Talk:Economy of Taiwan/Archive 1

Page move 2005

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved:

The world does not center around China! BTW, Taiwan should focus more on become part of G8! Japan is in it, so Taiwan as an Asian country can as well in the future!

Iron_Jackal_TW

Economy of Taiwan &rarr; Economy of the Republic of China
and Holidays in Taiwan → Holidays in the Republic of China, Demographics of Taiwan → Demographics of the Republic of China, New Party (Republic of China) → New Party (Republic of China), Communications in Taiwan → Communications in the Republic of China, Highway System in Taiwan → Highway system in the Republic of China, Transportation in Taiwan → Transportation in the Republic of China, (Category:Airports of Taiwan → Category:Airports of the Republic of China)

This request is to make the titles of these articles to conform with Naming conventions (Chinese): " the word "Taiwan" should not be used if the term "Republic of China" is more accurate.  ".

Note: If you do not agree with the said conventions, bring the issue to its discussion page. Please do not oppose this request because you disagree with the conventions. &mdash; Instantnood 20:08 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
 * By nominating I support renaming. &mdash; Instantnood 20:08 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)

Support Not only is Taiwan an unofficial name for the country, region, government or whatever you want to call it, but also because there is still huge disagreement between the people of 'taiwan' in the naming of their nation/region/government. Nowhere in the world is the usage of Taiwan offical to discribe the nation/region/governemnt. The Economy of ROC is a more accurate description of the topic just like The Economy of the United States is a better title than The Economy of America. The main article of the entity on wikipedia is on The Republic of China.
 * Oppose for the same reasons I've opposed all your other taiwan → ROC proposals. No one understands the ROC or its nuances, Taiwan is the prevalent Western usage.  I (as several others here are) am growing tired of your forcing this issue down everyone's throats.  Wikipedia is not a place for your personal or political agenda. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 20:56, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * In other words you disagree with the naming conventions. Please go to its discussion page. &mdash; Instantnood 01:12 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're not the boss of me, I'll oppose what I want, when and where I want to...and I'll tell you where you can put that discussion page. Besides, we've already talked about recent, suspect changes to the naming convention you so like to tout that just coincidentally happen to suit your personal and political agenda. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 01:23, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It has nothing to do with any political agenda, and I have no contribution to the naming conventions. &mdash; Instantnood 07:16 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)
 * No, but the pertinent naming conventions are the boss of you and everyone else. Here and now is neither the time nor the place to discuss your individual objections to the naming conventions.  Those conventions are the result of a community consensus.  All we're doing here is determining in what form they apply to the proposed move: if they apply, and I think they do, we have no choice but to rename the articles according to those conventions. --MarkSweep 13:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per ExplorerCDT, please see the reasons I've opposed all your other Taiwan → ROC proposals. Please stop this disruptive behaviour. Whilst I personally will not list you on WP:RfC, I would now be willing to certify any listing added by another - you have the right to ask your question once, maybe twice, but having gotten the answer you should not persist, jguk 21:48, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm in the same boat, but he's actually threatened to RfC me on other people's talk pages (yes, Instantnood, I see everything) for having the temerity to oppose his disruptive b.s. Am I wrong in likening him to one of those annoying little gnats that pester on a humid summer day? &mdash;ExplorerCDT 21:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not. BlankVerse mentioned about you at my discussion page, and I told her/him about an old RfC of you. &mdash; Instantnood 01:13 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
 * Then what is all these trash on my talk page?--Huaiwei 10:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I have never threatened to RFC anybody.  &mdash; Instantnood 11:01 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
 * Relax, and please stop the accusations. Discussing a proposed move is hardly disruptive behavior. --MarkSweep 13:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose As ExplorerCDT and jguk have both been told, there is no need to dumb things down for encyclopedias just because the masses of people are dumb and the media has to cater to these dumb masses. Our job is not just to inform but to educate. We shouldn't be using inaccurate names. However, in this context "Taiwan" is the appropriate term. Please use non-political terms for non-political topics. Economy is not political enough and by using "Republic of China" we make the POV claim that it is equivlant to its current territories. This point should be left ambiguous. --Jiang 00:56, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not consider Matsu Islands and Quemoy as part of Taiwan, just like Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales aren't part of England. The title "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu" on Template:WTO already suggests just saying Taiwan is not accurate and exhaustive. &mdash; Instantnood 01:07 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
