Talk:Taiwan (island)/Archive 7

Christianity?
On the Taiwanese Aborigines page, it states that roughly 70% of Taiwanese Aborigines are Christian while on this page it says over 64% are. Which one should be changed? Eugeniu B (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It's quite likely that the two are quoting different sources. Why don't you do some research...? Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 02:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I just looked. Both quotes are from Stainton. The one on this page is the older one (2004), and says over 64%; the newer one (2006) says about 70%. I don't think Stainton provides sources for these figures, but I'd bet they're from government statistics somewhere. Ling.Nut (WP:3IAR) 02:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, this article lists LDS (Mormons) as a subdivision of Christianity, along with Protestants and Catholics. This is a gross miscalculation, as Mormonism is clearly a separate religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.66.224 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for new Taiwanese Wikipedia
Please leave comments at.

122.109.171.138 (talk) 04:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

southern min includers fujian, which aint part of taiwan..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.72.153 (talk) 20:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

"Mainlanders" unclear
Since Taiwan is oommonly used to refer to Taiwan island and other islands ruled by the same government, the term "Mainlander" can be very unclear to an English speaker unfamiliar with Taiwan's history of colonization. The logical assumption is that "mainland" refers to mainland Taiwan, as opposed the Pescadores, Orchid Island, Turtle Island, etc.. The point made by Pyl that "mainland Chinese" can be confused with people who came from China at times other than the 1949 wave may be valid, and if so we need to somehow clarify what is meant by "Mainlanders". Any suggestions? Perhaps a parenthetic note saying "from mainland China"? Readin (talk) 05:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In Chinese, they are called the "Extraprovincial people (外省人)". They really aren't called "mainlanders (大陸人)" anyway. "Mainlander" is a term that the Taiwanese currently use to describe the people in mainland China. "Chinese (中國人)" is also used, but it is used much less frequently because there are people in Taiwan who identify themselves as Chinese as well. "Mainland Chinese (中國大陸人)" is not a common term in Taiwan, and when it is used it means the people who are currently in mainland China.


 * There is no such thing as mainland Taiwan. Such an assumption is an obvious erroneous assumption, and this possibility can be discounted as being marginal. Taiwan is an island. There is nothing "mainland" about it. If people want to make a distinction in Taiwan, they say "Taiwan the main island (台灣本島)".


 * I don't think we need to over-analyse this issue. Since these people are commonly known in English as "mainlanders", we should just leave it. Readers who want to find out more about it can click on the link for further information (there is a full article about it). Otherwise I think we should do a direct translation and do "Extraprovincial people" to reflect the real usage in Taiwan.--pyl (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think "Extraprovincial people" should be used instead of Mainlander, may be in Australia, but using Mainlanders in English referring to "Extraprovincial people" in Taiwan is very uncommon here in Canada, also not in where I lived in the States and UK as far as I know. I don't think there is going to be a statistics made on this, but if you talk to anyone who does not have a sufficient knowledge of Taiwan, they would not have guessed the right meaning by your definition. Even among the Chinese community here. When speaking English, we definitely don't use Mainlanders this word along to refer to any one currently lives in Taiwan. This word is very inaccurate here. I think this reason along should be enough to make it changed to "Extraprovincial people". Chadsnook (talk) 09:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Need POJ
Need POJ reading at Sean Lien. Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Need POJ
Also need POJ for 鸭母哒仔 and 鴨母笛 at Guan (instrument). Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

culture and separation
''Since the Taiwan localization movement of the 1990s, Taiwan's cultural identity has been allowed greater expression. Identity politics, along with the over one hundred years of political separation from mainland China has led to distinct traditions in many areas, including cuisine, opera, and music.''

Since 1895, Taiwan has been ruled separately from China for 108 of 113 years. Please do not change "over one hundred" to "fifty" as the latter is less accurate and less useful in explaining the cultural differences. Readin (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I earlier changed on the page Taiwan, in the culture section, "over one hundred years of political separation from mainland China has led to distinct traditions in many areas" to fifty years. I realize I made a mistake there. I thought the original sentence said separation from China, so that would be from 1895 to 1945, which is fifty years. If it's separation from mainland China, then it is over 100 years. Sorry about that. Chadsnook (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

EXPLAIN TO ME Y MAINLANDERS ARE AN ETHNIC GROUP...
Please...Gumuhua (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * They are a ethnic group consisting of people from China. This ethnic group is more heterogenous than most, but it is an ethnic group. You are right that it is more than that.  It is also a group defined by actions taken in the past.  This is not unlike the "hispanic" ethnic group in the United States that is neither a single culture or a single race, but is defined as much by culture and race as it is by immigration from areas to the south of the United States.  Readin (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is incorrect to say the term "mainlander" is as much a socio-political distinction as an ethnic group. Yes, they are a group consisting of people from China, but not a single ethnic group. It is true the majority are Han Chinese, however, there are also people from other ethnic groups, including Mongolian, Manchurian, Hui etc... Check the definition of ethnic group. Since these Han Chinese, Mongolian, Manchurian and a lot of other people from mainland do not identify with each other on a presumed or real common heritage and do not share a common culture, they cannot be called an ethnic group.
 * It is also very different from the 'Hispanic and Latino' ethnicity issue in the US, categorizing 'Hispanic and Latino Americans' is a much more complicated method and is not a equivalent of categorizing Mainlanders. Check Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, You definitely do not categorizing immigrants from one area as an ethnic group. For example, you do not categorize "White Americans" as an ethnic group, even though their ancestors are all immigrants from Europe. Same thing goes for Asian Americans and Black Americans whose ancestors all come from Asia and Africa respectively. In the US Census, people who originate from the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia and the Indian Subcontinent are classified as part of the Asian race. But you can not call them an ethnic group of Asians. They are of Asian race made up of different ethnic groups of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Malaysian, Tibetan, Mongolian, Indian, Pakistan, etc...
 * As you can see here, ethnic groups are included in different race groups. Since Hispanics are a mix of different groups of culture and race, 'Hispanic and Latino' are the main terms employed to categorize any person, of any racial or ETHNIC background, who is of Hispanic American or Spanish origin or descent. That is why The Federal government of the United States has mandated that "in data collection and presentation, federal agencies are required to use a minimum of two ethnicities: "Hispanic or Latino" and "Not Hispanic or Latino."" Then within both groups, you are identified as White, Black, Asian, American Native, etc... Within each of these groups, you are then identified as individual ethnic groups of English, Scottish, German, French, Russian, Chinese,Hmong, Asian Indians, Thais, Greek, etc... You see, Race is on top of ethnic groups who are of the same culture, and "Hispanic and Latino" or "Not Hispanic or Latino" is on top of Race and include all races with a Hispanic heritage, these races then further more includes all ethnic groups with a Hispanic heritage. There is a difference of inclusiveness and exclusiveness between the relationship of Hispanic with other American ethnic groups and Mainlanders with other Taiwanese ethnic groups. That is where I think you got confused. Whatever ethnic groups you can find in non-Hispanic group, it's possible to find it in the Hispanic group, even though the number might be small. eg. Non-Hispanic Japanese American vs Hispanic Japanese American, Non-Hispanic Native Americans vs Hispanic Native Americans. A Caiapó from Brazil moved to the US would be considered a Hispanic Native American. But she is also a Native American. She would be considered an ethnic of Native American of Hispanic heritage. In this case, Hispanic and any other ethnic groups within the USA are not equivalent and not exclusive. This is irrelevant in the case of Taiwan by your definition of ethnic Mainlanders, ethnic groups you can find within non-Mainlanders can be impossible to find in the Mainlander groups. eg. Taiwanese aborigines can be found among non-Mainlanders, but most, if not all can not be found among Mainlanders. A person can not be a mainlander and an Taiwanese aborigines at the same time, of course unless she or he is mixed of both.
 * To make it simple, you can be a Hispanic (immigrant from Latin America of any ethnic background) and at the same time be an ethnic of any other ethnic groups in the US. However, by your definition, you can be an ethnic of Mainlander (immigrant from Mainland of any ethnic background), but you can NOT be some ethnic groups in Taiwan (Taiwanese aborigines). This shows that using the method to define "Hispanic and Latinos" as an ethnic group as equivalent of defining Mainlanders as an ethnic group is insufficient, because there are fundamental differences.
 * I definitely agree to include Mainlanders as a distinguish group of people in the Demographic of Taiwan, But your statement of The term "mainlander" is AS MUCH a socio-political distinction AS an ethnic group is incorrect, and the citation you provided is only your own claim, not a reference to support your claim. Chadsnook (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello there: what I adde reads: the term "mainlander" is not an ethnic group per se (it is more a socio-political distinction): it includes the people that migrated to Taiwan after the KMT relocated its government to the island in 1949.

I don't consider mailanders an ethnic group at all, it is a socio-political distinction: hui chinese were among those who fled the mainland to Taiwan, and if u go to Nangang, u can see some of their tombs, with scripts in both chinese and arabic. "but not a single ethnic group", of course not, thats y I dennny that mainlanders form "an ethnic group"...

I dont understand y we should classify some kejia mainlanders under the "mainlanders" label, and not into the kejia (hakka) ethnic group... Please explain to me y those kejiaren should be labelled as mainlanders, when their mother tongue is kewen, not mandarin. Please, explain to me y those fujianese who fled the mainland in 1949 (their mother tonge is not mandarin either) should be labelled as mainlanders, and not fujianese (they speak minnan, the mother tongue of most of the residents of taiwan)...

Yes: a "mainlander" can be both mainlander and fujianese, or mainlander and kejiaren (hakka), or mainlander and hui. Kejiaren and Hui are ethnic groups, mainlanders are not. Gumuhua (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who added "extraprovincial people", but thats the literal translation from the chinese text (waisheng ren) Gumuhua (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you were responding to my comments. I have the same understanding with you on this issue, that, Mainlander are not an ethnic group, it is a socio-political distinction. I was arguing against the previous editing that "mainlander" is as much a socio-political distinction as an ethnic group. In terms of classifying Hakka and Fujianese who fled to Taiwan around 1949, I think they should be considered both mainlander and Hakka and mainlander and Fujianese respectively. If you were referring to my comment, However, by your definition, you can be an ethnic of Mainlander (immigrant from Mainland of any ethnic background), but you can NOT be some ethnic groups in Taiwan (Taiwanese aborigines)., I think I should add "of the" after some, so it should be some of the ethnic groups in Taiwan (Taiwanese aborigines). This was just meant to point out it is wrong to conclude classifying mainlanders as an ethnic group is NOT unlike Hispanics in the US (check above). The Uncritical ethnic labeling of Hispanic means you can be a Hispanic and at the same time be of any ethnic group in the US. That is why classifying mainlander as an ethnic group is unlike Hispanic in the US. Because you can not be a mainlander and at the same time be a member of some of the ethic groups in Taiwan (eg. you can not be a mainlander and Taiwanese aborigines at the same time (of course, unless you are mixed). Chadsnook (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I changed mainlander in the ethnic group to "extraprovincial people", but did not change it in the demographic of Taiwan. If you were talking about where I changed it, I listed my reasons in the "mainlander" unclear session on this page. Chadsnook (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol Chadsnook, I read ur long and explanatory answer, and I did understand it, obviously, we both agree... what I wrote was kinda the grounds for the change, and y mainlanders are not an ethnic group... Glad to know we both agree..

U did the change to waisheng ren? Good. Cya Gumuhua (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have access to this?
Journal	East Asia Publisher	Springer Netherlands ISSN	1096-6838 (Print) 1874-6284 (Online) Issue	Volume 24, Number 3 / September, 2007 Category	Original Article DOI	10.1007/s12140-007-9022-z Pages	269-294 SpringerLink Date	Thursday, October 04, 2007

https://commerce.metapress.com/content/d817251735u7w101/resource-secured/?target=fulltext.html&sid=gb1zrvrdtpt0pi45afevfw45&sh=www.springerlink.com

According to Google search,

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&newwindow=1&q=Taiwanese+%22view+of+Japan%22+than+%22other+Asian%22+suffer&start=10&sa=N&fp=S3dUhtJA77k

the above article contains "...but unlike in other Asian countries, a significant cross-section of Taiwanese. people hold a positive view of Japan and the Japanese." but the actual article is behind a login so I haven't been able to verify. This would provide the cite for recently deleted text. (despite the deleter's statement about his personal circle of aquaintances, the truth of the statement is well known by many others based on their experiences, but if he's going to make a case of it we need a source).

Anyone have access to a copy to check it out? Readin (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

this is totally irrelevant to the article about the island of taiwan..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.160.168 (talk) 00:42, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Only Europeans hunt deer to extintion?
Reading this otherwise interesting article, I stumble upon one (more) racist comment against Europeans.

Is it relevant in any sense to include the following in the "European settlement" section?

"The Dutch colonists also started to hunt the native Formosan Sika deer (Cervus nippon taioanus) that inhabited Taiwan, contributing to the eventual extinction of the subspecies on the island"

Is this such an important issue in the history of the island?

Moreover: Did the native people not hunt and eventually lead to the extintion of other animal species? What about the next to arrive, the Chinese? Did (do and will) Chinese people not "contribute" to the extintion of any native animal, vegetal and whatever species of the Formosa island and elsewhere?

If they do, why isn't it included in the respective section, in as relevant a place as the one in the main article for the European Settlement section?

Also, the fact that the actual article on the Dutch rule consists basically of a list of massacres against the aboriginal people, while this is almost completely a non-issue in the following articles (Chinese invasion and colonization). How many Dutch or generally speaking European people are today in Taiwan as a result of the "colonization"? And how many han people are there? How does this affect to the aboriginal population? Who did actually "contribute" more to the almost complete destruction of the native peoples and cultures of Taiwan?

I call all this racial profiling against Europeans and a total bias in favour of Han supremacism.

Out of politeness and respect for those who contribute regularly, since I'm not logged in, I will not change the contents myself, for now. I'm confident that my argument will be enough to convice the people responsible for the regular maintenance of the article to do it themselves.

