of things that could be added to this page to make it "more informative" in some respect, like the Japanese pronunciation of DPP or the Russian Cyrillic name for the DPP, but the questions are: 1) Would those additions be consistent with the idea of an encyclopedia? 2) Would those additions be consistent with NPOV policy? A dictionary or an encyclopedia in another language is where we document names from outside Taiwanese culture, right? The consensus is not "a simplified for every traditional!"- the actual consensus is that exceptions exist, and that's what NPOV policy demands here. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * In my experience it's not unusual for reference works written for English speakers to give both simplified and traditional characters. And it is certainly helpful to readers, for the reason I stated above. I don't see how this could violate NPOV, as long as we apply the same standard to areas that use simplified characters (which we do – see articles such as Shenzhen University and Kwong Wai Siew Peck San Theng). I don't think Japanese and Russian are relevant—this is an issue about two different written standards for Chinese, not about other languages. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You write: "In my experience it's not unusual for reference works written for English speakers to give both simplified and traditional characters." Response: What reference works? English encyclopedias? No neutral, English language encyclopedia- none- would include the form 民进党 in its DPP article. The writers would be sensitive to the culture of the organization they are documenting and realize that the 民进党 form is not used by the DPP. You write: "it is certainly helpful to readers, for the reason I stated above." which was "I also think it's helpful to readers—most people who can read Chinese are more comfortable with one form of characters or the other, so it's useful to provide both, regardless of which Chinese-speaking area the article is about." Response: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrasebook, or a slang, jargon or usage guide. " (WP:NOTDIC). By the same logic, it might be "helpful" to include the Japanese name 民進党 on this page. Most readers might be interested to learn about this variation in Chinese characters used by Japan. Wouldn't that be helpful too? But the problem is: are we making a dictionary? No! It's an encyclopedia. You write: "I don't see how this could violate NPOV, as long as we apply the same standard to areas that use simplified characters" Response: Xiandai Hanyu Cidian (the official mainland China dictionary of Mandarin Chinese), Table of General Standard Chinese Characters (2016) and historical/artistic sources all confirm the existence and usage of traditional characters in a secondary role to simplified characters in mainland China. That's a solid basis for including traditional forms of names on English Wikipedia articles about China- traditional characters have a secondary status in that cultural situation. But just because China or Singapore use simplified characters doesn't mean Taiwan is using them with respect to this topic- and when we scratch the surface, they really don't use them at all with respect to the DPP at least. Go do the Google search and you will know what I'm arguing for: "民进党 site:.tw". There's only two propaganda sites easily sourced to mainland China in the first few pages of results. You wrote: "this is an issue about two different written standards for Chinese, not about other languages" Response: if what you wrote is true, why should we wantonly ignore the cultural reality in Taiwan with respect to this issue? I actually am just talking about specific cases warranting exception under the original RfC. (There could have been no effective agreement to violate NPOV anyway.) It's biased to include non-English content in an English encyclopedia article not sourced to the organization or the cultural group the organization operates within. How could it even be neutral to include 民进党 here if there's no source from Taiwanese culture using that form of the name? There's not even an attempt to show that anyone in Taiwan calls DPP "民进党" when they communicate with other Taiwanese people in their native language. Isn't that a big red flag that this is not neutral? There's undue "prominence of placement" (WP:NPOV) here with respect to the form 民进党. (In some situations, simplified characters or variant characters are used in Taiwan, and that can be documented with sources.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * Hello! I have responded to all your points here as best I could. Is there any specific argument that I have not responded to in a manner satisfactory to you? I will limit myself to a bullet point response to any direct, specific questions you may be willing to ask me (but keep in mind, there's a background to my answers, probably the majority of which can be found somewhere on this page.) I sincerely urge you to change your position to 'neutral' or 'no' and stop supporting giving a clearly undue "prominence of placement" (WP:NPOV) to non-English material not sourced from the internal native communications Taiwanese culture group (进 and 党 in the context of the DPP) onto this English version Wikipedia encyclopedia article. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The current wording of the RfC does not touch on the issue of whether the neutral point of view policy of Wikipedia is violated by adding the non-English content from outside the Taiwan culture group. If it wins, then that just means the NPOV is violated plus some users were strung together to attempt to defeat the NPOV encyclopedia ideal. The actual issue has to be addressed to address the issue: in the case of this page and its circumstances, can you give prominence of placement to foreign language content not native to Taiwan and still be a self-respecting neutral dictionary? The answer is of course no. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Here's another evidence that my opinion should not be ignored: an English language word for Mount Everest, Chu-mu-lang-ma, was ignored for years by Wiktionary because it didn't fit with the Hanyu Pinyin-only mindset. I found three books, one of them the Guinness World Book of Records, one a scholarly source, and one a fiction novel, that used the term Chu-mu-lang-ma. We've got a huge bindspot in the Wiki world my friends, and I urge you to do the soul searching you ought to be doing. No more bias. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Prove Taiwanese people are using the form 民进党 in their communication between themselves on the island. If you can't, what argument do you have for inclusion here? That people outside Taiwan use the form 民进党? So what if they do? This is not a dictionary, and adding that 民进党 here without evidence of any use of the characters 进 and 党 being used in this context between people in this area in their native language communication is a breach of the concept of an English language encyclopedia. Giving "prominence of placement" (WP:UNDUE) to something that Taiwan people aren't using between themselves? That's undue for an English encyclopedia- it's for a dictionary like Wiktionary or a Mandarin Chinese Encyclopedia, but not for an English language encyclopedia article that just gives the foreign language name that the locals call or have called their organizations. This is not a Singapore article- it's a Taiwan article as far as I can tell, and the Taiwanese people are not using the characters 进 and 党 when they refer to the organization. Keep in mind Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Table of General Standard Chinese Characters show the traditional characters in a secondary capacity and historical and artistic usage proves relevance on mainland China etc other articles. I'm talking about Taiwan, but you are talking about Singapore and other places. Things are different in different places. If Chiang Kai-shek had made up another set of Chinese characters, would you want your organizations/home/biographies etc to show those if your country had not accepted that standard? What if Singapore used it too? There are some cases were simplied-type characters are explicitly used in Taiwan culture. 进 and 党 are not used in this context in Taiwan my friend. How many people in Taiwan know the character 进? How many would use it in discussion of the DPP with another Taiwan person? It's an obvious POV problem- undue prominence of placement to something alien to Taiwan culture. Notice I did not say "Singapore" or refer to other communities. I said "Taiwan".Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You brought up three groups: Singaporeans, Malaysian Chinese and overseas mainland Chinese. Why does that matter in a discussion of what Taiwan culture is like? Your "yes" vote does not address the culture in Taiwan. Why not address yourself rather to the question of the linguistic culture of Taiwanese people in Taiwan? Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The neutrality issue is not dormant until it is resolved in favor of removing the non-Taiwanese name not used by the DPP or has been brought before a dispute resolution board that has specifically required inclusion of the non-Taiwanese name in this article. There is a major question about whether the prominence of placement given to a foreign language (non-English) name not used by the DPP or Taiwanese people in their native language communications with themselves does or does not violated WP:UNDUE in the context of an English language Wikipedia article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have hidden the non-Taiwanese name for the period of this disucssion since no evidence has yet been produced that 民进党 is in use in Taiwanese native language communications between native persons of Taiwan despite weeks of discussion. This temporary rationale seems reasonable to me to prevent a neutrality or POV issue, but if not so viewed by others, I understand. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, thats you! Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC is still running (they typically run for a month, see WP:ANRFC), you are the only one so far to support changing the status quo, and you have bludgeoned this discussion to death. You cannot continue your month-long edit war and push through your proposed change while the RfC is still running. Also, regarding your comment about finding a dispute resolution board, RfCs are one of the formal dispute resolution processes.This is not the first time you have been told this. You should self-revert immediately. — MarkH21talk 20:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * From your viewpoint, this is discussion does not rise above the level of "silly". But from my viewpoint, a poorly attended RfC is no legitimate basis for forcing what is clearly a non-neutral, non-Taiwanese name into a prominence of placement well beyond its status in Taiwanese culture a clearly Taiwanese article. Yeah, it's part of the first part of this dispute for you to try to get together a little group of ediotrs to get the POV material kept on the page. But once that stage is over, it doesn't mean your side has "won" if the majority is in favor of including what seems clear to be WP:UNDUE non-neutral material on the page ('prominence of placement' issue). At that point, I guess I just go to Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, right? Don't forget to vote on this issue if you want to! I don't care what side you are on, but it would be cool to see what you think. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * There have already been posts at NPOVN, various WikiProjects , and the Manual of Style to publicize this RfC beyond the usual RfC notification system. Asking the same question again at other noticeboards or talk pages would just be forum shopping.I agree that this RfC could have had more participants. But you bludgeoning the discussion with thousands of words and repeating arguments in a single discussion while refusing to drop the stick is a great way to discourage others from participating in an RfC. Also, there is no "winning" or "losing". You shouldn't view consensus-building discussions as battlegrounds and refrain from making unfounded accusations like it's part of the first part of this dispute for you to try to get together a little group of ediotrs to get the POV material kept on the page. — MarkH21talk 17:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My preferred solution (putting Hakka and Taiwanese Hokkien on the same level as the different forms of Mandarin for Taiwan related articles) doesn't really seem to be on the table. I do in general support including both trad and simp Mandarin although I agree with your point that since the DPP has never said what their name is in simp we have a bit of a conundrum on what exactly to say. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that the Hakka/Hokkien suggestion is reasonable, but isn't that more about showing romanizations and not really the topic of this RfC (and the related MOS discussions)? Showing romanizations outside of the hidden box is already implementable using, , , etc. in Infobox Chinese. — MarkH21talk 18:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