 * I could also say that the ROC=China (Mongolia included). No term is 100% accurate. Note the usage of the term "Taiwan Area" by the ROC government to include Quemoy and Matsu, just like how all ROC legislation use "Mainland Area" to describe the PRC. It's even clearly defined by this law: http://www.mac.gov.tw/english/english/foreign/law1.htm --Jiang 09:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the interesting information. An alternative to "Taiwan Area" used by the ROC government is "free area", as in an appendix of its constitution, and in many other web pages. &mdash; Instantnood 09:56 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
 * Quoted from a news article: " [Wang Jin-pyng] said that the Constitution stipulates a "free" area and a mainland China area, and that the statute governing relations of the people across the Taiwan Strait also mentions the "Taiwan area" and the "mainland area, " adding..  ". &mdash; Instantnood 10:12 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Spinboy 05:36, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: You're not supposed to nominate multiple articles so I dont think your request carries much weight, but I hope you're aware of Public holidays in the Republic of China, which makes moving the "holidays in Taiwan" article doubly pointless --Jiang 09:40, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The holidays listed in Holidays in Taiwan are not only local ones, but includes many brought by the Kuomintang to Taiwan. &mdash; Instantnood 10:01 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What Jiang said. And also, I might support the movement of some of these articles if they specifically pertain to political entities, but many of these articles do not. &mdash;Lowellian (talk) 11:23, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Everybody knows about Taiwan.  Few people know or care about the nuances of nomeclature. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it's fair to say that on the order of a billion people do know and do care (or at least are forced to care) about the nuances of this particular piece of nomenclature. And the nuances are not particularly subtle either: if the definition of the terriotrial claims of the ROC were to change in certain directions, this could easily lead to a situation which the PRC has long classified as automatically triggering military action. It is quite important for stability in the region that both sides recognize that there is one single unit called "China" (though both may think they are it). If the ROC would officially start calling itself "Taiwan" in the current climate, they better be fairly confident in the abilities of their air force. --MarkSweep 13:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support tentatively. I don't think mass listing was a good idea. I agree with most of the proposed moves, but I have some reservations. Better to list them individually if we can all agree that the purpose of this discussion is only to determine how the naming conventions apply. --MarkSweep 13:58, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Basically agree. One does not have to be agree with each of the requests for agreeing with the general direction. But things have got to be settled to have it proceeded. &mdash; Instantnood 14:16 Feb 28 2005 (UTC)
 * Support,because
 * The main article about the political entity is at Republic of China.
 * These articles about the political entity, not the island. There is no article on Economics of Java or Sakhalin or any other island. Same with Demography and other stuff.
 * The Wikipedia naming conventions specifically cover that. Grue 16:01, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OpposeUsing the name of Taiwan which is much more popular to refer the entity would not really downgrading the accuracy of this encyclopedia. Most of these articles made it clear that the subject discussed is under the control of ROC. No political implication, declaring independence, denouncing the sovereignty of ROC, or equate Taiwan to ROC, is suggested in these articles. In this arrangement people find their information easier.Mababa 07:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess you have misunderstood. As MarkSweep has mentioned in his comment, redirects can bring readers to the right article. The title is for accuracy, whereas the redirects bridge the gap between accuracy and popularity. With redirects, it wouldn't be harder for readers to locate the information they want. &mdash; Instantnood 09:49 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the very good reasons listed above by others Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 10:06, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The so-called good reasons are also applicable to justify having references to Wales in an article titled "Economy of England". Many places in the territories under ROC's control are not part of Taiwan. &mdash; Instantnood 10:21 Mar 1 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Poll 2005

 * The following discussion is closed. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Was anyone here aware Instantnood is running another poll to move "XXX of Taiwan" to "XXX of the Republic of China" at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC? The poll "started" a week ago, but since no pages link to the polling page, I thought maybe it was a little onesided and needed some publicity... SchmuckyTheCat 21:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Please kindly check Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV/Taiwan vs. ROC (except those added by SchmuckyTheCat just now), for what pages are linked to it. Thank you.
 * Please also note that the polls there are enforcement of the naming conventions. &mdash; Instantnood 21:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Disclaimer

I first suggested to proceed to have a poll as a solution on March 10 at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/archive4, and there was no objection. More than two weeks later on March 26 I suggested to have polls on a case-by-case basis (at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV). A link was added at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)/NPOV to direct readers to the polling page on March 31, at the time when the polling page was created.