Thank you,

Aisin Gioro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.217 (talk) 16:33, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Natives did hunt animals, but not as wide scale as Europeans do. You have to know that Natives don't hunt animals for sport like Europeans do, and their "success rate" is not as much either.  The Europeans are wasteful compared to Natives.  As for the Chinese, they didn't arrive in large populations until AFTER the Dutch left.  And destruction of native peoples, apparently the Dutch had done a lot of that compared to the Chinese.  The Chinese didn't "force" the natives to "change their ways" like the Dutch had done.  It wasn't until the Qing dynasty did the Han population exploded, and the prosperity and "clashes" eventually forced the Natives into the mountains, but they retained their cultures.  The Dutch wanted to "christianise" everyone on Taiwan, no matter where they are.  The Chinese brought changes like irrigation, cultivation, agriculture, etc, but they didn't try to "change" the Native's culture.  It wasn't until the Japanese took control did they try to "educate the barbarians into the civilised way".  Later in 1945 when Taiwan was given to the ROC, the KMT didn't try to "destroy culture" either, the cultural just shrank as the natives begin moving into the cities to work.  There are still Formosan villages in existence, but that's like real inland in the mountains.  Most of the people have left for the more urban and developed areas.
 * There's a reason why Taiwan was only known as a colony when it was under the Japanese and Dutch control, and a simple one too. The Chinese didn't try to "force a change" upon the Natives like the Japanese and Dutch did.  If you want to ask who "destroyed" more culture, I'd say the Japanese and Dutch.  The Chinese didn't do anything, the Natives just left their own culture and tribes for the more developed areas.  Liu Tao (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the first page of the article reference, it makes no mention of Europeans being the ultimate cause of the deer's extinction. Unless the rest of the reference clearly lays the blame on Europeans per se, the statement should be reworded pursuant to the policy on verifiability. Ngchen (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that this type of statements (deer extinction etc) really need some good reference. It seems a bit out of place.  Indeed Dutch tried to spread Christianity to aboriginal, but under Chinese, a lot of the aboriginal also got sinolized.  And it sounds like both Fujian and Dutch "colonize" Taiwan one way or the other.  They are both "uninvited" guests.  And just to put a sort of balance in this...some aboriginal people actually like Christianity and the Dutch better than the Chinese.  But I am sure you can find examples showing some aboriginals like Chinese better, I don't know.  But I think it's just better to consider them both colonizers.  Another thing I find is the material in the Dutch colony era seems to be quite lacking compare to other sections...perhaps more material shown in this section is possible?? (Twchang2005 (talk) 06:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC))

Emotional paragraph on POW camps in Taiwan

 * Taiwan played a significant part in the system of Japanese prisoner of war camps that extended across South-East Asia between 1942 and 1945.' Allied POW's, as well as 'women and children as young as seven or eight years old,' were brutally enslaved at various locations like at the copper mine northwest of Keelung, sadistically supervised by Japanese and some Taiwanese. It was found that, while the Japanese were invariably proud to give their name and rank, Taiwanese soldiers and 'hanchos' invariably concealed their names … some Taiwanese citizens … were willing participants in war crimes of various degrees of infamy … young males were to an extent highly nipponized; in fact a good proportion in the 1930s are reported to have been actively hoping for a Japanese victory in China, so they can find jobs as pro-consuls and carpet-baggers in the new Empire. One of the most tragic events of the whole Pacific war took place in Kaohsiung.  This was the bombing of the prison ship Enoura Maru in Kaohsiung harbour on January 9, 1945.' 

I pulled the above paragraph out of the article due to its obvious emotional language and subjective statements. However, rather than dump it completely, I thought should leave it here in case anyone wants to clean it up. It does contain some truths - there was at least one POW camp in Taiwan where the Allied prisoners were mistreated. Readin (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

PRC claim that Taiwan has been part of China for hundreds of years.
The PRC claim that Taiwan "has been a part of China for hundreds of years" is indeed a POV claim. First, because there is the question of when or if Taiwan really ever became "part of" China, or whether it was simply a possession or colony. And if it did become "part of China", when that occurred. Second, was it part of China for the past 110 years? What about the 50 years while it was part of Japan? What about the 60 years it has been independent of PRC China - was it part of China or was the KMT a government exiled from China? Readin (talk) 00:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Qing Dynasty ruled Taiwan from 1683 to 1895. Whether how effective Qing administrated Taiwan is up to debate, but no matter it was a possession or colony or same as other provinces, it was part of Qing, there's no doubt about that. No one dispute Taiwan was a colony of Japan for the 50 years before the end of WWII. In terms of the 60 years of ROC in Taiwan, I know you disagree with the govt of ROC being a legitimate govt over Taiwan. But the govt ruling Taiwan during this period is called the Republic of China. The original input "PRC claims Taiwan has been a part of China" easily implies "Taiwan was a part of China" is only a claim by China, the other possibility is that "Taiwan was never a part of China". This clearly would confuse a lot of people. I would be ok as long as we can clear this confusion. --Chadsnook (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Parts of Taiwan were undoubtedly ruled in part by the Qing for many years. But as you note about the 50 years of rule by Japan, "ruled by" does not equal "part of" in everyone's eyes.  You're quotes about China claiming Taiwan was part of China are incomplete.  The quote was not "Taiwan was a part of China", the quote was "Taiwan was a part of China..." with the "..." being "for hundreds of years".
 * I'm not sure how relevant it is, but since you bring it up, I don't say that the ROC is not a legitimate govt of Taiwan. Through elections it has gained legitimacy.  But it is no longer a government of China.  Rather, it is the government of Taiwan.  The name "Republic of China" no longer fits the government but instead is a misnomer left over from history much like the "United States of America" as the "states" are really just provinces now as they have lost their sovereignty.  Readin (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I know the quote was not "Taiwan was a part of China", I was just questioning the original quote "PRC claims Taiwan has been a part of China" gives the impression that it's possible that "Taiwan was never a part of China" or "ruled by China", which is contradict with the fact that Taiwan was "part of"/"ruled by" Qing, also "part of"/"ruled by" the ROC. I understand your disagreement about any of the govts of China's governing in Taiwan being illegitimate in the past. But the original quote was confusion to me and I believe it also mislead many other people. Do you like the "Taiwan had been a part of China for hundreds of years until Japanese took it over in 1895, it is currently under the administration of the Republic of China since 1945." or do you have another expression in mind? --Chadsnook (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article straying from main subject
Is it just me or am I finding that the article is talking more and more about Taiwan as a political entity then a geographical island? The article is talking about Taiwan as an island, not as a province/country or whatever. The article talks about Taiwan as a Province and sometimes as post 1949 ROC itself as well. Liu Tao (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

How was the last edit vandalism? As far as I can see, it's talking about what it's supposed to be talking about. This article is talking about the island, not the province, not the ROC, not the PRC, nothing political, just the island. Liu Tao (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The "straying" as you call it results from the attempt limit the scope of the article to a definition of "Taiwan" that is not common usage. While there is an island Taiwan, most usages of the name "Taiwan" do not refer solely to the island.  They refer to the area (country) having a shared history of rule by the ROC, Japanese, Qing, Koxinga, Dutch, etc.. This area now constitutes nearly all of the ROC, so "Taiwan" is also used as the common name for the ROC just as "France" is used as the common name for the French Republic, even though that republic rules more than just "France".
 * For political reasons, there are many who would push to say Taiwan is just an island or at best a province and nothing else. However that disagrees with nearly all usages of the term. Do a google image search on "Taiwan map" and you'll find very few maps that show just the main island. Nearly all show the Pescadores.  Some show Kinmen and Matsu.
 * Unless we are going to adopt the hardline position of Chinese Nationalism, we have accept Taiwan for what it is and what references call it (we did a source stack on the China page about a year ago and found that more references than not listed Taiwan with other "countries").
 * If I look at a travel book on "Taiwan", I'll read about Lanyu, Orchid Island and the Pescadores because in English usage, they are considered part of Taiwan, even though not part of the main island "Taiwan". Whether or not we actually use the word "country" or instead try to use a term like "region", we still need to be honest enough to recognize that people looking for information on "Taiwan" are usually not looking for information restricted to a single island. Readin (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, this article is SPECIFICALLY talking about the island Taiwan. It even says it in italics at the top of the article, "This article talks about the island Taiwan".  This article is talking about the island.  Pescadores and the Orchid Island are not part of the island, they're part of the province and in the region.  There's a separate article for the Province, and another article for the "Taiwan Area".  This article is specifically talking about the island, a geographical feature and entity.  We don't talk about the ROC politics, we don't talk about Taiwan independence, we don't talk about anything that is not directly related to the history, culture, people, and other stuff of Taiwan.  As the Taiwan Island is not a political entity, it should not talk about governments imposed upon it.  Liu Tao (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It even says it in italics at the top of the article And that is the problem.  The article should not be talking specifically about the island, because "Taiwan" is rarely used to refer specifically to one island.  We need to fix the line in italics.  Readin (talk) 13:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is talking about the island not Taiwan. There are separate articles for what "Taiwan" can mean.  I've said this multiple times, there are other articles which talk about the other meanings of "Taiwan".  There's the one for the province, the one for the area, and even one for the "claimed" province of the PRC.  There's also this thing called "disambiguation" at Taiwan_(disambiguation).  It doesn't matter if it's rarely used or not, it's how it is.  The term "Taiwan" can refer to multiple things, and this article talks about Taiwan as the island.  There's a reason why there's so many "Taiwan" articles, cause you need to separate what you're talking about, the island, the province, the proposed state, etc. etc.  Liu Tao (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So where is the article that talks about the country, the culture, the society, the community, etc.? Where is the article that talks about the common history of rule portugese, Qing, Japanese and ROC?  Why does this article talk about so much more than just the rocks and dirt?  Readin (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no country. If you're talking about the proposed state, see Republic of Taiwan. If you're talking about the culture, it's in this article like it is, or it's supposed to be.  The Community is also in this article, but remember, this article only talks within the confinements of the Taiwan island. It's supposed to be about the island, not about a political entity.  A political entity is different from a geographical feature, I'm sure you know that. We're DISAMBIGULATING the DIFFERENT USES of "Taiwan", not splitting it into multiple articles about culture, history, and all that other stuff.  This article talks about the ISLAND and the things that have to do with it.  Taiwan Island is NOT the same as Taiwan Province, Republic of Taiwan, Republic of China, ect ect.  Obviously the history, cultures, and other stuff would be a bit different, but still overlap.  But what I'm saying that Taiwan in the article is being described incorrectly.  Taiwan is being described as the ROC or the Province or the Area etc etc.  Liu Tao (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding the disambiguation hatnote, there are indeed different uses of "Taiwan". This article here is about one of them (note, I'm not taking a position on what "one" means or what meaning(s) should be discussed here). All meanings and phrases involving the word "Taiwan" can be found on the Taiwan (disambiguation) page--that's the whole point of such pages. Therefore the hatnote need only point readers to the DAB page and from there they can find whatever other meaning they might want. I don't think we need to highlight Taiwan Province as a special particular other meaning among the DAB possibilities, so
 * rather than
 * is sufficient. DMacks (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not highlight that 3rd use? As far as I know, the most common uses of "Taiwan" is used for the ROC, the Province, and Island.  In official use, "Taiwan" is the name of the island and Province.  There's is no such thing as "State of Taiwan" legally speaking.  The reason why people call the ROC Taiwan is because of the Pressure from the PRC saying that there is only One China plus the fact that the administration of the ROC is currently limited to almost but not entirely the Taiwan Province (The ROC also controls parts of the Fujian Province as well as some territorial islands).  If you're going to highlight a non-"official" view or usage of a term, then why won't you highlight those that are of "official" usage?  Liu Tao (talk) 02:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, my point is that I don't think we should highlight any use. We simply document "go to the DAB page if the meaning here isn't what you meant when you typed 'Taiwain'". The only reason to list any other hatnote links at all is if one doesn't know that an article with the word "Taiwan" isn't what one really wants at all. The explicit and only point of hatnotes and disambiguation is to help readers find what they want if it's easy to accidentally get to the wrong page by searching. It's not about promoting any agenda or party line, merely to help people who have different backgrounds and may or may not be informed about the correct meanings, nuances, or biases associated with any particular term. Write for the readers please. Historically and probably in some areas still (for better or worse), ROC was/is known as Taiwan. So it's not obvious that if that is the meaning you had in mind, you should go to the ROC page: ROC isn't listed on the Taiwan DAB page. So hmm...maybe ROC should be listed on the Taiwan DAB page because it is a possible meaning of "Taiwan", and then the only other-uses we need here is the DAB link. DMacks (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about promoting agenda or anything, I asked why would you would only state 2 of the hat notes but refuse to have the 3rd. Anyways, I am not trying to promote any particular agenda.  As I've told you, the term "Taiwan" serves 3 main uses, it can either be used to referring the ROC, the Taiwan Province, or the Island.  Those are the 3 most common usage.  You think that when people say Taiwan, they're talking almost certainly about the ROC, that's when you'll be wrong.  I have personally seen people who are trying to look up the Taiwan Province, but come to the island and thinks that's what they're looking for.  By deleting out the stuff that is not referring to the island, like the stuff about the province and the ROC like it's supposed to be, you can REDUCE the amount of confusion and mistakes like that.  People would start reading the article and see that this isn't what they're looking for, scroll up, and look at the DAB page.  There are people who never uses the term "Taiwan" to refer to the ROC, there are those who never even know "Taiwan" is used to refer as the ROC.  I didn't know Taiwan and ROC are used synonimously until I was in like 3rd grade or 4th grade.  There are people who have been brought up being differing between Taiwan and the ROC.  Maybe you should open your eyes more and write for the readers.  Not every single reader is like you or your peers.  I ADDED an additional hatnote, you DELETED the hatnote, meaning you're limiting the possible scope of the field of the usage of "Taiwan".
 * Also, Wikipedia is a source for people to research and get to know new stuff. I learn stuff from Wiki all the time, and some of the times it's because of the hatnotes used to lessen mistakes.  If you want to teach readers something, you should be teaching them what's "legally true", not something that's mainstream.  That's how rumours and misconceptions spread.  It's also partly why your English teacher teaches you Proper English, not slang.  Sure, people speaks incorrectly all the time, but does that mean that you should as well?  Do you know how hard it is for a lot of people to talk to each other simply because the terms they use are different in meanings?  There are people who just talk and talk without thinking the correct meaning of the words they use.  There are also people who makes sure the terms they're using are correct, in this case it would be the usage of "Taiwan" and "ROC".  Imagine that you're talking to someone about the "Leader of Taiwan", but you're talking about Taiwan as the ROC, but the other guy's talking about Taiwan as the Province.  You're over there talking about the National President, and he's over there talking about the Provincial Governor.  Even worse, what if you were taking a test or something?  The teacher's testing you on the "Capital of Taiwan", the answer she's looking for is Jhongsing Village but you put down Taipei because you think she's talking about the ROC, not the Province.
 * BTW, the ROC is listed on the Taiwan DAB page, check it again. Liu Tao (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. So in that case, given that we have no way to know which of the eight distinct and independently-notable meanings of "Taiwan" a reader might want if he comes here, I think a single "go to DAB page if the page here isn't right" is the only even-handed solution. You're exactly right, we should be teaching people what's correct, and communication is confusing without being clear about what a term means. And that's exactly why a DAB page exists: to present a list of similar terms, each defined and with a link to the properly-named pages. But we don't know here what the reader even wants (which meaning of something properly called "Taiwan", or something only improperly called that). All we know is that there are lots of similar possible things one might call "Taiwan" and this page here is about one in particular. Which comes back to sending everyone else to the DAB page to see a list of all meanings from which they can choose what they actually mean and quickly get to the correct name and the page specifically about it. If people speak incorrectly, we should correct them, but we have to start from what they're saying and let that guide them to the correct term (whatever that might be, which we don't know and shouldn't assume). DMacks (talk) 06:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, you got that about right. There are not really any "neutral" way to doing the hatnotes, but if I understand it correctly, hatnotes should be used for the most popular and widely used ways the term is used for.  For me, the main ones would be the island, province, and ROC.  Until we have another report from another person that one of the other definitions is also widely used (widely used as in comparable with the previous hatnotes), we can still keep the current hatnotes the same as it currently is.  If the amount of hatnotes becomes too much (3 is not a lot, believe me, I've seen hatnotes that are like 5 lines long in text), then we can just get rid of the hatnotes altogether and just leave a DAB page.  Liu Tao (talk) 11:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If I'm looking for information about society, culture, shared history, etc. (in other words, a country), why would like look at an article about geographical feature? Especially when that particular feature is limited and doesn't include all the relevant places?  So if I come to this article, and I read the hat note, I'll think, "oh, this is about the island - I'm interested in the country" and I'll look elsewhere. But it's not the ROC government I'm interested in.  Nor is it a particular administrative division.  So where should I look?  Taiwan island, Turtle Island, the Pescadores, etc. all have a very similar history and as a result many commonalities in culture, society, etc..  They form a country.  This is no POV regarding whether Taiwan is part of China.  It is possible for a country to exist within a larger country.  So where do I go to find information on this country? Readin (talk) 04:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the island has a population and the population has a culture, society, and history. Also, could you not use the term "country".  A country only denotes territory, there is no set definition of "Country".  It could be a piece of rock out there waiting to declare independence.  I can say that Penghu, Taipei, and Keelung are countries, and that'll still be technically correct.  That's why in Political Science you talk about states and not worry about countries.
 * An island has culture, history, society, etc. It's not just about the geographical features of the island.  It's the same with a province and a state.  But what needs to happen is that you are able to differentiate between the state (ROC), province/proposed state (Taiwan Province/Republic), and island (Taiwan Island-current article).  There's an article for the state Republic of China, an article for the proposed state Republic of Taiwan, an article for the Taiwan Province, an article (the article in question) Taiwan Island, and even more articles at Taiwan (disambiguation), go knock yourself out.  This article is about the island, and that includes the people on the island, the history of the island, the societies of the people on the island, etc etc.  I'm not gonna argue about POV and stuff, it'll just get ugly and controversial.  And as I've said, there's no "country".  Countries denote territory, and usually is spoken in a political aspect, meaning if you want to talk about country, it would be the Taiwan Province.  There's your country, Taiwan Province.  Want to develop?  Develop on that.  Liu Tao (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the island has a population and the population has a culture, society, and history. Also, could you not use the term "country".  A country only denotes territory, there is no set definition of "Country".  It could be a piece of rock out there waiting to declare independence.  I can say that Penghu, Taipei, and Keelung are countries, and that'll still be technically correct.  That's why in Political Science you talk about states and not worry about countries.
 * An island has culture, history, society, etc. It's not just about the geographical features of the island.  It's the same with a province and a state.  But what needs to happen is that you are able to differentiate between the state (ROC), province/proposed state (Taiwan Province/Republic), and island (Taiwan Island-current article).  There's an article for the state Republic of China, an article for the proposed state Republic of Taiwan, an article for the Taiwan Province, an article (the article in question) Taiwan Island, and even more articles at Taiwan (disambiguation), go knock yourself out.  This article is about the island, and that includes the people on the island, the history of the island, the societies of the people on the island, etc etc.  I'm not gonna argue about POV and stuff, it'll just get ugly and controversial.  And as I've said, there's no "country".  Countries denote territory, and usually is spoken in a political aspect, meaning if you want to talk about country, it would be the Taiwan Province.  There's your country, Taiwan Province.  Want to develop?  Develop on that.  Liu Tao (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Page protected
Page sysop protected due to recent content dispute. Tan  &#124;  39  16:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