On numerous occasions, I have brought up the seeming fact that the people in Taiwan are not using the characters 进 and 党 in the name form 民进党 in their native-to-native communications between themselves when they discuss the Democratic Progressive Party in daily life. It seems that this point is conceded as accurate since no one is contesting it and this fact is brushed under the rug. It's an unwillingness to see a stark reality: the name 民进党 is not part of Taiwanese society's linguistic culture. My question to you is: once you recognize that Taiwan is not using the form 民进党 for this organization, then why are you fighting to include this information on an English language encyclopedia article about this organization? Since you don't seem to believe Taiwan is using the form 民进党, how can adding this information on the page be "Wikipedia-neutral" vis-a-vis the Taiwanese cultural group? Don't you see there's a bias against Taiwanese culture by adding the name 民进党 right next to 民進黨, as if 民进党 has some kind of status in Taiwan culture? There is no attempt to rebut this point. You all go on to talk about unrelated topics like an RfC that includes a provision for exceptions that you don't want to explore and various ideas about Singapore and the BBC. But don't distract yourself from the issue: Taiwan is not using the name 民进党 in their society as far as we know. Once that argument is established, and it does seem to be established since it's not challenged and I only found two articles with .tw urls that had the form 民进党 (both were obvious mainland China propaganda- see above), then what's left honestly? Have a heart. Taiwan's not using the name 民进党 within their society. When do we add foreign language material on English Wikipedia? When it's from the society in question, not when it's "useful" or "common" etc. The point is, it's not part of the Taiwan culture. If 民进党 is foreign language material not sourced from Taiwan, it's dictionary content or content for another language version of Wikipedia. There's no encyclopedia that includes extraneous foreign language material in articles about an area and its organizations, people etc. In the absence of evidence that Taiwanese native communication between Taiwanese natives ever uses the form 民进党, it gives an unbelievably undue prominence of placement to something from outside Taiwanese culture to add 民进党 on this page right next to the actual name used in Taiwan, 民進黨. Here's another related question no one wants to pay attention to: how many Taiwanese people can read 进 and 党 at all? Come on now. Stop trying to justify 民进党 with sources outside Tawian and start trying to justify it with sources FROM Taiwan (if that's possible). Wikipedia is not a dictionary of useful information about foreign language terms not used by an organization/locality. Mainland China, etc location articles that display traditional characters below simplified characters are correct to do so: traditional characters are a secondary part of those cultures- see Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Table of General Standard Chinese Characters. But there's no "Table of General Standard Chinese Characters" from Taiwan with the characters 进 and 党, especially with reference to 民進黨. WP:UNDUE prominence of placement to the non-Taiwanese name seems to be an obvious case for non-neutral material since we have to refer to Singapore and the BBC to wedge it onto this page. Again, of course there are other circumstances where Taiwan articles or Taiwan-mainland China articles can be extremely justified in showing a form that's a simplified one, but there has to be some base level of recognition and deference to what the facts of Taiwanese linguistic culture are. 民进党 is a non-Taiwanese name as far as we know. It's morally dangerous to not hide it unless we have evidence to the contrary. Keep in mind, I'm not some random troll out here- I'm the editor that didn't let Wiktionary and Wikipedia forget that Wade-Giles and Tongyong Pinyin names are (or in some cases were) being used in English despite silly attempts to railroad them totally out of memory and mind as if English has to ignore its own history for some reason. Be fair to Taiwanese culture and remember this is an English encyclopedia article about a Taiwanese topic where no evidence of the name 民进党 from Taiwan culture is even being attempted to be presented. What if this was your culture, your heritage? At the base level: just because someone else uses something doesn't mean you do. I'm not talking about Singapore, I'm talking about Taiwan. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you respond to my claim that no one in Taiwan is yet shown to be using the name 民进党 in Taiwanese native - to - Taiwanese native communication in their native language? If you had to focus on that issue alone and not the other factors you think are in your favor, what do you do? There's bias here people, and it's not right. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You’ve repeated this dozens and dozens of times here and have ignored responses to it. Local usage is not the sole determining factor in an article, and it’s POV to solely focus on local usage. This is the absolute last time I will repeat this – stop repeating yourself at everyone. You've made your argument and are now bludgeoning this discussion. — MarkH21talk 14:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I have been misunderstood! Of course you are right that Simplified Chinese should not be the preferred form. I guess the meaning of the words "prominence of placement" has been misunderstood, or I did not communicate effectively. When I'm saying "prominence of placement" I'm not saying that anyone wants simplified characters to be first- I'm saying the presence of the form 民进党 on this page at all gives a prominence of placement to that form well beyond the station  民进党 enjoys in Taiwanese culture, which is near 0. It's not neutral to include something that is not shown to be used by the Taiwanese amongst themselves. Hopefully my meaning is clear now on the neutrality problem. It's too prominent to include a foreign language name that is not and was not part of Taiwanese culture on an English Wikipedia article. We don't include foreign language names not local to an area on their articles- it's undue. If you want that content, you go to that Wikipedia version or to a dictionary like Wiktionary. International usage of a non-English name not local to Taiwan is irrelevant to a Taiwanese-subject article in an English language encyclopedia article. Adding it implies that the form is equally (or secondarily) part of Taiwanese culture on some level, because the default conception of the reader is that all foreign language content on English Wikipedia articles is confined to the local names and usages (including historical) and doesn't go beyond that. That's why I'm saying WP:UNDUE prominence of placement. Traditional character names are clearly a secondary naming scheme in mainland China and perhaps other contexts based on historical and artistic usage, as well as the legal foundations Xiandai Hanyu Cidian and Table of General Standard Characters. But in the Taiwan context, we didn't establish that the form 民进党 was secondary to 民進黨 in some way in Taiwanese culture. It's too prominent a placement to add a non-English language name that isn't demonstrated to be native Taiwanese at all in this article. Hopefully my position here makes more sense now. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Fascism
In all the election campaign, DPP uses the tactic that "if you love Taiwan, vote for DPP", "if you are true Taiwanese, vote for DPP", "if you vote for the pan blue parties, you are not Taiwanese", and furthermore, "if you vote for the pan blue parties, you are Chinese communist", "if you are fed in Taiwanese food, you should vote for true Taiwanese", "Pan blue parties are Chinese parties, not Taiwanese" (2000 & 2004 presidential election, 1998, 2001 and 2004 legistilative yuan members election)