SchmuckyTheCat is wrong for accusing me for starting the polls with no page linked to it, that it might resulted in onesided and lack of publicity. Please note this is an accusation, though I am pretty sure opinion wouldn't be affected easily. &mdash; Instantnood 06:41, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Disclaimer Instantnood is running the same poll again that you see so many people shot him down with at the top. Tell me what the motivation of that is. Vote until you get your way? Vote until you can muster enough support from buddies? Stop trying to implement something that so many people disagree with.--160.39.195.88 23:09, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am afraid 160.39.195.88 failed in understanding the meaning of the poll at the naming conventions talk page, and the previous poll on WP:RM (archived above). Could 160.39.195.88 please tell us in what way the WP:RM poll addressed the application of the NPOV section of the naming conventions? &mdash; Instantnood 14:32, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * the same way this phrase that you wrote in the heading of that poll addresses it: "this request is to make the titles of these articles to conform with...". what? SchmuckyTheCat 14:46, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Double Jeopardy Policy on votes
This article has been voted before. I belive that there should be a limit on initiating similiar kind of votes for the sake of everybody's time and energy. Thus, I have posted a Double Jeopardy on votes discussion to see if we can come up something to curtail this type of frivolous votes in the future. Please kindly spend some time and participate in that discussion if you have any suggestion and opinion on in this regard. Best regards. --Mababa 00:03, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Need More Detail on Technological Sector
I am interested in the technological sector of the economy. It is only mentioned in the first paragraph. Can somebody write a few things about it? What do these companies make? Where are they concentrated?--Hillgentleman 09:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Right, huge companies should be mentioned (e.g. HTC that's all over the press with their new Facebook phone). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.153.230.50 (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Economy of Taiwan
Why is this article moved back to Economy of the ROC? I thought there was a discussion up there that says that we shouldn't move it.--Jerrypp772000 00:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That debate is almost two years old.


 * I personally think this article belongs at Economy of the ROC since every other article in the series follows that format except for Demographics which I also think should be moved. So I propose we run the poll again.  --Ideogram 16:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This poll is obsolete. Please participate in the debate linked to below.  Ideogram 04:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Let us centralize the full debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China. --Ideogram 17:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be moved. John Smith&#39;s 17:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it should not be moved. I don't see why it should be kept under the current title. Passer-by (talk) 16:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

GDP measures
Out of curiosity, why are Taiwan's primary economic statistics given with the exception of GDP at official exchange rates? Though PPP valuations have their place, exchange rate GDP is a standard, valuable measure, particularly for the comparison of similarly developed economies on a global scale, and most particularly when an economy is so dependent on trade where exchange rates rather matter. Sandreckoner (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Move proposal: Economy of Taiwan -> Economy of Republic of China

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is this article not reflecting the state's name? What about the Pescadores? Kinmen? Matsu? As per Naming_conventions_%28Chinese%29 this has to do with the state, NOT the geographical place. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The economy is tied more closely to the place than to the state. When the ROC left China for Taiwan, they didn't bring the economy with them.  An article on the economy of the ROC would be an odd creature as it would describe the economy of one country prior to 1945 and the economy of another country after 1949 even though the two economies are not linked.


 * But you do bring up a valid issue of the other islands that are part of the nation commonly called "Taiwan" and formally known as the "Republic of China".


 * I see two potential solutions:


 * As it currently stands, this article only talks about the post-1945 economy, after Taiwan had been occupied by the ROC. If the article remains this way, it would be logical to call it "Economy of Republic of China (Taiwan)".  "Economy of Taiwan" should redirect to "Economy of Republic of China (Taiwan)" since people looking for the economy of Taiwan will be using "Taiwan" as the common name for the Republic of China (Taiwan).
 * It would be normal for some future editor to want to add information about the history of the economy. What did Taiwan and the other islands do economically before the ROC took over?  To allow this, we could use a more unwieldly but more accurate name like "Economy of Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, and the Pescadores".  No one would search for it by name, but searches for "Economy of Taiwan", "Economy of Repulic of China" and "Economy of Republic of China (Taiwan)" would redirect to it.
 * A few quick checks of other countries (Ireland, Germany, France) suggests that he "Economy of NNN" article usually sticks to either current economy or economy of current state. For history, an article like "Economic History of NNN" is used.  Following that pattern, we would have "Economy of Republic of China (Taiwan)" and potentially "Economic History of Taiwan"Readin (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I read the long debate from a few years ago on the merits of moving the article. I think Jiang was right to say that the economy is tied to the place, not the state. Based on that, even "Economy of Republic of China (Taiwan)" might violate naming conventions because we're only supposed to use ROC in political contexts.