biases
I've tried to reach a balance between some of the edit warriors. Before changing, please discuss here. I'll start by explaining why I've rejected certain wording:

"process of localization in which local, Taiwanese regional culture and history was promoted"
 * To see why this is biased, consider an alternative "process of localization in which Taiwanese national culture and history was promoted". Trying to emphasize a belief that Taiwan is merely a "local" part of a larger whole, or a mere region within a larger whole, is POV. There are certainly instances where the terms may apply to Taiwan, but in this case they are unnecessary and POVish. Readin (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"of the Taiwanese dialect "
 * Whether Taiwanese is a dialect or a language is much disputed. No need to say either here. Readin (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Lee's adminstration was also plagued with allegations of pro-Japanese sentiments, an issue which polarized much of Taiwanese society."
 * Needs a reliable source. Readin (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"Japanese culture from the colonial period"
 * Calling the Japanese a colonial period and not calling the Chinese rules colonial is bias POV. Both were non-native rules fitting the definition of "colonial". Readin (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"all historical facets of Chinese culture which were dilluted considerably during the fifty years of Japanese occupation"
 * needs citation. Also calling the Japanese rule an "occupation" suggests, so I've been told by those who object to calling the ROC an "occupation", illegitimacy.  It is therefor POV. Readin (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"has led to distinct regional cultural traits in many areas, including cuisine and music. "
 * Again the use of "regional" is unnecessary and appears to be a POV push. Readin (talk) 03:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

"It is disputed whether Taiwanese culture is a regional form of Chinese culture, or if it is truly distinct."
 * In this case "regional" is acceptable as it is presenting a particular POV as a POV. However the "truly" is unnecessary and appears to be an attempt to make the other side look extreme in its POV. Readin (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying celebrating Chinese New year is a "colonial" practice? Blueshirts (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Flawed democracy
It says in the article that Taiwan has evolved into a "flawed democracy" and then links to the Democracy Index, a ranking released by the Economist. While I'm a fan of the Economist, I don't think this little known term specific to their study should be applied to the article, especially without explanation. I think the article should say "a democracy with such and such issues". Any other thoughts? TastyCakes (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should be included at all, it's inrrelative to the article. As already noted, this article needs to be cleaned up, it's got stuff in it that's not supposed to be.  This article should be about the Island, the statement you noted should be in the ROC article, not this one.  Liu Tao (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. Saying it's a democracy would be more than enough, especially for the intro. Blueshirts (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Merging Taiwan, Taiwan Province, Taiwan Area, etc.
We have a smattering of articles about Taiwan. Most are very short, and most would cover the same material this article does were it not for the fact that this article already exists with the information. They should be combined into one article simply called "Taiwan". We can cover the various political set-ups within that one article. It will also allow the article to cover, to varying degrees, the other smaller islands that English speakers mean to include when they say "Taiwan". Readin (talk) 13:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm I don't think I agree. This seems directly analogous to the situation with Great Britain, the United Kingdom, the British Isles and any of the constituent countries on the island (eg England).  I agree that some of the articles leave a lot to be desired and there is too much overlap, but I think all of the articles should exist.  I think this article should focus on the geography and natural history of the island, while the others (namely the ROC article) should deal with the politics and human history.  TastyCakes (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Were the ROC article to be the article that deals with the human history of Taiwan et al., then it would carry the implication that Taiwan's human history began with the ROC, which is complete nonsense. If an article about the ROC is to deal with human history, it should be the human history of the ROC - which would only include Taiwan starting in 1945 and before that be only about mainland China (with the info about mainland China ending in 1949).  It would be a very strange history to complete change subject matter in the period between 1945 and 1949. And the human history of Taiwan would be incomplete were it to leave out everything before 1945. Readin (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ...but I think all of the articles should exist...  The main Taiwan article would summarize each subject Taiwan Province, Taiwan Area, etc. while Summary style would be used to provide more detail as needed, giving each its own article. Readin (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Readin, merging all the Taiwan-related articles into one would be the same as merging all the Italy-related articles (excluding the Italy article itself) into the Italy article. Valerian456 Hush,  Rush 18:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying the Taiwan (island) article would not have any human history, only that it is much more "high level" than the history section pertaining the ROC. This seems to be how the British Isles article is written.  In any case, I note that Madagascar and other island nations don't have different articles for the island and the country, so maybe your suggestion isn't that out of keeping with the rest of Wikipedia.  The ROC issue makes it complicated, however, due to it once being so much bigger...  TastyCakes (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right about the ROC complicating things. And it's more than just the ROC having once been much bigger.  The ROC and Taiwan were separate for the first 30 years of the ROC's existence.  The ROC was founded in 1911.  It gained control of Taiwan from following WWII in 1945.  A mere 5 years later it lost control of mainland China (all of it's prior territory except a few tiny islands).  In a sense, the ROC moved from one place to another.  Only Kinmen and Matsu were held by the ROC both before 1945 and after 1950.  So unlike most other states where the state's existence has been tied to a core region, the ROC has not had a core region that it has held for most of its existence.  Readin (talk) 20:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what was separate, I just know these three things. ROC is a state.  Taiwan Province is a Province of the ROC.  Taiwan Island is an Island.  It doesn't matter if it "moved" from one place to another or not, I just know this.  That is not the point.  This article is a geographical article, it's about a geographical region, an Island called Taiwan.  ROC is a political entity, and so is the Taiwan Province.  The ROC is made up of Taiwan (Both Province and Island), Kinmen, Lienchang, and some other small islands.  The Province is made up of the whole of the Taiwan Island minus Taipei and Khaosiung.  The Island is the Island.  What is it about these 3 entities that you are not able to differentiate between?!  Liu Tao (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You stated your POV quite well. You forgot about the Taiwan Area.  You also forgot about the body of people who share a common history, culture, language or ethnic origin, who typically inhabit a particular country or territory.
 * Suppose we talk about the culture of "Taiwan". Is it the culture of a province?  Odd that Kaoshiung and Taipei are not included.  Shall we talk about the island - are the Pescadores really so different?  Perhaps we should talk about the culture of the state.  Odd the way that the culture of Taiwan suddenly shifted so radically between 1945 and 1949 so that it wasn't even the same people or located in the same place anymore.  Shall we use the "Taiwan Area"? How do Kinmen and Matsu fit in?  Attempting to choose only one interpretation presents a problem.  That's why I think we should have a single "Taiwan" article that talks about the island, the province, the nation, the state, the area, etc. while providing links to each of those articles if more detail is needed.  Readin (talk) 21:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an article for the Area, and I think it's written and explains itself quite well. Well, when you talk of cultures, you're talking about the people, so culture would typically go for the island, but it can be the same for the province as well, they'll overlap, there's no question.  If it's odd that Kaoshiung and Taipei are not included, then don't do write culture for the Province, do so for the Island.  I personally think Culture can be done for both.  If you don't want to do 2 copies of culture for both articles, you can link the culture section of one to the other or something.  And Pescadores, how are they not different?  You act like you've never been there before.  I'm telling you, we cannot combine these articles, they ARE NOT THE SAME THING.  How the hell are you gonna list the territory, location, area, population, government, capital, flag, ect. if they're NOT THE SAME.  Obviously, the territory of the ROC is not the same as the Taiwan Province.  The territory of the Taiwan Province does not include all of the Taiwan Island.  As said before, try to combine the British Isles and Great Britain into one article.  Try combining the Republic of Ireland and the Ireland Island into one article, IT DOES NOT WORK.  If the cultures of the different regions are different, then you describe each of the separate cultures in detail of the respective cultures/areas.  You are from Taiwan, you know as well as me that Taiwan itself has multiple cultures.  There's the Hokkien, Hoklo, and the 16 Taiwanese Native Ethnics.  Each of them has their own culture and language, how would you describe all of their cultures as a whole then?  You can't, which is why for broader articles like the state articles, when they describe the culture, they describe the culture as a whole, or they describe what is of commonly found in ALL of the cultures.  Liu Tao (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the status quo (ROC has an article, the island has an article, the ROC province has an article (with content, as there is some political history), plus there is an essentially empty article about the PRC nonprovince) is fine, and merging won't help much. Ireland is a similarly complicated topic, where the history of the island and the history of the country usually called with the same name are also not identical. Plus, it is good that several articles (each describing something slightly different) cover much of the same material. After all, they are supposed to stand alone and make sense even without access to the rest of Wikipedia. Kusma (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of the people here that the separate articles should remain. However, should this article be the default "Taiwan" article? I think when most people say Taiwan they are really talking about it as a country, not an island. The ROC article, then, would seem to be what most people are looking for when they search for "Taiwan". Perhaps there is a case to be made for making "Taiwan" redirect to a disambiguation page so people can say if they're choosing between the geographical entity or the country. Or maybe we could redirect Taiwan to ROC and put this article under Taiwan (island) or something. TastyCakes (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Given the naming conventions of using the common name, it would make more sense to redirect ROC to "Taiwan" than to redirect "Taiwan" to ROC. We have articles on "France", "Spain" and "Vietnam", not articles on "French Republic", "Kingdom of Spain" and "Socialist Republic of Vietnam". Readin (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true, but I suspect the ROC has kept its full name in the article title to distinguish it from the PRC (whose article retains its full name. TastyCakes (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just keep things the way the should be? The default article would be the Island, not the ROC, not the Province.  Search up Ireland, their default article is the Island, not the Irish Republic, not Northern Ireland.  If we keep the default article as the island, we can keep it politically neutral as well.  This article would be a geographical article, with no political grounds or anything.  Or, if we still have disagreements on this, then we can make the disambigulating page the default page like Britain is.  Then there would be NO grounds for disagreements and arguments at all.  I personally like this idea the best, because we can make fix this article back to the island article it should be without fights about what is "Taiwan".  We can rename the disambigulation page as "Taiwan" and this article as "Taiwan (Island)" or something.  Liu Tao (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true for Ireland, but I think it might be a different situation since all island nations that take up the entire island that I can think of have the country as the default page. For example Iceland, Madagascar, Cyprus etc.  If there were two countries on Taiwan (the island), I would agree with you entirely...
 * A disambiguation page is certainly a good option though. TastyCakes (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The island option does fit well with Ireland. One thing the Ireland page does is cover more than just the main island, at least by judging from the map.  It includes a lot of smaller islands that by proximity and by common history belong to the same country (not in the political sense but in the cultural and historical sense). One of my objections to having the "Taiwan" article cover the "island" is that it is too limiting.  But if, like with Ireland, we are able to agree to adopt a broader definition that includes more than just the main island, then it works.  A disambiguation page would be a problem, I think.  Most people looking for Taiwan want the big picture.  Asking them to choose among various technical definitions would be confusing, especially for people who need the article most - those who don't know much about Taiwan. Readin (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * But a disambigulating page as the main page would just show you the way to what you're looking for. I mean, unless you're trying to look up "What is Taiwan", you should know pretty well what you're looking for, the state, island, province, area, whatever.  Even if that's what you're looking for, the disambigulating page would be like a dictionary, showing you the different "definitions" of Taiwan and you just pick which one you want.  If you don't know which one you want, read all of them, if you're doing research, you should have the time to read them all, if you don't want to read all of them, then you're just plain lazy.  If you get confused, then that means you need to reread the definitions.  And what is it that you mean by "big picture", as I've said, you can't say what people are or are not looking for.  There is no "broader" definition of Taiwan.  Taiwan has only so many definitions.  It can be referring to the Island, the ROC, the Province(s), proposed state, etc. etc.  If you write an article, it has to be one of these unless another "definition" occurs or something, you can't just "combine" them together, it doesn't work that way.  You have to define what you're writing about.  There is no "broader definition", the Island has already been defined as the Island.  Throw in the surrounding Islands and you have what's known as the Taiwan_Area.  Look, here's a direct quote from the wikimanual: "Bear in mind that Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. We cannot declare what a name should be, only what it is."  We can't make definitions, there are already set definitions of what "Taiwan" is and can refer to.  The main article should either be the Island article like the Ireland article or the disambigulating page modified into a "main" page like the Britain article.  As I've said, either way can help prevent "unfairness" to people with different political POVs, those who say Taiwan is a state (ROC) and those who say Taiwan is a Province (either of ROC or PRC).  We make the main page a geographical Island, there's nothing they can complain about.  There's no politics pertaining to what the name of an Island is called, an Island has a name and that's what the name is.  If we modify the disambigulation page to become the main page, same thing, they can't complain about a list of possible definitions telling them what the term could mean or refer to.  I don't even see how you can get confused looking at a list like that.  If you originally thought Taiwan was only "one thing" and you wiki it and find the main page as the disambigulation page and you suddenly become all shocked at what you see, then good, you learned something new, which is the multiple meanings and references "Taiwan" can mean.  Liu Tao (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We have long had a Taiwan (disambiguation) page, which does seem to have a good dictionary-list of the different meanings and the proper name of each one's page. I agree that we should try primarily to help readers learn and to find what they want even if their search is not perfect or they are not using the "proper" terminology. Making that the page called Taiwan would be a big help for many, at the one-click expense of those who only know and/or primarily care about the one meaning presently here. They would immediately see all the varied meanings and decide what sounds close to what topic they wanted (and along the way learn its more proper name and what other topics there are to read later, etc.). It's especially important since we do have lots of inter-related pages to avoid channeling readers to what we think they mean. As a bonus, making Taiwan the disambig page would solve the hatnote edit-war, because the page would already be properly and specifically titled, no otheruses. DMacks (talk) 05:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what will we do? Everytime we have a discussion, it ends abruptly, and when someone tries to change something in accordance with what was last said, it gets changed back.  Will we still make the DAB page the main page or are we keeping the Island as the main page?  I'm fine with either, since this article has to be fixed to have all of the non-island revelant information taken out of.  Liu Tao (talk) 00:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know Chinese?Please read some Chinese article.You'll understand they are diffence.--Time mades Hero (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Infobox ROC vs TWN
The infobox incorrectly says that the "country" is "Republic of China". However, the ROC is a state, not a country. The country would more properly be "Taiwan". I'm leaving it for now because saying "Taiwan is in Taiwan" is a bit redundant. A better solution would be to handle it the way the Taipei article does, and correctly label the ROC as the "state".