DPP government insists to call the Fujian dialect as "Taiwanese", people who immigrated to Taiwan from China more than 100 years ago as true "Taiwanese", while ignoring the voices of Taiwanese aboriginal people.

From the definition fo Fascism in Wikipedia, * exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual. * stresses loyalty to a single leader. * uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition. * engages in severe economic and social regimentation. * implements totalitarianism.

point 1: Over the years, even being more corrupted than the GMT government, its core voters follow the slogan of DPP "if you are true Taiwanese, vote for DPP". (2000 & 2004 presidential election, 1998, 2001 and 2004 legistilative yuan members election)

point 2: Chen Shui-bian. The most recent example, holding the 2004 referendum because Chen wants it, and then overturning the 2004 referendum results also because Chen doesn't like them, meanwhile millions of dollars are wasted. (2004 presidential election)

point 3: Use the "Government Information Office" to control medias with opposite openion. Control CTS, TTV and FTV and censor the news regarding opposite parties. Legalise underground radios who supported Chen in the 2004 elections.

point 4: Control the education system. In the official high school social study textbook, DPP government changed the text declares the constitution of ROC first written by GMT "may against the law", law of what is unclear.

point 5: From definition, all totalitarian régimes pose as the culmination of 'true' democracy as opposed to the liberal democracies that exercise the rule of law and respect property rights. In all elections, DPP claims that they are the true democracy, and to oppose DPP is to oppose democracy.