However, another editor mentioned that Taiwan participates in the WTO as "Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu". This seems to give a some "verfiability" weight to making the article about the "Economy of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu". This should cover all the locations (it was good enough for the WTO) and it should be clear that the economy is for the places, not for the traveling government.Readin (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If economy is to be tied to place then I am okay with that title as long as all parts of the ROC are accounted for. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I already created Economic history of Taiwan, and as you can see in that article, Taiwan has an economic history separated from the state of the ROC.-- Jerrch 15:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerrch, it looks to me like WhisperToMe is ok with Economy of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu. What's your opinion?Readin (talk) 21:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that a joke?-- Jerrch 21:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose and oppose Readin's amendment. This article says nothing about Quemoy and Matsu (sensibly, since there's not much to say about the economy of a military base). Elaborate titles for the sake of making political points come under WP:Official name; we're against it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was

Which economy are we talking about here?
The names used in this article is so confusing. Are we trying to talk about the economy of the Taiwan area of the Republic of China ("中華民國台灣地區") or the economy of the ROC as a whole (including all claimed areas)? I see throughout this article the names, ROC (Taiwan) and Taiwan being used interchangeably. The article is most confusing when it says:-

"First, two million Kuomintang supporters fled to the island in 1949, establishing the small island of less than 20 million as the country of the Republic of China (Taiwan)."

KMT never established a country on the island of Taiwan. KMT simply just relocated its central ROC government to the island then rezoned ROC into 2 parts: the free area (which is also called as the "Taiwan area" in some legislation) and the mainland area.

Given this article is likely just talking about the economy of the Taiwan area of the ROC, can we just call it "Taiwan"? If someone is interested in writing up an article for the whole ROC, then he or she should do that. Similarly, I trust that the PRC would commonly include Taiwan's economy into their statistics too.--Pyl (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Taiwan" the name of an island, but "Taiwan" is also the common name for the post-1949 Republic of China and the territory it governs. Wiki naming conventions state that ROC should be used when talking about the state, but not when talking about the area governed by that state to avoid taking sides in the territorial dispute between the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China.  The article is about the economy which is mostly independent of the state.  The state gets involved, but most decisions are made privately and heavily influenced by things like geography and available natural resources.  You can try to clean up the article to have it say "Taiwan" when not talking about the state and "Republic of China" when talking about the state.  We always need to be careful about that in Taiwan-related articles.  It's not easy to do since we are so accustomed when dealing with other countries to use the the country and state names interchangeably.  The claims made by Chinese, both PRC and ROC, have really made NPOV difficult. Readin (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Economist article
I would like to work this information into the article (or someone else can if they get to it first). "Taiwan is now the home of many of the world’s largest makers of computers and associated hardware. Its firms produce more than 50% of all chips, nearly 70% of computer displays and more than 90% of all portable computers." It's from an article in the Economist: IT in Taiwan and China: Hybrid vigour. It's good when we can include numbers backed up by a reliable source. Readin (talk) 07:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Article overhaul
I'm planning an overhaul of the article, since it is missing quite a few important sections. I'm looking to create/expand on sections covering:

Major sections:
 * Electronics/Information Technology - DONE (12/25/2010)
 * Semiconductors - DONE (01/19/2011)
 * LCDs
 * Science and Industrial Parks (expand) - DONE (01/17/2011)
 * Textiles
 * Petrochemicals
 * Finance
 * Transportation/Shipping

Minor sections/Subsections:
 * Tourism
 * Biotechnology/Pharmaceuticals
 * Agriculture - DONE (12/25/2010)
 * Energy - add summary - DONE (12/25/2010)
 * Investment
 * Defense