Does anyone know how to modify the template:infobox island template to have it accept either a state or a country (or perhaps even both)? I'm not much good at wiki programming. Readin (talk) 13:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my god, what kind of statement is that? The ROC is a state AND country.  All states are countries, but not all countries are states.  In the world of political science, people don't deal with country, they deal with a state, because the definition of a state is set.  On the other hand, a country can be anything, it can be a piece of rock out there waiting to declare independence for I know.  Theoretically speaking, I can say Taipei is a country as well, it is just waiting to declare independence.  The same is with Khaosiung, Kinmen, Guangdong, Guangxi, and anything out there that occupies a piece of territory.  Country denotes territory, does the ROC have territory, yep it does.  This is how it is in the world of Political Science, that's why Political Scientists never use the term "country", they use the term "state".  In the common English language, there is no distinction between a country, state, and nation.  I have no idea what how wikipedia is supposed to be written anymore, especially the political articles.  Should they be written as if it would in the Political Science World?  Or should it be written to comprehend with the common English speaking folks?  Liu Tao (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Country denotes territory, does the ROC have territory, yep it does. The ROC's territory has changed dramatically over time.  This is an unusual situation in world affairs.  The ROC used to be in mainland Asia.  Now it is some islands off the coast.  People tend to equate a state with a territory because the connection between the two lasts as long as the state does.  The French Republic has always occupied the same territory, perhaps growing or shrinking but never picking up and moving.  The same is true of most states.  The ROC is an odd exception. Thus it makes more sense to describe the ROC as a state not a country.
 * In common English there is indeed a distinction between country, state, and nation, but it is usually glossed over and the words often misused due to the fact that in most well-known case, the nation and the country are both within a single state and that state encompasses one nation and one country, or at least that is the perception. For example, consider Japan: Nearly all Japanese people live in the country Japan.  Nearly all people in the country are ethnically Japanese.  The country is governed by the state Japan, and the state Japan governs very little outside of the country Japan.  So distinguishing between the three serves little purpose.  However the ROC is a very different case, and the distinctions make sense.
 * Rather than try to argue that the correct country name "Taiwan" be used because I know how batty that drives the Chinese imperialists, I believe it makes more sense to properly designate the state as what it is, a state, because everyone can agree that the ROC is a state and that the ROC governs Taiwan.
 * ...that's why Political Scientists never use the term "country", they use the term "state". I'm suggesting we do the same. Readin (talk) 23:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * People equate a country with territory, not a state with territory. State has territory, government, and population.  A country has only territory.  So you're saying The United States is not a Country then?  What did the US start out with?  13 colonies on the eastern shore of North America.  How much land does it occupy now?  It is the 4th largest state in the world.  Are you saying that Great Britain isn't a country either?  There was a time when they controlled 1/4th of the world's population, what are they now?  Only a few islands off the coast of Europe.  What is a state?  What is a country?  Name the definitions and tell me if the ROC does not fit both.  Sure, Taiwan is a country if you say it's a country, but then I can also say that Beijing is a country, Taipei is a country, Kinmen is a country, Fujian is a country, Hong Kong is a country, Guangdong is a country, I can even say that my backyard is a country.  There is no "set" definition of a "country".  A country is a piece of territory defined by some sort of political boundaries.  Hell I can even say Asia is a country.  Liu Tao (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Liu, your favorite reference, encyclopedia.com, says the ROC and Taiwan are equivalent and writes their article at the topic name "Taiwan". Why don't we follow your sources? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I think taking that position would conflict with the ROC constitution. I think you are being a bit of a smart arse when you made the "favourite reference" comment, and I don't think it is necessary. Although I didn't participate in the discussions re Nanjing as capital this time, from what I gathered, I think Liu Tao was saying encyclopedia.com didn't conflict with any of your sources saying Taipei is the capital of the ROC: it simply just expanded the information by adding that Nanjing is considered as the official capital, while Taipei is considered to be the provisional capital.--pyl (talk) 17:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's not right to say, Taiwan is the ROC. In some views Taiwan is just the province of the ROC, still Taiwan is an island, as well. And those terms also have to be divided by international law, when you have a look at Political Status of Taiwan, where it's also written, that's not sure, to where Taiwan (island) belongs. PRC, ROC, America (military government) or only to itself.
 * As there are problems about the acceptance of ROC, as well as there a problems about Taiwans sovereignty and the ROC does not exist in the form, as it is writtin in its consitution, I would prefer to write TWN until there is an international solution to those questions. &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; 17:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about international law, it's about who/what currently governs the Island. Whomever has jurisdiction over Taiwan has the ultimate say in what exactly Taiwan is.  Currently Taiwan is not self governed, it is governed by the ROC, therefore the specification of what Taiwan is is based on their administration, and currently, it is one of 2 things, a Province or an island.  And also take note that the Province does not include all of the Island, nor is the entire Province confined to the Island.  Until Taiwan reaches independence or the name of the State changes, TWN should not be written as it's not the name.  Liu Tao (talk) 18:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)thathtaty
 * Of course is it international law. Just think about the time Taiwan was ruled by Japan. During this time, Taiwan's status was clear for the last time. But there are several contracts by Japan and ROC with each other or with America or/and PRC which are controverse and make Taiwan's status unclear. International law here is the law about states, so also about ROC and Taiwan. &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is true, but currently, of all the contracts and treaties that exist, they either say Taiwan is given to the ROC or something similar to that (Taipei, Japan Surrender), or they don't specify to whom Taiwan is given to (San Francisco). Also, there's the fact that Taiwan is currently under the jurisdiction of the ROC, only the ROC has control and administration.  The PRC may claim it, but they don't administer it.  Pan-Greens may claim that Taiwan is a free and independant state, but currently no such state exists.  The closest they've gotten to is just a movement for the Republic of Taiwan, there had been many attempts for it, but currently, the only thing that exists of a ROT or just a "Taiwan Nation", is just a proposition and talk.  There's no "government in exile" like Tibet does, or even an active movement like Xinjiang does.  The state has a name and an Acronym for it, why not use it?  A state creates its own name, not others, that's why it's called a state, it governs itself, not the other way around.  Liu Tao (talk) 04:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Tzu Chi Foundation
Is it possible to add the Tzu Chi Foundation on to this page?

Tzu Chi is quite an important part of Taiwan, and also has a very big influence internationally. Even arriving to certain disasters before the Red Cross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.1.61 (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What especial do you want to add then? &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; 08:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of adding parts from the Tzu Chi wiki page in here, for a brief summary, but I'm afraid it'd seem unprofessional with me doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.195.1.61 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This might be ok, if you rearrange some sentences, it might be even better. &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; 09:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

culture and economy order switched.
I'm curious. Why the switch? Readin (talk) 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just moved Economy to the bottom. This article seems primarily cultural/geographical, so the economy seems least important, hence the switch. --Cybercobra (talk) 16:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the economy is as much a part of the place as the culture and geography. But since their all equal I guess the switch doesn't really matter. Readin (talk) 16:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Children of the sweet potato?
Can someone verify that for me? it seems a little strange to me.
 * I don't have access to the book mentioned in the citation in the article, but I can tell you that Taiwanese do associate themselves with sweet potatoes. A story I heard while living in the U.S. illustrates this and is a bit humorous (but not overly so).   A Taiwanese couple were visiting the doctor (also Taiwanese) with their young child.  They expressed concern to the doctor that the child was not growing as fast as his (mostly white) peers.  The doctor replied, "What do you expect?  Potatoes have potatoes; sweet potatoes have sweet potatoes." Readin (talk) 16:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have also heard this reference before, although I don't remember from where I heard this. The alliance (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that conformation, as it sounded a bit ridiculous that a culture would call themselves after a sweet potato. --75.168.134.53 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

This stems from the idea that the island of Taiwan itself resembles a sweet potato. It is a well-known iconic linkage in no way considered derogatory. In fact, it has been used as an identifying mark during the movement of Chinese waishengren to Taiwan--people walking the streets were asked if they were potatoes or sweet potatoes (i.e., Chinese or Taiwanese)--the Taiwanese aware of the significance of the question, while the Chinese invaders were not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.116.8.172 (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

"Extraprovincial people"
Do not use terms that you invented. Google search of the term all points to wikiforks, as shown here Blueshirts (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not invented, it's an actual word. It means not of the province, which is what 外省人(waishengren) means. Also, it's been used LONG before I came to wiki, so it wasn't me.  Mainlander means someone from Mainland (大陸人 daluren), it has a different meaning then extraprovincial.  Liu Tao (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If we are going to use a foreign term, we should use the foreign term. Otherwise use the English term.  "extraprovincial people" is never used in English.  "mainlander" is the English term. If you want to use another language, then use it:  say "waishengren".  Blueshirts is correct that "extraprovincial people" is invented.  It is true that it was invented by translating a Chinese word, but it is invented nonetheless. Readin (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's never used by YOU, you mean to say. You have no right to say what terms are used by others and what are not, unless that is you've talked to every single english speaker in the world and know how they talk.  "Extraprovincial people" is not an invented term, it's used elsewhere as well, just not as popular due to the preferation of "mainlander".  A Mainlander and an Extraprovincial person has slightly different meanings, you yourself live(d) in Taiwan, you know that 大陸人 and 外省人 are different.  People from Hong Kong and Macau are NEVER called 大陸人, they're either called 香港人， 澳門人 respectively， or just 外省人 in general.  大陸人 means someone from Mainland, 外省人 means someone from outside the province.  If you say 外省人 in another province other then Taiwan, like Hubei it'll mean someone from another province/area/jurisdiction like Guangdong, Beijing, and Jiangsu.  Liu Tao (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's an invented term in ENGLISH!!! The google search I provided should be very clear. Please don't make YOUR OWN translations. If you're really bothered by the term "mainlander", you can use "waishenren", because this term has been used extensively before. Blueshirts (talk) 00:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not an invented term. Look it up in the dictionary.  Here, I'll look it up for you:


 * http://dictionary.reference.com/dic?q=extraprovincial&search=search


 * happy now? And we can't use "waishengren", we're suppose to translate it, that's what the manual says, if we do use it, we have to put it in italics everytime we do, which is a pain.  "Extraprovincial" is a widely used term, just not for you cause you never use nor heard people use it because they say mainlander instead.  Who do you think you are saying a term is "invented"?  All words are "invented" by definition, it's just what is used and what is not.  As I've said, "Extraprovincial" and "Mainlander" mean different things, just as 外省人 and 大陸人 have different meanings.  Liu Tao (talk) 01:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, you're confusing the issue here. You can't go to a dictionary, look up a translation, and put it here. If nobody refers 外省人 as "extraprovincial people" in ENGLISH, then YOU are not allowed to make that term here. Blueshirts (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes there are, it just isn't used as much because people use "mainlander" more. Also, that's how a language works, you put together words to combine their meanings.  Extraprovincial means from outside the province, here, we're talking about people from outside the province, so we're using the term.  "Extraprovincial" is an adjective, "people" is a noun.  "Extraprovincial people" means "people from outside the province".  I mean, if "Extraprovincial people" isn't the term to describe people from outside the province, then what's the term that describes a person from outside the province?
 * BTW, take a look at this article:
 * http://wapedia.mobi/en/Taiwan?t=4.
 * and see if they use the term "Extraprovincial" or not. Liu Tao (talk) 01:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is a direct copy of this article, so it's a wikipedia "fork" and not an independent source. Come on, you can do better than this. I changed mainlander to "waishenren", which is a commonly used term in ENGLISH, and end this discussion. To illustrate, you can't call 陳水扁 "Chen Water Flat", just because that's what comes out when you put it into a translator. You have to use the exact word used commonly in English, and not make a translation by yourself, even though the meaning is correct. Blueshirts (talk) 01:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "Waishengren" is Chinese, "Extraprovincial People" is English, wikimanual states to use English unless it's a common term used in the English language, if you can't find the term (which in this case is impossible). Anyways, "Waishengren" is almost never used in English, if you say "Extra-provincial people", English speakers know what it means, provided that they learned their English, but even if they don't know what it means, they can look it up.  You won't find "Waishengren" in the dictionaries.  Liu Tao (talk) 02:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm done trying to reason with you. You still have not grasped the idea that you are not supposed to make up your own translations, because that's original research. There is not a single independent source that uses the word "extraproinvical people." Plenty others use "mainlanders" or "waishengren". The CIA world factbook uses "mainlander Chinese" even. You revert again, I'm going to treat it as plain vandalism and revert it. Blueshirts (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It's called translating the term, there is nothing wrong with it. We're supposed to WRITE IN ENGLISH, and even if "waishengren" is widely used in the English world, it can't be found in the dictionary unlike "extra-provincial" which can, if not, it can still be pieced together by finding the definition of the prefix, "extra" and the word "provincial".  That example you gave about Chen, that's different, you're talking about a proper noun as well as a personal name, waishengren is neither.  Liu Tao (talk) 03:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside thoughts
Folks, please try to maintain calm in this issue- which is clearly a troublesome one. Here are my thoughts on the subject: I cannot stress enough, however, that continued edit warring over something like this will not resolve anything and only result in administrative action. Please try to resolve this issue civilly. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we find a published document which offers a translation of 外省人? News media, research document... anything.
 * Is the term 外省人 contentious or controversial? If so, we need to source a translation to maintain a neutral point of view.
 * Despite what Blueshirts asserts, translations do not necessarily need to be sourced. For example, it's a quite common matter to use non-English material for sourcing an article- while English source material is always preferred, it's permissible. Translations of common terms, if this is one, work the same way.
 * Would using the phrasing "14% Mainlanders, or waishengren " satisfy all parties?