I would welcome Wilfried Derksen to challange the above points. bobbybuilder 18:12pm, 22 June 2005 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced by the 5 points that it makes the DPP fascist. I would like to see some more Taiwanese reactions on that. At the other hand, it is clearly not a neutral point of view to call this party fascist. A sentence that the party stresses Taiwanese identity is not NPOV.
 * I will revert the text since it is not NPOVElectionworld 20:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV in wikipedia means to be "neutral", not to be only "positive". If you ignore everything negative, then it is definitely not neutral. "A sentence that the party stresses Taiwanese identity is not NPOV."? Please explain. The definition is there, the facts are there, if you are not convinced, bring up other facts. Otherwise it is just your POV. bobbybuilder 22:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

-

There is no particular reason to associate racism and fascism with the DPP. I say this as a very strong supporter of the KMT.

If you want to write a deeper article into why some Taiwanese think the DPP is racist and fascist, go ahead, but simply linking DPP to articles on racism and fascism without going into detail about why, won't work.

Roadrunner 22:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Taiwanese vote for A-bian, Chinese vote for Lien." DPP campaign 2000, 2004. "The flooding in Kaohsiung was caused by having too many Chinese coming here." DPP Kaohsiung local government 2003.

To your second point, the details about why are there, I cannot help if you want to read selectively.

Interesting point, many DPP workers also like to go to discussion forums and claim they are loyal KMT supporters, and pretend to be very naive about the current affair. bobbybuilder 22:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can look at my long record of posting on wikipedia, and decide what I really believe.

Also, I included links to racism and fascism with context. One thing that you really have to understand is that most people in the world don't know Taiwan politics, and you have to explain the situation. Linking the DPP to racism and fascism simply makes no sense to most people.

Roadrunner 22:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added some more stuff. Actually the main reason I had been holding off on expanding the article like I did with the the article on the Kuomintang is that I very much dislike the DPP, and would have preferred if someone who was very much pro-DPP started with a draft.

bobbybullder - if you want to convince people, you have to look and sound reasonable. Saying the ***DPP is a bunch of fascists*** just hurts your cause.

Roadrunner 22:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Please give information what oppositionals label the DPP as fascist and/or racist. I would like you to study what fascism is. Start studying Italy and the Mussolini era. You cannot compare the present government in any way which the fascist dictatorships. Electionworld 05:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pan-blue labels the DPP as fascist. If you do not understand the politics in Taiwan and cannot read Chinese newspaper, I suggest you pull out of the discussion. Are you trying to say Fascist disappeared after the Mussolini era? The definition of Fascism is in Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you study the history of Fascism first, it is not our job to educate you. Please give us examples why we cannot COMPARE the present government in Taiwan IN ANY WAYS with the Fascist dictatorships? bobbybuilder 19:21, 22 Jun 2005 (TST)