Of course, this is just an outline, and it will take some time. Many of these were taken from an overall outline here:, but of course, other sources will be needed. I'm worried about how to organize this, so that it doesn't just drag out the article with many sections. Perhaps the sections used in the linked outline (Trade, Industry, Transportation, etc.) would work. Side projects will include improving sub-articles (e.g. Economic history of Taiwan, Energy in Taiwan, and Taiwan Miracle). Thoughts? -Multivariable (talk) 22:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content
It has been proposed that several pieces of content be removed from the page on the basis that the article only covers the island of Taiwan, rather than the state that governs it (i.e. relevant economic data such as the Ease of Doing Business Index, Gini coefficient, unemployment rate, gold reserves, and even CIA sources are proposed to be removed). As far as I know, "Economy of ___" articles do not solely cover single land masses (e.g. Economy of Singapore, Economy of Hong Kong), unless they're continents (e.g. Economy of Europe). Instead, it's based on governments and common naming (WP:UCN), as evidenced by all the page move discussions on this talk page. My question is: if the data is to be removed, then what does the removed data cover and where would it go instead? Other info, including 2010 economic data, is proposed to be removed as well. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * All data I removed are those gathered from sources regarding the ROC as a whole, not exclusively Taiwan. Naming Conventions specifically states to use Taiwan only for those articles exclusively talking about Taiwan, therefore data regarding the Republic of China as a whole does not register here unless you specifically state that those statistics are of the Republic of China, not just Taiwan.  If the data removed is to go anywhere at all, it should be on regarding the ROC, not Taiwan.  The article link you provided does indeed talk about the ROC, not exclusively Taiwan.  They cite the Ministry of Finance as their source of statistics, of who's website I visited to confirm their numbers, and what I found was that the numbers used by the article are regarding the ROC as a whole, therefore the 'Taiwan' referred in the said article is in actually referring to the ROC itself and not exclusively Taiwan.
 * These are all of the edits I have done so far, I've only got through verifying 7 of the sourced references. If you look closely to my edits again, I have only removed the statistics provided by the references.  Information possibly derived from the said references I did not remove (eg. most buisnesses in Taiwan being small or medium in size).  I will temporarily halt my verifications and removals until we can reach an agreement on whether or not this article is of Taiwan or the ROC.  If it is the ROC, the article should be renamed and edited to as such.  If it is of Taiwan, then all statistics that does not apply exclusively to Taiwan will be removed or labeled as such.  Liu Tao (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the definition of 'Taiwan' I used in my verification is defined as the combined territories of Taiwan Province, Taipei, Khaosiung, Tainan, Taichung, and Xinbei, so therefor it does not only refer to the Taiwan Island. Liu Tao (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can see where you're coming from, and it seems from the page move discussions that there was not a consensus either way on whether this article was for the island or the state. A question though, as far as I know, the government usually doesn't release separate data sets for Taiwan and the surrounding islands (except for population). What are the best ways of getting data that pertain specifically to the island, or do you prefer to just remove data that is clearly not only about it? Would a note by the data indicating that it refers to the entire ROC suffice (i.e. saying that only data for the entire ROC area is available)?
 * Also, isn't Taiwan (island) made up (geographically) of just Taiwan Province + the municipalities? Do you think it's necessary to define that in the context of the article, or do you think it's a given?
 * And since this article seems to be about the island, should another article be created for the ROC (with a subsection leading to this page)? Or would a subsection (on this page) covering the other parts of the ROC be used instead? Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You can do that, say that the number/statistic refers to the ROC as a whole, but what you can NOT do is just leave it as if it refers only to Taiwan. It's either that or don't include the statistics at all, be ambiguous about the numbers and the sources; of course then you'd have unbacked statements which does not look good in any kind of article.  I mean, if you look at it this way, the 'General Taiwan Area' composes of over 99% of the ROC's territory, chances are your 'ambiguous' statements are going to be true; that's why I didn't remove certain statements and assumptions made from the statistics, instead I just removed the numbers backing the statements.
 * As for the definition of 'Taiwan', the definition I provided is the largest you could use, everything but Kinmen Matsu, you can have other defs of just the island or province, but the def I provided is the 'General Taiwan Area' where everything is undisputably 'Taiwan'. Kinmen Matsu are almost never included in the 'Taiwan Definitions', and NPOV strictly forbids the inclusion of Kinmen Matsu in any Taiwan definition.
 * Another article can indeed be created for the ROC economy as a whole, it seems that many people would not be against it. However, I can also see another anti-front coming in against a new article, with the assertion that these two articles would be virtually identical unless it is a 'general article' subsectioning and linking this topic as you suggested.  Of course, we'd get major repercussions for doing this, but in the end we will end up with a Economy of the Republic of China article.  We've got GDP, unemployment rates, gini, everything that's needed to create an economy article, there's no reason this article can't be created, problem is that we're going to have a lot of deletion or merge requests before we can fully mature the article.  Many people don't it being worth the trouble making the article.