 * We can, but usually it turns out to be "mainlanders" due to the almost synonymous use of 外省人(extra-provincial people) and 大陸人(mainlanders) in Taiwan. When searching for sources to back us up usually they are used in forums and stuff, but virtually never in news articles because of the use of "mainlanders".  We have already agreed that the two terms have different meanings, not only that, but that they also both have different indications of who they refer to.  We seem to have already agreed to put both mainlanders and waishengren on it, but the question is if we should put it up as "Mainlanders and Waishengren" or "Mainlanders and Extra-Provincial People".  Liu Tao (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources using either the word "mainlander" or waishengren: The CIA world factbook link I provided above uses the term "mainland Chinese." An article using the transliteration waishengren. 21 academic articles from JSTOR also using waishengren.
 * Sources using the made-up word "extraprovincial people": 1 article from JSTOR using very general keywords of "extraprovincial" and "taiwan", but the only result is about bivalve fauna. And there are no independent sources using the term "extraprovincial people," other than exact copies of this wikipeida article.
 * When there are commonly used terms describing the subject, I don't think we should make up our own translations even though their meaning is correct. There is also a mainlander article, explaining exactly what a mainlander is and isn't, so don't try to cloud the issue as a content dispute, when the current dispute is purely on original research. The searches speak for themselves. Blueshirts (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Make up our own translations? That's commonly known as translation.  All of your sources are English sources, they are not directly translated from Chinese articles.  I've already pointed out to you, "Mainlander" and "Extra-provincial people" have different meanings, even the mainlander article says so, if you had read all of it that is.  If you're really gonna stress this, then what about people who originally came from Hong Kong and Macau?  There's a bunch in Taiwan, they're not considered mainlanders.  What about them?  Liu Tao (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, never mind about this anymore, after doing some further reading, I've decided to side with you and use the term "waishengren" instead of "Extra-provincial people", thought it is going to have some problems with confusions and other stuff. But remember, as "waisheng ren" is not an adopted term in the English language, everytime you use the term, you must remember to put them in italics as said the manuals of Wikipedia.  Liu Tao (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, it isn't "making up" a translation- "extra-provincial people" is a pretty straightforward literal translation, if you consider the individual words' meanings. Now, I don't suggest that translation should be used as the main term for that percentage; I think using it in the template I showed above is the right thing to do, and then wikilinking waishengren, and possibly using it in conjunction with mainlander, depending on what the source says. As Blueshirts points out, we have an article to explain the intricacies of "mainlander", so we should simply wikilink to that while maintaining the simplest presentation we can here. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed the term to waishengren. Both the link and the fine print describe this group pretty well. Blueshirts (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We got another problem with the definition of "waishengren", we have different definitions, we got to set it right first before doing anything else. Liu Tao (talk) 04:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Waishengren and daluren are different. The English word mainlander when referring to Taiwan most likely refers to waishengren. The population percentage given includes only waishengren, so it is redundant to list "mainlander and waishengren," when the English word mainlander has two meanings that is clearly stated in its article. There is no ambiguity on what a waishengren is and isn't. This is a very simple issue. Blueshirts (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article also states that both "waishengren" and "mainlander" have different meanings as well and both are used. The article states who "waishengren" are usually referring to, but not what they are, there's a difference, and a big difference in this case.  Waishengren in Taiwan usually refers to mainlanders who came over post Civil War, but it's actually more correctly as those who are not of the province/jurisdiction.
 * And how do you know the population percentage only gives the percentage of "waishengren"? It was originally labeled as "Extra-provincial and mainlander", and it doesn't mean that when we change "extra-provincial" to "waishengren" that the meaning changes as well.  The percentage stays the same regardless.
 * Also, when you revert things, please only revert parts you want to revert, not everything from the past 10 edits. Liu Tao (talk) 05:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Complete BS. You do not know what you're talking about. Either that, or you have a poor grasp of English comprehension. Simply put, "mainlander" is an English word, that can describe two different things: Waishengren and Daluren. When used in the context of Taiwanese demographics, it almost always refers to Waishengren, because waishenren are numerous and influential, and their presence historic, while the number of daluren is small and recent, especially when the census was taken. I have provided so many links above, and you have provided none, and you're making an argument here? And what does "The article states who "waishengren" are usually referring to, but not what they are" mean? I don't like wasting time with people who don't know what they're talking about. Quit vandalizing the article. Blueshirts (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I know exactly what I'm talking about; and vandalising the article?! If I'm correct, you've just broke protocals and made the 4th undo, not me, and I have requested for you to stop revising the other stuff besides the issue in question which apparently you failed to do again.  You speak Mandarin, tell me, what does "Waishengren" and "Daluren" mean in Chinese?  Do their meanings match exactly who they are usually referring to when used in Taiwan?  And how do you even know when the census was taken?  It's not even cited!  A census is taken every year by multiple people/organisations, we don't know when this was taken, and who took it.  Also, based on what you've said about what "mainlander" means, then that means we should just only use the term "mainlander" then, as it includes both waishengren and daluren.  BTW, the wiki-article has a different definition about what a mainlander is.  Liu Tao (talk) 06:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, it's entirely possible to discuss this without the insults. And as neither of you has ceased edit warring, I have requested that the admin who reviewed my AN3 post on Blueshirts look into this matter again. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding Madaliv's suggestion Would using the phrasing "14% Mainlanders, or waishengren (traditional Chinese: 外省人; pinyin: wàishěngrén; literally "Extra-provincial people")" satisfy all parties? and his question Is the term 外省人 contentious or controversial?:
 * The suggestion isn't satisfactory, exactly, but it is probably as good as we can get. Yes, the term 外省人 is contentions and controversial to some people, though it is commonly used probably even by those same people.  There is no term that will satisfy all parties because all the terms are based on assumptions about Taiwan's status in relation to the source of the people the term is meant to describe - China.
 * Of the three terms, "Mainlander" is the best choice if we are bound to use English simply because it is the most commonly used English term. The argument that "Mainlander" could describe more recent immigrants from China also applies to "extra-provincial people" as immigrants from China are also "extra-provincial" (if you buy into that nonsense about Taiwan being a province of China).
 * "Extra-provincial" is not common at all in English. It is acceptable to provide it as the literal translation of waishengren once, but it should not be the term used throughout the article.
 * Waishengren is workable as well. Most English speakers don't use it, but if we are to avoid using all English terms with potentially confusing implications and applications, then we'll have to use a Chinese term with potentially confusing implications and applications.  The benefit to this choice is that most English readers will be forced to learn the word rather than simply assuming (perhaps mistakenly) that they already know what it means. Readin (talk) 03:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * One more comment, in case Mendaliv is still acting as moderator, regarding his statement Is the term 外省人 contentious or controversial? If so, we need to source a translation to maintain a neutral point of view.
 * The accuracy of the literal translation is not the issue. The translation is a literal translation, and a correct literal translation.  It might also be translated "outside province human" or "foreign province person", but "extra-provincial people" is also literal.  The problem is that the translation is both awkward and and not used, and there is already a term that is used.  If I may draw a parallel, it is a bit like deciding "China" won't work and instead using the literal translation of jungguo - "central country".  Or deciding that "Japanese" won't work so instead we'll use a literal translation of nipponjin "solar-origin people".  Readin (talk) 04:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I'm not moderating this in any official capacity- I just stepped in as a result of a request for editor assistance to help resolve this dispute. That aside, thanks for your very informative replies! I wasn't aware that 外省人 itself was contentious- I had thought that 大陸人 would be more contentious, but that shows all I know about Taiwan's sociopolitical situation. Going with your thought, I still think the best we can do in this article is to use the phrasing "14% Mainlanders or waishengren ". This way, we aren't saying that mainlander = waishengren, but we are referring to the fact that the term is used interchangeably to refer to that statistic. I'm loath to just say "mainlanders" on that point simply because of the unclear terminology used in the source material. What would be best however is to find out what the source says- the CIA factbook is a tertiary source anyway. How does that sound? &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 17:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that 外省人 itself was contentious. It's contentiousness is very low.  I don't know how it compares to 大陸人.  Both are problematic to a subset of TI advocates because their literal meanings imply Taiwan is part of China.  But I believe (based on what I've heard) that many or even most TI supporters continue to use the term as it became habitual during the 40 years of Chinese Nationalist (KMT) rule during which supporting TI was forbidden.  Readin (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I would offer (as someone living in Taiwan) that da lu ren is simple and specific to people now living in Mainland China. Waishengren is extremely awkward to translate as extraprovincial people or whatever. Foreign-born people or citizens is much more appopriate. A foreigner is a Waiguoren--outside country person, literally. But naturally translated as foreigner. Waishengren speaks to the place of their birth. Foreign-born people is natural. However, as this specifically refers to people born in Mainlaind China, it is insufficient to use only foreign-born people. Something like "waishengren--people born in Mainland China who immigrated to Taiwan" would seem to be accurate and inoffensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.116.8.172 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

describing Taiwan as being "de facto independent"
The sentence describing Taiwan as being de facto independent breaks NPOV rule, as it is inconsistent with the following major POV.


 * Taiwan is part of a country called the Republic of China. The ROC is a sovereign country both for de jure and de facto purposes. Therefore Taiwan (the island) is not for all practical purposes being de facto independent from the ROC.

By describing Taiwan as being independent, Wikipedia will be biasedly endorsing a POV that Taiwan is a country - a pro Taiwan independence POV. By emphasising "de facto", Wikipedia will also be implying that the ROC is not a sovereign country on a de jure basis - a PRC POV.

The correct description should be "Taiwan is politcally seprate from mainland China" as it is a neutral way of describing that Taiwan and the mainland are not in the same political sphere.--pyl (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * ...Except that would seem to contradict the One-China policy and the PRC's position (that they are one united polity, without separation). It is really hard to phrase this properly. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for raising the issue of One-China policy/principle. But I don't think the term "politically separate" contradicts with that principle. The principle means there is only one China, meaning the Chinese sovereignty is unbroken.


 * I intentally used the word "political" as it doesn't always imply that there are two governments (meaning the sovereignty has split). And "two governments" would really contradict with the One China policy.


 * In fact, the term "political separate" is accepted by both governments of the PRC and the ROC. The other term that is mutually accepted is "jurisdiciton": both governments recognise that the current situation is that China has been split into two separate jurisdictions but the Chinese sovereignty is complete.--pyl (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If "political seprate" is unsatisfactory, then maybe we can try describing the facts with "jurisdiction".--pyl (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Initially, I've written that it is, for all practial purposes, independent. i.e. other countries deal with it as if it was independent because it's simply more practical to do so. However, you've removed that too. This is also the POV of just about any newspapers around the world (see BBC source). So how do you suggest we integrate this major POV into the article? Right now, the whole article is written under the perspective of the One China policy, which is a POV held by only a minority and, which has no pratical uses. Laurent (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * One China policy is certainly not a minor POV. The policy/priciple is supported by all countries in the world, as well as the United Nations. No country in the world departs from this POV. You certainly cannot describe it as minor. If anything, Taiwan independence POV is relatively minor from a global picture. You must also note that the One China principle in the form of 1992 Consensus is the current policy of the Republic of China government which administers Taiwan.
 * It is also incorrect to say the One China principle has no practical use. This is a common mistake made by Taiwan independence supporters. If it indeed has no practical use, then the ROC or for that matter "Taiwan" would be in the United Nations, and all "representive offices" in Taipei would be called embassies. They are *in fact* not.--pyl (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, when you quote from the BBC by saying "Taiwan is de facto independent", you might also want to take into account of the POV that "Taiwan is part of China, but it is de facto independent". I believe that's BBC's POV. Therefore, in order to say "Taiwan is de facto independent" you also need to say "Taiwan is part of China" in order for that sentence to make sense. But I don't think this would please Taiwan independence supporters.--pyl (talk) 13:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to "Except that would seem to contradict the One-China policy": We are bound to contradict it since it contradicts itself to begin with (there are two incompatible One China policies). The purpose of the One China policy is to allow diplomatic relationships between the PRC and other states, it's not meant to be used to write sensible encyclopedia articles. Laurent (talk) 10:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You also missed my original argument for rewriting the sentence. The fact that Taiwan is part of a state called the ROC does not make Taiwan de facto independent. You must take note of a major POV that Taiwan is not the same as the Republic of China when you edit articles in order not to break the NPOV rule.
 * Downplaying the One China principle breaks the undue weight rule. A principle that is supported by all countries in the world is not a minor POV, and because of this, it needs to be taken into account when editing articles. One China principle is about the notion that China's sovereignty is complete and is therefore only exercisable by one government. It is not about "allow[ing] diplomatic relationships between the PRC and other states". I think there is a misunderstandig of the principle here.--pyl (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I removed the description of "self-governing" for Taiwan. Again, it is inconsistent with the major POV that Taiwan is part of a state called the Republic of China, and Taiwan is administered by the central government of the Republic of China, not the Taiwan Provincial government. The Republic of China has territories including more than just the island of Taiwan.--pyl (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Laurent just added a phrase saying "Taiwan has developed independently ever since 1945". Independently from what? If Laurent wants to emphasise that Taiwan is politically separate from mainland China, then just say it. Saying "has developed independently" is saying half sentences, and that doesn't convey a proper message. Laurent, would you like to propose changes here so we can discuss it before the main text is changed? This way we don't have to change the text over and over. It might give a wrong impression that there is an edit war going on.--pyl (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Taiwan developed independently" is a self contained sentence and a fact, and it doesn't need additional clarifications. We do no need to make a political statement of every sentence, so why are you trying to do so? No I don't want to emphasise that Taiwan is politically separate from mainland China, because nobody knowns what "mainland China" is - it would need to be explained earlier in the article to provide the proper context. And again it's not just about politics. For half a century Taiwan had its own economy, culture and even writting system, so it should be briefly mentioned in the article. I think the easiest way is to say that "Taiwan developed independently" (it says it all in three words). We can then explain the PRC claims, and that way we get a neutral POV. Laurent (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not about politics. When you say "developed indepndently" the next question would naturally be "from what". If there is nothing to compare with, then you don't use the word "independently". Saying the word implies that you are emphasising something.


 * If you wish to talk about the ROC having its own economy, culture and even writting system, then you should probably do that in the ROC article because Taiwan, the island, doesn't have its own economy, culture and even writting system because it uses the same system as the ROC. And again, it breaks the NPOV rule to imply that Taiwan is the same as the ROC.