Neutrality is disputed
Why does the article say this? What are the problems that should be fixed? Can I help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.65.132 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm removing the neutrality tag. It appears to have been added by in relation to the above RfC on whether simplified versions should be included on the page. In any case, I don't think tagging the article as not neutral is the correct way resolve that dispute. DrIdiot (talk) 13:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding non-English linguistic symbols to a page that are not used by that organization for its internal communications strikes at the very heart of the neutrality question. I don't agree with your assessment that the page is neutral and am reversing it now. Geographyinitiative (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop it. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:POV Just having some simplified characters doesn't mean the entire article is not written from a neutral point of view. DrIdiot (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, there have been no new developments on the RfC for over a month, and there appears to be some consensus that the simplified characters can stay. DrIdiot (talk) 19:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your thoughts, but what do you know about Taiwanese culture that means you can arbitrarily determine the article is neutral even though it has a non-Taiwanese name on it? If you are Taiwanese, just provide evidence that the DPP is using the naming "民主进步党" in its communications with Taiwanese people, and my dispute is over. If you can't provide that evidence and if you have to resort to communications with non-Taiwanese locations or communication outside Taiwan, then what are you doing my friend? We don't add extra names not ever used in a given location or by a given person to an English language encyclopedia article. That's called "not neutral". Wiktionary is the dictionary you are looking for- this is an encyclopedia. Please don't treat me like a child by saying things like "Stop it." Again, as I said above, there can be no consensus to break Wikipedia neutrality policy- if you make that determination or someone else does, then I will take it to dispute resolution and very likely get a ruling in my favor. This is not a "stop it" kind of deal. I can't make any further comments here due to bludgeoning issues- if you want to discuss this further, please come to my talk page or show me somewhere else to chat about this. Thanks! Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC) (modified)
 * I do not care about the simplified or not dispute, but the consensus is clear in the RfC. I am going to revert one more time, and if you revert again I will call an administrator.  Feel free to get an administrator to rule on this yourself. DrIdiot (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is clear then close the discussion. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I see that you are aware of the RfC above. From my vantage, this seems to unfortunately be yet more linguistic-related disruption from GI. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 23:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is a "disruption" in some sense, but I think I'm correcting the disruption in favor of WP:NEUTRALITY, not creating the disruption. I am a great editor who is doing amazing work on China-Taiwan etc. I also think CaradhrasAiguo has an interesting and important perspective that needs to be included. Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not dispute that your Sinosphere area contributions have been valuable in general, please do not mention that here. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 18:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Whoever started the RfC never actually included the tag, so there's nothing to be done to close it. In any case, you can do it yourself. But as promised, I'll reach out to an admin to resolve this. DrIdiot (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC tag was there while the RfC was running. RfC tags are automatically removed by a bot once 30 days has elapsed, so there is no RfC tag there anymore. — MarkH21talk 02:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks -- in any case I take it there's no need to explicitly close the discussion? Consensus seems very clear. DrIdiot (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * RfCs do not need to be closed, particularly since the consensus is pretty clear. Per WP:RFCCLOSE: If the matter under discussion is not contentious and the consensus is obvious to the participants, then formal closure is neither necessary nor advisable.It seems that it would help to now have it closed, since Geographyinitiative has edit-warred with you to keep a POV tag based on their own interpretation of the RfC; a request has been posted at WP:RFCC. — MarkH21talk 02:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I've closed the RfC. Hope this helps. —valereee (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, good. Now I am saying that the consensus that was reached is in conflict with Wikipedia Neutrality policy. Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-litigating a closed RfC on the same grounds is not going to work; the other participants did not accept the notion that the simplified characters' inclusion violates NPOV. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 18:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The higher-level Wikipedians have not been engaged in the process here. I know you want the character 进 on this page, but it's not from Taiwan. Including the form with this character is outside the scope of this article. There's no re-litigation- this will be the first time that this particular issue is brought up for the 10 year upper-level Wikipedians and I feel they will agree with me and not agree with this consensus. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Post to the proper noticeboard or drop the stick. And definitely tone down your rhetoric.  The community is everyone, veterans have no special say on matters. And given the community doesn't say any country owns its page, your one-sided viewpoint will likely fail but that can wait until you post this in the forum designed to handle the matter WP:NPOVN. Slywriter (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

DPP and Lee Teng-hui?
I'd like citation for the following quote in the article: "As the major opposition party in the Legislative Yuan, the DPP worked with then-President Lee Teng-hui, the then-leader of KMT, to push through a series of amendments to transform into a semi-presidential system (for example, Republic of China's premier would no longer have to be confirmed by the Legislative Yuan). Among the electoral reforms, a proportional representation list was adopted and aboriginal seats in the Legislative Yuan were created." The line makes it sound like they worked really closely with Lee, but in Rigger's book it's only mentioned that Lee called on representatives from the KMT and DPP to participate in a National Affairs Conference, but this seems a but more like a town hall meeting than an actual negotiation or cooperation. So I'd propose to soften the language, i.e. just to say that they were a driving force in pushing public opinion and they participated in the NAC. DrIdiot (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)