 * And BTW, I did similar things with the Transportation in Taiwan article, but the edits were minor compared to this (I removed ports and airports in Kinmen and Matsu as listed in the article). Liu Tao (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine, I was a little confused because I had done quite a bit of editing on this article recently, and was under a different impression for what the article was covering. Some of the numbers you removed used to have tags on them, to which I added numbers to; hence the reason I was wary of the changes. Leaving them as ambiguous statements, of course, just invites a  happy person to come through and have a field day, even when the info is/has been cited.
 * The problems with the merging/deletions will just end up diluting/duplicating much of the material, when other articles have them consolidated. It would end up being two very similar articles covering slightly different topics. I feel like a lot of the key differences can just be covered in the subsection in the Republic of China article, with this article linked for more info.
 * Yes, I noticed your edits on the Transportation in Taiwan article, too, and that was fine since the article clearly refers only to the island. I've gone ahead and restored your edits. This page still needs lots of work, and as you can see above I've laid out some sections I'll probably start working on again. I'll be sure to keep this in mind when editing. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 11:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I know, I have noticed your work as well and you have done a lot of work involving these infrastructure articles, that's why I don't want to remove half the work you've done all in a go. So do we have a go on a Economy of the Republic of China article?  What I can try is to make it resemble as 'little as possible' by trying to not going into too much detail.  Give it another year or two we can fully mature the article.  I don't want all of the data I removed all go to waste.  Liu Tao (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been racking my brain about how to do this if we were to make a separate ROC article, and I feel like it would need to have a greater focus on the pre-1949 economy in order to differentiate it from the current article (a lot of which would probably be based off of Economic history of modern China), with a section and link to this article; essentially, the main content for a ROC article is already split over two other articles. Frankly, I'm just surprised there hasn't been one created, especially since a ROC article would cover more info. What are your thoughts? -Multivariable (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Pre-1949 economy would go into a history subsection. This (Economy of Taiwan) article would be sublinked as 'further information' somewhere in the article.  I mean, the article will be on the ROC economy in general, the GDP, unemployment rates all have to go somewhere.  Of course, I won't deny that the article will overlap with the Taiwan article, but it's something to be expected and will be corrected over time.  Liu Tao (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Given that most of the ROC's current territory consists of Taiwan, and given that finding current data that only covers Taiwan, we should include statistics for the entire ROC where such information for only Taiwan is not readily available. If we need to note or footnote that the information is for the ROC, then we should do so.  But I do wonder if the article on the economy of Australia makes notes about data that includes Tasmania (Tasmania being an island close to Australia, but ruled by the Commonwealth of Australia).  Readin (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with that, even if there had to be a footnote or phrasing (e.g. "the ROC economy", "the local economy", "the government", etc.) to emphasize that it is for the entire ROC and Taiwan represents a large majority of its area/population. We did discuss above about creating a separate article, but I guess as of now, I'm more interested in making the current article better (it still needs lots of work). Once that's done, I'm all for splitting stuff up into appropriate articles, if necessary. -Multivariable (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a fine line between Autralian Economy and the ROC economic figures. Tasmania is effectively under Australian jurisdiction, therefore to include Tasmania in their figures is not incorrect.  However, this article speaks specifically of Taiwan economy, not the ROC economy as a whole; if you want to include RoC figures, you must specifically state that the numbers are of the RoC as a whole.  Liu Tao (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The article on the economic history of "Australia" actually goes back to a time before the Commonwealth of Australia included Tasmania. That is, "Australia" is not synonymous with the "Commonwealth of Australia".  One is a place with a distinct history.  The other is a state - a government.  But today the two are so close in size and scope that it is not considered a problem.   Similarly, today Taiwan and the ROC are nearly identical in size and scope.  Using statistics from one to provide information about the other should not be a problem.  A footnote would be fine, but the information doesn't need to be completely removed.  If the ROC had started in Taiwan rather than coming to Taiwan as a foreign government, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  Readin (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've already said, if you want to use RoC statistics, you must refer to it as such. The RoC is not only confined to Taiwan, to use unexlplained RoC statistics would be to say that those statistics are of Taiwan, not he RoC as a whole; if you don't then it's called data fraud.  The article on Australia covers Australia and its preceding colonies collectively known as 'Australia'.  The region was known as 'Australia' since before the Commonwealth was formed.  I don't bloody care where the RoC was established, this article is exclusively on Taiwanese Economy, if you want to use RoC figures you must state that it is of the RoC.  Liu Tao (talk) 07:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agriculture as "backbone" of the economy?
"Taiwan's agricultural industry which served as the backbone for its economic miracle."