 * When you say "developed indepndently" the next question would naturally be "from what"
 * That's what you say, but most people understand what is meant by "developed independently" (it implies "from everything else). Also if we follow your logic, we should also say that it developed independently, not just from Mainland China, but also from the US, France, Spain and every other countries in the world. We are not going to list them all, are we? If you give a special status to Mainland China you are pushing a POV.
 * If you wish to talk about the ROC having its own economy, culture and even writting system, then you should probably do that in the ROC article because Taiwan.
 * I explicitely said that all I want to write is that Taiwan developed independently (again: three words). Everything else should indeed go in the ROC article.
 * it breaks the NPOV rule to imply that Taiwan is the same as the ROC
 * Actually, it doesn't since it's a POV shared by major newspapers and encyclopedias in the world, and therefore should be given as much weight as the One China policy. Laurent (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to do what the BBC refernece does, then you should probably mention the PRC claim first, then say Taiwan belongs to a seprate political and economic entity. It is unneutral to say Taiwan has its own culture in comparison with China, as that would imply that Taiwanese culture is not a localised version of the Chinese culture (which is a major POV). It is also incorrect to say Taiwan has its own writing system, as Taiwan shares the same Traditional Chinese writing system with other places such as Hong Kong and Macau.--pyl (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why saying 'mainland China' in this case is pushing a POV. It doesn't concern me if 'mainland China' is mentioned or otherwise, but I am curious about your reasoning.


 * The point is, 'developed independently' is a half sentence. You can add 'from everything else' to complete the sentence, but then why would you say that at the first place. I don't agree with your statement that that's what "most people" would understand. In any event, you would probably want to find another way of describing what you are trying to convey.


 * Saying Taiwan is the same as the ROC certainly breaks the NPOV rule. Taiwan is a common name for the ROC, but they are not identical in a strict sense. I am sure you are aware of the difference between the Province of Taiwan, the island of Taiwan and the State of the Republic of China. By endorsing a POV that Taiwan is the same as the ROC meaning Wikipedia is endorsing a POV that is favoured by Taiwan independence supporters at the expense of others.


 * Major newspapers and encyclopedias in the world also take the official POV that "China considers Taiwan as part of Chinese territory, but Taiwan is practically independent". If you wish to take that POV, you would run into issues, as this way, you endorse a POV that the ROC is not China. I think that's a major POV. In order to be neutral, Wikipedia cannot endorse whether the ROC is China or the PRC is China: Wikipedia will simply state that there are two governments completing for the representation of China but Taiwan independence supporters believe the ROC is not China at all.


 * In the current situation, I would like to suggest that we leave the sentence as is (ie no mention of 'developed independently') or perhaps you would like to propose another way of saying what you wish to convey.--pyl (talk) 15:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to take that POV, you would run into issues, as this way, you endorse a POV that the ROC is not China.
 * But it's not China, is it? It's been a fact for about 50 years and we should document it properly. The way the BBC did it is quite good, since it doesn't imply anything politically: "Taiwan is the island which has for all practical purposes been independent for half a century". But, anyway, I don't want to keep arguing over that as it's obvious we're not going to agree with each other. For now, I'd rather focus on the ROC article. Laurent (talk) 10:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * According to 1992 consensus, the current policy of both the governments of the PRC and the ROC, the ROC is China. Both governments agree that each party has jurisdiction over a part of China. Therefore the fact, according to the 1992 consensus, should be intrepreted as, the ROC has jurisdiction over a part of China, that is Taiwan, and the ROC claims sovereignty over all of China.
 * As you can see, your POV that Taiwan is not China in fact clearly conflicts with the POV that I described above. And that POV is a major one, which cannot be ignored when editing Wikipedia articles relating to the status of the ROC and Taiwan.
 * I agree that we can leave it as is.--pyl (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Self-governing
The subject matter of this article is the island, not the sovereign state that is known officially as the Republic of China. Yet all those references cited are referring to the country instead of the island. Taiwan as an island is not itself self-governing within the Republic of China. Montemonte (talk) 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject matter of this article is the island, and this island has been called a "self-governing island" multiple times in the sources provided.
 * It's not written that it's self-governing within the ROC either, it's just written "it's self-governing". It's a fact and that's what we need to convey to the reader. Laurent (talk) 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Laurent. You seem to be ignoring what I said above, and I am finding this discussion repetitive.
 * I understand that it is your Taiwan independence POV that you are pushing for the so-called "self-governing" description for Taiwan. You want the whole world to know that Taiwan has nothing to do with China. And you are insisting on the POVs of the sources because they back up your POV, despite the neuality issues.
 * Do you realise that to call a place "self-governing" implies that the place is often considered to be part of something bigger but it is self-governing? The implication is actually against the Taiwan independence POV that the ROC (Taiwan) is already an independent country.
 * The paragraph that:-
 * Taiwan.... is a self-governing island located in East Asia....
 * is indeed saying Taiwan is a self-governing island within the ROC, despite Laurent's arguments. It says only the island of Taiwan is self-governing.
 * This "self-governing" POV is inconsistent with a major POV that Taiwan is governed by the ROC, and therefore Taiwan as an island (which is the scope of the article) is not self-governing. Now please answer me directly, is Penghu a self-governing island? If it is not, what's the difference in your view between the islands of Taiwan and Penghu?
 * Now island of Taiwan is certainly not an island nation. The ROC claims mainland China and that makes the ROC a non-island nation. For clarification over the claims see 1992 consensus and special non-state-to-state relations--pyl (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The ROC may not be an island nation, but I see no reason why Taiwan wouldn't be. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean since the scope of the article is about Taiwan, the geographic location.--pyl (talk) 07:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You said (emphasis added) "Now island of Taiwan is certainly not an island nation. The ROC claims mainland China and that makes the ROC a non-island nation." But that equates Taiwan with the ROC, which we want to avoid. So, while the ROC is indeed not a de jure island nation, I don't see why the sociocultural-geographico area of Taiwan wouldn't be an island nation (note "nation" not "state"). --Cybercobra (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That POV goes back to a funcational argument whether Taiwan (the island) is a nation. There is a major POV that Taiwan is not a nation, as it has no legal basis to be a nation: for example, Taiwan has no constitution (not even a unwritten one) and the army belongs to the ROC (not Taiwan).--pyl (talk) 08:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pyl, I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by neutrality of POV - it means that all major POVs (such as the one which says that Taiwan is self-governing) should appear on the article. It's not to be opposed to the law or whatever, a POV is legitimate and can appear on Wikipedia as long as it's backed with sufficiently solid sources, which is the case here. It seems to me that all it amounts to is WP:IDONTLIKEIT - you don't like it so you don't want it there. Well, it's not about tastes or even about law, it's about sources, and you didn't provide any compelling reason why the sources should be ignored.
 * This "self-governing" POV is inconsistent with a major POV that Taiwan is governed by the ROC
 * It is self-governing because it's not, de facto, part of something bigger. Yes I know about the One China policy but that's two different things: there's the law - that we must document - and there are the facts, that we must also document. Currently, only the law is mentioned.
 * is Penghu a self-governing island? If it is not, what's the difference in your view between the islands of Taiwan and Penghu?
 * This sort of simplifications are needed in order to build an encyclopedia that makes sense. Likewise Corse and France are grouped into the France article, because that's where most people would expect to find information about both places. Nobody is going to say that France is not a sovereign country within the French Republic just because Corse is not part of "mainland France". Laurent (talk) 08:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think I misunderstood the principles of NPOV. If you insist on calling Taiwan a self-governing island, based on the sources, which you consider as "major". Then someone else can dig up enough sources to say that "Taiwan is part of China". Based on your interpretation of NPOV, as long as this person has sufficient solid sources to back up the case. That sentence will appear. I don't personally think it is a hard thing to do to find descrptions such as "Taiwan, province of China", or "Taiwan is acknowledged as a part of China". Shall we start from UN related websites?
 * Let me put it another way, how would you feel about an opening sentence saying:-
 * ''"Taiwan is a self-governing island claimed by the People's Republic of China. This claim is either acknowledged or recognised by a great majority of nations in the world, as well as the United Nations, while the Republic of China, which administers Taiwan, is considered as a defunct entity."
 * Do you think it is difficult to find enough solid sources to back up that sentence? I wouldn't think so. Let's start with this quote by the United Nations:-
 * "....the Government of China is the sole and legitimate Government and the position of the United Nations is that Taiwan is part of China."
 * NPOV is about saying things neutrally, after taking into accounts of all major POVs. There are clearly several major competiting POVs at play: 1. Taiwan is a self-governing island even though it is claimed by the PRC, and the ROC is a defunct state. (the POV supported by your sources) 2. Taiwan is not a self-governing island within the Republic of China (the POV supported by the ROC constitution). In order to be neutral, I think the self-governing description can be dropped and just simply call it "an island".
 * Those sorts of simplication is indeed the problem with neutrality here. Simplication is desireable if it doesn't cause neutrality issues. Here, it clearly does. At Wikipedia, neutrality > simplication.
 * Don't you think those overly-political descriptions are best discussed and described in Political status of Taiwan instead of a geographic article on the island Taiwan?--pyl (talk) 09:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The POV you've expressed above saying that Taiwan is part of China is acceptable to me, because this is the official position of the ROC, PRC and the UN. We are already acknowleding this in the article by mentioning the PRC claims among others. However, we are not acknowledging the alternative POV, as expressed by the BBC and other major news agencies, that Taiwan is "for all practical purposes independent" (i.e. the local government is not controlled by any other government). Just as much as you, I don't want to mislead the reader into thinking that Taiwan is a state or is independent, that's why the "for all practical purposes" disclaimer or the "self-governing" term seem adequate.
 * Taiwan is a self-governing island claimed by the People's Republic of China. This claim is either acknowledged or recognised by a great majority of nations in the world, as well as the United Nations, while the Republic of China, which administers Taiwan, is considered as a defunct entity.
 * That's actually what could be understood from the article if we don't clarify what has been the situation of Taiwan for the past 50 years. Laurent (talk) 10:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The POV that Taiwan is part of China is noted in various places. However I feel I need to remind Laurent that it is not the only POV.  It is really a POV from a single source - Chinese nationalism.  Both the ROC and PRC began as Chinese states parties and still have Chinese nationalism as a key characteristic.  The UN has the same POV because the PRC has veto power on the security council and also has a lot of economic and military power that it can leverage to persuade small countries to vote its way.
 * But this is all a bit like saying that the white master, the white mistress, and the white judge all agree that the black man is sub-human and fit only for slavery - they just disagree whether the separated white master or the white mistress is the legitimate owner. What of the black man's opinion? Well, he's not allowed to speak in court so his POV doesn't need to be considered?
 * For 40 years the Taiwanese were kept out of government. During the time when the key official positions were decided, positions that are now locked in place by international tension and threats of war in the Taiwan strait, the Taiwanese were denied a voice.  Well, they have a voice now.  As with any free country, opinions differ, and not all Taiwanese have the same POV.  But despite 40 years of KMT propoganda, about 45% of Taiwan's residents consider themselves "Taiwanese only" (and not "Chinese" or "Taiwanese Chinese").  Another 45% say they are "Taiwanese and Chinese" (even then, the "Chinese" doesn't imply Taiwan is part of China - it may reflect ancestry or culture).  They can't do much about the official positions, but they still have a POV and it is significant.  2 of 3 democratically elected presidents of Taiwan have had a POV that Taiwan is not part of China.
 * I hate to rant, but I too often see this "ROC and PRC agree" stuff. The ROC and PRC aren't the only opinions that matter. Readin (talk) 14:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I probably wasn't clear in my post as I didn't mean that the One China policy was the only valid POV. My point was that we need to acknowledge all the POVs in order to be neutral, so we need to integrate 1) the ROC and UN members' official POV; and 2) the fact that Taiwan has been a self-governing island for 40 years. I'm sure Pyl has no problem with number 1, so obviously the dispute is now about number 2. Laurent (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent for easier reading)

Now I am going to go into your sources, which I consider dodgy in this case:-


 * Sources 1, 2 and 3
 * Taiwan is "self-governing" when making a comparison with the PRC and its claims over Taiwan. This comparison is not made in the introduction of this page, and therefore the "self-governing" tag appears to be politically charged in this context.


 * Source 4 (Encyclopedia Britannica)
 * The main text of the introduction page actually only describes Taiwan as an "island".
 * "Island, western Pacific Ocean, off southeastern China, and since 1949 the principal component of the Republic of China (which also includes Matsu and Quemoy islands and the Pescadores)"

Your sources do not support an assertion of the "self-governing" description when all the relevant circumstances taken into account. I would be OK with doing an opening paragraph similar to the Encyclopedia Britannica reference above. (But saying southeastern mainland China). After All, this is a non-political article.--pyl (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This article says it is about an "island". That statement is already POVish one because Taiwan is much more than that.  But nevertheless, the statement is there.  It says Taiwan is an "island".  I believe Pyl approves of that statement.  Now, all the sources say the "island" Taiwan is self-governing.  They don't say the "state" or the "country" or the "nation" or any of those other words you would object to, because the sources are already being very careful not to offend tender sensibilities of the PRC and other Chinese nationalists.  So the sources all say the "island" is self-governing.  Do we need to lean even harder in the direction of Chinese nationalism in order to be neutral?Readin (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

To say that Taiwan is "self-governing" without placing it in the immediate context of the People's Republic of China (what it is self-government in relation to) and the Republic of China (the actual entity that is doing the governing) is misleading. Given that we have separate articles, I'm for leaving it out and explaning the actual situation in better detail in the lead section. Are we also to say "Taiwan is a subtropical, self-governing, mostly covered by green tress, mountainous, tobacco leaf shaped island"? Adding the term does not add value to the article, considering what is already there.--Jiang (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm with User:Jiang on this. What value is being added by calling the island of Taiwan "self-governing?"  Given a literal interpretation of the quotes from the sources cited, a conclusion of calling Taiwan "self-governing" would be supported.  However, I'd submit to you that it seems a little disingenuous to take one word from a statement (in this case, "Taiwan") and interpret it in a way other than how a casual reader would interpret it.  By that I mean - I think we're agreed that the scope of this particular article is the island of Taiwan, not the state of the Republic of China.  Additionally, I'd submit that the sources provided are using the word "Taiwan" to actually refer to the  state, not the island - they're just using the word (Taiwan) that much of the world uses when referring to the state, the Republic of China.  Finally, we are all painfully aware of the tendency of the world to call the Republic of China "Taiwan."  I do that myself in conversation because frankly, it's easier to do that.  When I converse about the ROC, I call it "Taiwan" to make it distinct from the PRC.  However, it should not be construed that I'm actually referring to the particular island itself, but rather to the state.  I think it's probably a little unlikely to expect those who are not steeped in the political history of the ROC to always use the proper wording to capture all the political nuance of the ROC and its territorial holdings.  So, getting back to my original point, I don't think there's any value added by inserting the words "self-governing," since the article isn't referring to the state (or really shouldn't be).  Just my $.02  Folic_Acid 18:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. This is what I would like to point out. And I'd say it'd be helpful to tell the %tage of total landmass and total population of the ROC that Taiwan is making up. I'd guess both figures exceed 95%. Montemonte (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think we're agreed that the scope of this particular article is the island of Taiwan
 * Actually no. That wording in the article never achieved consensus.  It was bullied into existence by POV pushers who wish to avoid recognizing that "Taiwan" means more to most peopl than one particular set of dirt and rocks.  Having achieved that, they are now attempting to bit by bit remove any information that sees Taiwan as anything more than that.
 * The fact that Taiwan also has other islands should not be a problem. The Ireland article includes information about the numerous small islands off the large island's coast.
 * Madagascar is described as an "island nation" in the first sentence of it's article even though the nation controls more than just the big island.
 * The fact that Taiwan is the major component of a state that is normally called by the name "Taiwan" is critical information that should be in the first sentence. Taiwan isn indeed self-governing, with the central government being in Taiwan and Taiwan making up an overwhelming majority of that government.  To answer the question about whether Washington DC is similary self governing, the answer is "no" because even if DC residents could elect congressmen, those DC congressmen would be too few to control the congress, and DC residents don't have enough votes to control the outcome of the presidential election.  One could say that mainland United States is self-governing because even though places like Hawaii and Guam can vote, their votes are not enough to make significant impact in U.S. elections.
 * Nearly every newspaper article that talks about Taiwan talks about the "self-governing island". They don't talk about the "state".  The attitude here seems to be that first we'll deny that Taiwan is anything more than an island.  And then when reliable sources say that island is self-governing, we'll even deny it is an island.  Are the reliable sources lying when they say "island"?  Readin (talk) 04:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Readin. Perhaps we're having the wrong conversation here.  Perhaps we ought to be talking about the scope of the article, rather than whether "Taiwan" is an island or "something more," because the answer to that question seems to be informing our opinions on this question of "self-governing."  If we decide that the article is about more than just the island of Taiwan, then I think this question of self-governance is relevant.  However, if we are limiting ourselves to just the island, then I submit that speaking of self-governance is not germane, since we'd not be talking about a political entity, but a landmass.  Folic_Acid 08:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case we would start with "Taiwan, officially the Republic of China..." Calling Taiwan a "self-governing island" glosses over political details that could be expressed within the confines of a single sentence. It leaves people scratching their heads: well, Puerto Rico is self-governing too. Autonomy does not imply sovereignty, when in this case, by almost all measures, sovereignty exists.--Jiang (talk) 11:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use that opening as that makes it sound like this article is just a WP:POVFORK of Republic of China. We already cover the Taiwan-ROC nomenclature issue in a hatnote and in the ROC article. On another note, "autonomous" does seem a good word to describe Taiwan's situation. Even the PRC, though it still claims Taiwan, recognizes it has to deal with the "Taiwan Authority". It's autonomous, but independence differs based on POV. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note-There was a request for a third opinion on this, but I have removed the request because this dispute involves quite a big more editors than two. If you still desire dispute resolution, take it to WP:RFC. Fingers OnRoids  20:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd propose to revise leading paragraphs as such:

- Montemonte (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought the wording Montemonte posted earlier was better:

The only thing I would change is to either remove "in modern times since the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949" or change it to say "since the ROC relocated to Taiwan between 1945 and 1949". If we bring the Chinese Civil War into this then we give the impression that Taiwan was part of the ROC during the whole civil war, and then we'll need to balance it out or clarify by mentioning that Taiwan was part of Japan prior to 1945, and then the intro will become unwieldy. Readin (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The only thing wrong with that is that the ROC didn't become synonymous with Taiwan until after 1949. Remove it or change it to "between 1945 and 1949", I don't think so. Blueshirts (talk) 00:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please leave the strawman out. It didn't say "sysnonymous with".  It said "the major component of".  It did indeed become the major component of the ROC over the time period (severaly years) it took the ROC to move from being located on the Asian mainland and Hainan to being located on Taiwan. Readin (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Still avoiding the question. The assertion that it took "several years" is patently wrong. It only became the major component the moment the ROC lost the mainland. Please leave your your logic displayed on the Chinese Civil War talk page behind, I thought we're all done with that. Blueshirts (talk) 01:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. The fact is that prior to 1945, Taiwan was not part of the ROC. We can't change or ignore the fact just because it offends you.  Readin (talk) 01:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The "95% of the landmass" part isn't accurate as the ROC notionally still claims mainland China as part of its territory. The phrasing needs to be changed to reflect the distinction between claimed and controlled. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

My proposal (suggestions are highlighted)

1. I would like to put all aspects about Taiwan's geography together.

2. The bits about Taiwan's common name contain unreferenced speculation. The fact that the ROC is now commonly known as Taiwan may not all because of the landmass, the population or the economy. This bit also brings in more political arguments like the ones above. If, however, the paragraph is desired by consensus, then a better placement position would be following the bits about the PRC and it claims on Taiwan. This would have a flow based on timelines.

3. Cybercobra's comments are notable, and I think the word "jurisdiction" would avoid such issues.

4. Talking about other areas under the ROC jurisdiction in an article about Taiwan is unnecessary, in my opinion. I propose we move that bit.--pyl (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreeing, but only somewhat, with pyl, I counter-propose: which somewhat moderates pyl's changes. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I still don't think the bit about the ROC's common name as "Taiwan" works well as is. It still carries an implication that the ROC is now commonly known as "Taiwan" simply because of Taiwan's landmass in relation to the ROC's area of jursidction. It has a lot of reasons, I think.
 * Also, the ROC was commonly known as "China" before the 70s, and that paragraph can mislead people into thinking that the ROC has been known as "Taiwan" even since 1949.--pyl (talk) 05:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There may certainly be more reasons, but the landmass is the most obvious. Added "now" regarding the second concern. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought of that when I was trying to edit (then gave up). "now" may rectify the 2nd reasons I cited above, but that would make the whole sentence ambiguous. The jursidcition of the ROC after the 1950s has basically remained unchanged. If the landmass is used to as the main reason for the common name, then the common name shouldn't only get changed after the 1970s. In this case, the common name change has a lot to do the the ROC's foreign affairs status instead of Taiwan's landmass.--pyl (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic groups
Is that figure for Taiwan (which I presume to cover the Pescadores and the Green Island, the Orchird Island, etc.) or for the ROC as a whole? Montemonte (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's for all areas under ROC administration. Blueshirts (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

various POV disputes
The following edits breaks the NPOV rule:-

1. "self-governing" island

The references cited by Readin hold a POV that the PRC is China and the PRC claims Taiwan is part of its territory. The references therefore have to emphasise to the readers that Taiwan is in fact "self-governing". I don't think this is the style for Wikipedia, as Wikipedia does not endorse whether the PRC is China or the ROC is China, as Wikipedia has a NPOV policy. NPOV requires an article not to be inconsistent with any major POVs. A major POV is that Taiwan is part of the territory of the ROC. The island of Taiwan is governed by the ROC and is therefore not "self-governing".

Furthermore, the scape of this article, I believe, has been well established to be about Taiwan, the geographic location. I don't believe a "self-governing" description is required here as it would then bring in politics into this article.

2. "off the coast of Fujian Province, China"

That implies that Taiwan is not part of China. That is inconsistent with the major POV that Taiwan is part of China. The NPOV compromise is "mainland China"

3. Taiwanese vs mainland Chinese

By saying "Taiwanese" (instead of "Taiwanese residents") when making a comparison with "mainland Chinese", there is an implication that Taiwanese people are not Chinese. This is inconsistent with a major POV that Taiwanese are also Chinese.

"Taiwanese residents" is a NPOV compromise. The other way of describing the facts would be the Chinese residents on Taiwan vs those on the mainland.

4. describing Lee Teng-hui as a Taiwanese instead of a Taiwan born

By doing this, there is an implication that Chinese and Taiwanese are different. This is a POV push and is unnecessary when "Taiwan born" would have avoided that.

I believe Readin is well aware of the major POVs that I cited above, as we have been through numerous discussions of similar subjects.--pyl (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, we haven't. You just made these up.
 * The sources I cited do recognize that the ROC claims Taiwan. As for whether or not the PRC is "China", that's not the question here.  The question is whether Taiwan is self-governing.  The government of Taiwan - the highest earthly government - is in Taiwan.  It is self-governing.  This article is about the rocks and dirt of Taiwan, but it is also about the people, institutions, cultures, languages, and society of Taiwan.  The fact that Taiwan contains it's government is useful information and leaving it out to simply say it is governed by the ROC is misleading for POV purposes. Readin (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * From where do you get this idea that the existence of "Taiwanese" negates the existence of "Chinese". Let's, for the sake of this ridiculous argument, suppose for a moment that Taiwan is indeed a Chinese in every way shape and form.  That a person born and raised in Taipei is indistinguisable from a person born and raised in Beijing.   Now, supposing this, you're saying that calling these people born and raised in Taiwan "Taiwanese" would suddenly separate them from their glorious motherland?  What happens when I call someone "Shanghainese", "Cantonese", or "Fukienese"?  Have I suddenly made China cease to exist as a unified whole?
 * I normally don't resort to sarcasm, but I really don't know how to cope with this argument you are making? How can I attack the base of your argument when it has none?
 * We are already using the term "mainland Chinese" to avoid tender sensibilities. "Taiwan resident" is not an NPOV compromise.  Rather, it is a hard POV attempt to avoid using a word that makes no assumptions and replace it with a word that clarifies that there is no such thing as a "Taiwanese" either within China or separate from China, but instead there are only residents of an island.  Readin (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * -> 2) To say they are all from mainland China implies, Taiwan is part of China, which is POV, as well. According to sources Taiwanese have Fujian ancestors, which also explains the accent Taiwanese.
 * -> 3) Mainlanders also refer to Taiwanese as 台灣人. For them it means people from province Taiwan. As well as others are Kantonese or 福建人. It doesnt say anything about the ethnicity and I also used like this in Chinese.
 * -> 4) see 3) &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; 21:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comments. "Taiwanese" indicates that the person was born in Taiwan, so using "Taiwanese born" is uncessary (almost a pleonasm). "Taiwanese resident" is too vague IMO as it doesn't imply that the person was born in Taiwan. Laurent (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the context of the disputes with the "mainland Chinese", "Taiwanese resident" is vague because it the new arrivals had also become residents. Readin (talk) 21:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

1. (replying to Readin)

No, the sources have a POV that "the ROC = Taiwan".

According to a major POV, the ROC's jurisdiction includes Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, Penghu and other islands. If Taiwn is so indeed a "self-governing island", then is Kinmen also a "self-governing island"? Also, if, according to your logic, the fact that the central government is located on Taiwan makes Taiwan a "self-governing island", then does that also make Washington DC a "self-governing district"? I can't believe I have to give this kind of examples, as it is so obvious, it is not worth arguing for.

2. (replying to 快樂龍)

No, saying mainland China does not necessary imply tha Taiwan is part of China. Please read WP:NC-TW and the relevant discussions. The term, 'mainland China' is NPOV compromise.

Similarly, the statement that "Hong Kong is south of the Chinese province of Guangdong" can imply that Hong Kong is not part of China. See Talk: Hong Kong.

3. (replying to Readin 快樂龍 and Laurent)

Your arguments are accepted.

4. (replying to Readin 快樂龍 and Laurent)

快樂龍 said:-


 * "For them [Taiwanese] means people from province Taiwan"

Laurent said:-


 * "Taiwanese" indicates that the person was born in Taiwan, so using "Taiwanese born" is uncessary (almost a pleonasm).

Yes, but not necessarily. The term is ambiguous (and it shows, as you have already given 2 different meanings above). In Taiwanese people, the term is described as:-
 * At least three competing (occasionally overlapping) paradigms are used to identify someone as a Taiwanese person: a nationalist criteria, self-identification (including the concept of "New Taiwanese") criteria, and socio-cultural criteria. These standards are fluid, in keeping with an evolving social and political milieu.

Because the term can be ambiguous, we want to be careful when this term is used.

The NPOV way of describing Lee is indeed "Taiwan born", that's the way most current Taiwanese media do it, if they are trying to do neutral.

When "Taiwanese" is used that way describing Lee, it can imply that the presidents before him are not Taiwanese. So, when does a person become Taiwanese? Does a person who spent most of his life in Taiwan become Taiwanese? Chiang Ching-kuo, the president before Lee, is the subject of this issue. Before he died, he made a comment that "I am Taiwanese too".

By only describing Lee as "Taiwanese" (and not Chiang), Wikipedia here is rejecting Chiang's claim that he is also Taiwanese.--pyl (talk) 05:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 2) Sorry, I did not say this clear enough. It was easily too misunderstand. Mainland China indeed is a neutral term, just the fact, that citizens of Taiwan have ancestors in Fujien should be presented and is more definite than saying, they are from all over mainland China.
 * 4) Taiwanese is ambiguous, that's right. It means persons from Province China, persons from Island Taiwan and persons from ROC on Taiwan (including Kinmen and those areas). So no matter what views you got, PRC, ROC, 台獨, you will refer to people from of the island Taiwan as Taiwanese. Problems will occur about people from Penghu, Kimen etc. When we talk about Lee Tenghui, and he is born in 三芝鄉, then all those views use the same term. &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; 06:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So Lee is indeed a Taiwan born person. Given that "Taiwanese" is ambiguous and can be unneutral as I mentioned above re Chiang Ching-kuo, I think "Taiwan born" is the better description here to above neutrality issues.--pyl (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A NPOV compromise describing Lee can be that "Lee is the first bensheng ren President", bensheng ren is defined in the article. But I think the terms of bensheng ren and waisheng ren are terribly outdated and irrelevant to the younger generation of the people on Taiwan. It also has a risk of doing divisive politics based on people's origin, and this should be avoided.--pyl (talk) 08:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, as well as you are Earth born. But in proper English no one says "Taiwan born". It's simply stilted and finds a POV where none is. If you say Taiwanese you will think of a person coming from those thre areas I described. But you will have the same ambiguose when you say Taiwan born. Is he from the Province or Island? Remember, the province include more than the island. &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; 09:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Taiwan born is correct English. See this Washington Post article. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1266860.html--pyl (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A quick search on Google shows that Lee Teng-hui is far more often called a "Taiwanese President" (7000 results) than a "Taiwan-born president" (192 results) though:  So considering that "Taiwan-born" is more ambiguous than "Taiwanese", and is in fact far less commonly used, I think we should go with "Taiwanese". Laurent (talk) 16:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Despite what the "quick search" reveals, if the statement is unneutral it breaks NPOV. NPOV > common name and therefore the ROC is not directly called Taiwan on Wikipedia. I raised the neutrality issue and gave an example of Chiang Ching-kuo. No one has been able to address that neutrality issue directly, as only repetitive arguments about common use have been raised.--pyl (talk) 06:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