not quite plausible

138.251.14.34 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

External link to tariff data
Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC490%7cTaipei%2c+Chinese&source=1|ITC Market Access Map) that leads directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by Taiwan. Visitors can easily look up market access information for Taiwan by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 08:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Economy of Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110421035236/http://www.winklerpartners.com:80/a/comment/taiwanese-investment-in-china.php to http://www.winklerpartners.com/a/comment/taiwanese-investment-in-china.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Economy of Taiwan
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Economy of Taiwan's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "auto": From Economy of the United Arab Emirates:  From Nuclear power in Taiwan:  From Kuomintang:  From Economy of Malaysia:  </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Weasel words
"To conclude, facing the Market failure from Externality, the Taiwan government needs well-thought industrial policy[55][56][57] urgently to adapt to the new economic landscape, and as an island economy with lack of natural resources and comparatively lower domestic aggregate demand, Taiwan's highly educated human resources [58] would contribute greatly to Value added Innovation management [59][60][61][62] for expanding Taiwan's international trade."

Aside from the poor grammar, I believe this has several weasel words or non-neutral POV words here (who can say what Taiwan "needs"?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.176.151 (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Removed, see difference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Economy_of_Taiwan&type=revision&diff=788833374&oldid=788366680 184.75.115.98 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The removed section has been re-added. It reads like the conclusion of an undergraduate business paper, not an encyclopedia; it is argumentative, speculative, and normative, not neutral. Apex Editor (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economy of Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061215030951/http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/taiwan.html to http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/taiwan.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090221012203/http://www.cepd.gov.tw/ to http://www.cepd.gov.tw/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Labor Policy
I am planning to include a new section about labor policies in Taiwan, including but not limited to employment protection policies and labor market policies. I believe labor policy is crucial to the analysis of economic structure. --Diy014 (talk) 06:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have added a new section of "Labor Policies" including three paragraphs: Union Policies, Employment Protection, and Active Labor Market Policies. I think labor policies are crucial to the analysis of the political economy of Taiwan. I would appreciate your advices and suggestions, and feel free to ask me if you have any questions! -Diy014 (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Economy of Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HpTAhInX?url=http://www.find.org.tw/eng/home.asp to http://www.find.org.tw/eng/home.asp
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HpTBZHcx?url=http://web.iii.org.tw/Achievement/recognition to http://web.iii.org.tw/Achievement/recognition
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HpXsEKm7?url=http://www.moea.gov.tw/Mns/english/content/ContentLink2.aspx?menu_id=213 to http://www.moea.gov.tw/Mns/english/content/ContentLink2.aspx?menu_id=213
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130722202415/http://www.apeccp.org.tw/doc/APEC-OECD/2006-11/2006ChecklistReport.pdf to http://www.apeccp.org.tw/doc/APEC-OECD/2006-11/2006ChecklistReport.pdf
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HpY1JVBe?url=http://www.culture.tw/index.php?option=com_content to http://www.culture.tw/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2391&Itemid=157
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HmMUSE4A?url=http://2k3dmz2.moea.gov.tw/gnweb/htmNotFoundPage.htm?aspxerrorpath=%2Fgnweb%2FIndicator%2FwHandIndicator_File.ashx to http://2k3dmz2.moea.gov.tw/gnweb/Indicator/wHandIndicator_File.ashx?type=pdf&report_code=FB03
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6HmMVDG5W?url=http://2k3dmz2.moea.gov.tw/gnweb/htmNotFoundPage.htm?aspxerrorpath=%2Fgnweb%2FIndicator%2FwHandIndicator_File.ashx to http://2k3dmz2.moea.gov.tw/gnweb/Indicator/wHandIndicator_File.ashx?type=pdf&report_code=FB02
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100202032138/http://www.taiwan.com.au/Polieco/History/ROC/report04.html to http://www.taiwan.com.au/Polieco/History/ROC/report04.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924023724/http://www.ey.gov.tw/en/cp.aspx?n=30F733C2E2070422 to http://www.ey.gov.tw/en/cp.aspx?n=30F733C2E2070422
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20051211064650/http://140.111.1.22/moecc/rs/pkg/tedcold/tedc2.htm to http://140.111.1.22/moecc/rs/pkg/tedcold/tedc2.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714060425/http://tea.econ.sinica.edu.tw/ to http://tea.econ.sinica.edu.tw/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Taipei skyline cityscape at night with full moon.jpg

Regarding the use of Mainland China
If we google "Mainland China", we can get 218,000,000 results and it's really an indication that English speakers are not so unfamiliar with the term as you had expected. And it's really tricky to say "Taiwan and China" since the official name of Taiwan is actually Republic of China and that one-China priciple is a widely-accepted policy. --HypVol (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid "per previous" is not a valid argument. And accessibility is definitely not affected simply by using the correct term. --HypVol (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A term existing on google does not mean it is widely understood. As for the second part, "Taiwan and China" also appears in google. CMD (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You may have misinterpreted WP:ACCESSIBILITY which basically says Wikipedia pages should be easy to navigate and read for people with disabilities. By no means Wikipedia has banned the use of appropriate and precise terms. --HypVol (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * By comparison, we have MOS:NC-CN clearly stating The term "mainland China"...it should only be used when a contrast is needed. --HypVol (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't cite the guideline, I was referring to the principle. MOS:JARGON runs along the theme I was referring to. As for MOS:NC-CN, it makes it quite clear in the quote you provide that use should be rare, and the bulleted list in question is not one that needs the term, nor a situation that I have seen many external sources use the term for. CMD (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mainland China is a jargon? I don't agree with the calling. The expression "Taiwan and mainland China" is quite common and I don't see how mainland China here is being viewed as a "jargon". As for MOS:NC-CN, please look at the context: Because of the ambiguity of the term, it should only be used when a contrast is needed and when a simpler construction such as "China, except Hong Kong" is unworkable.. In this case, the conditions are appparently satisfied. The original article said Taiwan's Main export partners include China and Hong Kong and that Taiwan's Main import partners include China. If you would insist that the use of mainaland China here is a "jargon", we may have to resort to a RfC. --HypVol (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Three external sources here: US government: Mainland China is Taiwan’s largest trading partner, accounting for 23.9 percent of total trade and 18.6 percent of Taiwan’s imports in 2018.; Statista: Mainland China is Taiwan's largest export partner.; South China Morning Post: The mainland is Taiwan's largest trading partner – ahead of the US. --HypVol (talk) 14:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's jargon. It's a specific political term that has a very unintuitive meaning. While I am not familiar with the discussions creating NC-CN, that is presumably why it notes the term as ambiguous. Bulleted lists are one place it should definitely be avoided, as it's not contrasted with anything else. CMD (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Bulleted lists are one place it should definitely be avoided: Would you mind explaining why? HypVol (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And even if mainland China is a "jargon", WP:TECHNICAL says Use jargon and acronyms judiciously instead of banning the use of "jargons".--HypVol (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A bullet in a list has no context, unlike the sentences given as examples in NC-CN which had the direct contrasts in the same sentence. Use across all economic lists is unjudicious. CMD (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A bullet in a list has no context: No, the biggest context is the article's name itself Economy of Taiwan. The trading partners here are Taiwan's trading partners. --HypVol (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no issue there, it's easily understood by readers. CMD (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * And it's also important to tell readers that Taiwan's biggest trading partner is Mainland China, not China. It's not the same thing. Even Taiwan's government agrees that Mainland China is Taiwan's largest export market, largest source of imports. (per Bureau of Foreign Trade). --HypVol (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not written to reflect the diplomatic conventions of the one-china policy, but to reflect common English usage. Hence the current article titles of China and Taiwan. CMD (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It's becoming off-topic. Back to the original discussion, the use of Mainland China here is by no means far less understandable term to most readers. But rather it's totally legitimate per MOS:NC-CN. --HypVol (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

And shall we move the thread to Talk:Economy of Taiwan to request for a possible third-party opinion? --HypVol (talk) 16:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure what the connection between supposed legitimacy and understandability is, but you are welcome to begin discussion at an appropriate venue. CMD (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will attempt to start a RfC as it's unlikely that we two can reach a consensus. --HypVol (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)