That's not true. The Taiwan issue is an issue of three conflicting parties. The PRC, the ROC and people supporting Taiwann independence. Any of them uses the word Taiwaense or 台灣人. Therefor it is neutral, as it is clear who is meant. If there is any doubt, than the doubt exists on Taiwan born, as well. If you say Taiwan born, you also dont make clear what you mean with Taiwan. A Province, or the common used name for ROC or the island. 快樂龍 134.61.41.204 (talk) 12:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Pyl, saying "NPOV > common name" is a non-sense because a common name is by definition what we should almost always use, so as to make the article accessible to non-experts. Giving undue weight to an uncommon name is breaking the NPOV, not the other way around. Laurent (talk) 12:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Taiwn born" carries an implication that the person is not actually Taiwanese, but just happens to have been born there. For example, we don't call President Ma "Hong Kongese", but he might be referred to as "Hong Kong born".  Or a person born to U.S. parents stationed in Germany might be called "German born" but not "German".  Do we describe Bismark as "Prussia born" or simply "Prussian" or "German"?
 * The argument that Chiang Chingguo called himself "Taiwanese" late in life holds some weight. Perhaps when saying that Lee was the first Taiwese president of Taiwan we should clarify by saying he was the first ethnically Taiwanese president.
 * However, it is important to note that Chiang Chingguo made his statement about being Taiwanese very late in life - after he had lived in Taiwan for a very long time. Many of the statements from the article where "Taiwanese" is used in contrast to "mainland Chinese" occur in the context of the early conflicts between the two groups.  At that time, the mainland Chinese did not consider themselves "Taiwanese".  Readin (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * At that time, they probably did, and that's why Chiang Ching-guo made those comments. I will change Taiwanese to bensheng ren then. As horrible as the term is, that term avoids the issues raised by "Taiwan born" and "Taiwanese". The term is defined in the article so the readers aren't confused.--pyl (talk) 04:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please wait with your edits, until we finished discussing this. Otherwise this could end in an editwar again. &#24555;&#27138;&#40845; 20:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (replying to Laurent) Actually, at least with regard to China-Taiwan related articles, a RfC a few months ago had not concluded anything along the lines of common name>NPOV. In fact, I will argue that it should be the other way around. We shouldn't be distributing misinformation/disinformation, regardless of how common it might be. Ngchen (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "Ethnically Taiwanese" is a perfectly good and perfectly understandable term. It is no more confusing or POV than "mainland China" which implies that China is the "mainland" for Taiwan.  If we are going to go the route of substituting common words that are understood with foreign words that no one knows, then we'll need to switch every usage of "mainland China" in Wikipedia to "dalu".  I don't believe that is a good route.  We should use the words English readers understand.  Readin (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"country" field of infobox
I believe we need to also include the PRC in the infobox, since according to the PRC's twisted logic, though certainly not in practice, Taiwan is part of China. To not include the PRC's claim violates WP:NPOV and the official diplomatic position of most governments that the PRC has sovereignty over Taiwan. However, listing 2 countries in the field would be confusing without further clarification, hence why I included explanatory parentheticals. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, putting the PRC's claims into the "country" field would be undue weight, and also it's quite simply not the right field for that. If the infobox supported a "claimed" field I wouldn't object but I don't think it does. Also the POV agreed by most countries is that Taiwan is part of China, not that it is part of the PRC, which is different. Laurent (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't investigated all or even most countries, so I can't say you're wrong, but nearly all the countries I have looked into (places like the U.S., Japan, UK) do not agree that Taiwan is part of China. Instead they don't say one way or the other.  Their agreements with the PRC merely "acknowledge" the PRC's position without agreeing or disagreeing. Readin (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting old really fast. Isn't there a Wiki Guideline that assumes positive intent? The alliance (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "positive intent"? I was just correcting a common mistake people make.  Not so much for the benefit of this article, but for future reference.  I hear frequrently hear people say things like "The U.S. recognizes that Taiwan is part of China", but that is just not correct.  The U.S. takes no position on the matter.  Many other countries similarly refuse to take a position.  Even the U.N. does not (and even the U.N. Secretary General recently took a lot of heat for mistating the position). Readin (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since a country needs to acknowledge the one China policy in order to have diplomatic relations with the PRC, I was assuming that by extension they also agree that Taiwan is part of China. However, some extra googling on the topic shown me that it's indeed incorrect - thanks for clarifying this issue. I found this article in particular which states that the "US neither accept nor reject the claim that Taiwan is a part of China." Laurent (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, your research pointed out the correct facts, Laurent. The US needed that position to form the legal basis and arguments for enacting Taiwan Relations Act. If the US recognises Taiwan to be part of the PRC, then it would have no legal basis for enacting laws such as this which can be seen as an interference with another country's territory.


 * In the reality of international politics, there are major countries who hold different POVs from the US in this issue, and that's why I also talked about those POVs in the paragraph below.--pyl (talk) 10:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The "country" Taiwan is a part of is "Taiwan".  The infobox would be better if it used clearer terminology and said "state" instead.  Then we would be correct in saying "state=Republic of China", which seems to be the intention of the box. Readin (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Laurent's comment. The alliance (talk) 17:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If we state list the PRC as a country in Taiwan's infobox, I guess we will have to do "ROC" for all infoboxes of the territories where the ROC has asserted a sovereignty claim, in order to be neutral. Somehow, I don't think that's going to be practical.


 * I don't believe it was a misrepresentation of the UN position. The UN later confirmed that position again in the UN source I cited above. Maybe the PRC has more influence in the UN than to other countries, such as the US. There was a list on Wikipedia on which country recognises or acknowledges the PRC claim on Taiwan (It's probably still there, but I can't find it). The "big powers" (such as the US and Japan) normally just acknowledge the claim, but I believe some major countries (maybe Russia, Malaysia etc) recognise the PRC claim. I know this paragraph isn't really directly related to the infobox issue, but I think it is needed so a more "global picture" can be shown here.--pyl (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright permission
I would like to use this page's information for my Zhongji.Wikia homepage, because Taiwan is the center of country for three series. Therefore I need permission to copy this page's information. Action Parker 11:16, June 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * If I remember the wiki-policy correctly, you may use any information you want in Wikipedia without permission from anyone, as long as you don't call the information your own and that you designate that you got the info from wikipedia. Liu Tao (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Have a look at Copyrights. DMacks (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Political
Since History, Geography, Demographics, Culture, and Economy are detailed in this article, it is perfectly logical and reasonable to have a section on the Political situation in the article as well. However as it is so contentious as to need separation into two articles, one from the ROC viewpoint and the other from the PRC viewpoint, I have added a Political section heading in this article, referring to the contentiousness and the two principal articles.

If good will is exercised by the protagonists, this inclusion might defuse the merge debate somewhat, even though it is doing little more than expanding the disclaimer at the top of the article. Gubernatoria (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposing Move
Due to many people's confusions as well as "certain" assertions towards the "proper" use of the name "Taiwan", I'm proposing to rename this article as "Taiwan Island" and redirecting "Taiwan" to the ROC page. As for reasons why, there are too many to list, but I think everyone here knows at least a few reasons to whether it is a good idea or not. Liu Tao (talk) 15:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The name people use for the region is "Taiwan". It is also the name they use for the government.  Under normal Wikipedia guidelines, we would combine the Taiwan and ROC articles and call the new thing "Taiwan".  However we don't do this because unlike most governments, the ROC moved.  It used to be in China; now it is in Taiwan.  A combined article would leave the ROC as a topic disjointed as its history in China would be ripped apart from its history in Taiwan. So we have the separate articles.
 * For article names, we generally use the common name. Taiwan would be the current common name for both articles, but it doesn't fit as well for the ROC due to the ROC history.  So that leaves it free for use as the name of the region article.  It is the common name people will use for searching for the article.  It is a better fit for this article than it is for the ROC article, and we have a disambiguation at the top of the article for people who are looking for information about the state. Readin (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There already is an article of "Taiwan Region". This article is about the island, as said by the italics at the very top.  And no wiki-policy states that these articles should be merged.  And what the heck do you mean "RoC used to be china, now it is in Taiwan"?!  You know for a fact that that is not true.  ROC is not just in Taiwan, it also includes Kinmen and Lienchang, which are NOT part of Taiwan.  To say the ROC is in China or Taiwan is strictly POV, not to say it also makes no sense at all.  There is already a region article, this article is the island and speaks of the island.  You know that as much as I do through the god knows how many discussions we have had in the past.  Liu Tao (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Opposed - Taiwan is separate from the ROC and there is no need to redirect this article. Readin's points are helpful. User:John Smith& (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the current situation is superior per (a) Readin's points about the history of the ROC and (b) analogous to China, which also doesn't redirect to the PRC. Kusma (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, then maybe we don't have to redirect "Taiwan" to the ROC, but maybe to a DAB page instead. But anyways, the main point is renaming the article as "Taiwan Island" which is what the island is specifically about.  Liu Tao (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the way we currently have it is quite fine IMO. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If it's quite fine then we wouldn't have people trying to change the hap notes as well as putting in stuff that shouldn't be there. Liu Tao (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * of course! this is appropriate. The common name subject matter that a global audience is expecting when they type Taiwan into the search bar is the content that is currently at RoC.  But, this will never happen. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The common name subject matter that people are expecting is spread across two articles, this one and the ROC article. People searching "Taiwan" are not just looking for politics. Readin (talk) 23:25, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These things will work themselves out. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Then why did you constantly kept with the point that "Taiwan" is the only common reference used for the ROC? From our past discussions here, you constantly asserted that "Taiwan" is the only common name used to refer to the ROC, meaning that noone makes the distinction between the 2.  If what you were asserting is true, then it means that whenever someone says "Taiwan", then they are talking about the ROC unless said otherwise.  I am making this proposition based on your previously made points of "Taiwan = ROC".  If "Taiwan" is used synonimously with "Republic of China", then that means "Taiwan" should be redirected to the ROC article, not to this island article, and if redirection was to happen, this article would have to be renamed to something else other then "Taiwan".  Liu Tao (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If we were to merge the two, "Taiwan" would not redirect to "Republic of China". Taiwan is the common name and by Wikipedia convention "Republic of China" would redirect to "Taiwan".  But the merger makes no sense.  The region and the government are not synonymous.  In most places - France, Germany, Canada, etc. they can be treated in a single article because the government has always been in the same place.  The French Republic has always been in France.  The Italian Republic has always been in Italy.  This is not true of the Republic of China (named after the place where it started), which was not in Taiwan for the first third of its existence.  The government was shaped by its originating location, the culture, ideas and history of that location.  It was born and raised outside of Taiwan.
 * It is true that the ROC is more commonly called "Taiwan" than by its formal name. But the region is always called Taiwan.
 * I say "region" because like other place names, usage and exact boundaries can vary. For modern states, there are borders that are usually considered when defining the region, so one can make a strong case that there are exact limits.  But even then, can we say Vatican City is part of Italy? (It is in the peninsula, but not governed by the Italian Republic)?  Can we say Sicily is part of Italy (not in the peninsula, but governed by the Italian Republic)?  To use better examples, since we are writing an article about a region rather than a state, consider the boundaries of Tibet and Kurdistan; can they be defined exactly?  Taiwan is no different.  It is a region of shared traits such as culture, history, government, and ancestry.  The amount to which certain traits are shared vary within the region, and serve to cause some of the ambiguous as to the exact borders, but again this is no different from many other regions such as Transylvania and China Proper.
 * Perhaps it would be more proper to refer to Taiwan as a "country" in the same way that we refer to Amish country. But due to political sensitivities we know that won't happen.  So "region" probably a more neutral term. On the other side of the political sensitives, we shouldn't let people push us into pretending there is no such thing as "Taiwan".  They would push us to say that there is only "Republic of China" and "Taiwan Island" (just a piece of dirt sticking out of the ocean, never mind the shared culture and history of the peoples both there and on surrounding islets).  The simple fact is that people do use the term "Taiwan" and they use it very frequently to refer to a region that while not perfectly precise, is as precise as many other regions that are well documented by Wikipedia.  Readin (talk) 01:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not proposing to MERGE. I'm proposing to REDIRECT and RENAME a few articles.  If you oppose redirecting "Taiwan" to the ROC article, then it's fine, what about redirecting "Taiwan" to the DAB page then?  There are MULTIPLE uses of the term "Taiwan", it would make even more sense to direct "Taiwan" to the DAB page then rename this article as "Taiwan Island".  And yes, this article is about the ISLAND.  It is NOT about the region, there's a separate article for the region as earlier linked.  And as for the country stuff, reason I don't want to go there at all is because it gets messy.  There is NO set definition of the term "country".  Some people use it synonymously with "state", some people use it just as a plot of territory.  The latter definition encompasses just about anything you can imagine, from an entire continent to your backyard.  Based on the former definition, Taiwan is not a country; based on the latter, it is, but so would be Taipei, Tainan, Taitsung, Khaosiung, etc.  Liu Tao (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There has been no consensus displayed here for a move, merge, redirect, or rename. Lest some contributors be cited for edit-warring, perhaps it is time to move on to some other relevant discussion.  Gubernatoria (talk) 01:35, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O on Talk:Republic_of_China_Air_Force
There has been a discussion on WP:3O on Talk:Republic_of_China_Air_Force and I think a WP:3O from someone familiar with the ROC/Taiwan territory would be helpful. Readin (talk) 22:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Island or Group?
There seems to be a slow edit war simmering over whether the article should be about just the island of Taiwan or the island group of Taiwan and its nearby archipelago. I suggest the issue be discussed so it can be settled and the article made more stable. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Region". It allows for both usages and such ambiguity is consistent with other regions where precise boundaries are not defined.  I'll copy and paste part of something I wrote above:
 * I say "region" because like other place names, usage and exact boundaries can vary. For modern states, there are borders that are usually considered when defining the region, so one can make a strong case that there are exact limits.  But even then, can we say Vatican City is part of Italy? (It is in the peninsula, but not governed by the Italian Republic)?  Can we say Sicily is part of Italy (not in the peninsula, but governed by the Italian Republic)?  To use better examples, since we are writing an article about a region rather than a state, consider the boundaries of Tibet and Kurdistan; can they be defined exactly?  Taiwan is no different.  It is a region of shared traits such as culture, history, government, and ancestry.  The amount to which certain traits are shared vary within the region, and serve to cause some of the ambiguous as to the exact borders, but again this is no different from many other regions such as Transylvania and China Proper.
 * Perhaps it would be more proper to refer to Taiwan as a "country" in the same way that we refer to Amish country. But due to political sensitivities we know that won't happen.  So "region" probably a more neutral term. On the other side of the political sensitives, we shouldn't let people push us into pretending there is no such thing as "Taiwan".  They would push us to say that there is only "Republic of China" and "Taiwan Island" (just a piece of dirt sticking out of the ocean, never mind the shared culture and history of the peoples both there and on surrounding islets).  The simple fact is that people do use the term "Taiwan" and they use it very frequently to refer to a region that while not perfectly precise, is as precise as many other regions that are well documented by Wikipedia.
 * Readin (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I say "Island" because it has always been island all the way from the start. There is already an article for Taiwan Region, we've no need for a second article.  Also, in the article, "Taiwan" was not listed as a region, but as an island group.  Taiwan is not an archipelago, it is an island.  If Readin would like to write an article on the region, he/she may do so by expanding upon the region article.  There's an article for the region and an article for the island, there is no need to make the island into a region so that there are 2 regional articles.  Liu Tao (talk) 13:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Taiwan is an island. The term "island" most commonly refers to the geographic features of land, not to politics. Neurofish (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish

Modern Democratic Era
The final subsection on the Modern political era suggests Ma Ying-jeou campaigned for closer ties with mainland china. But are ties closer now then they were two years ago? Neurofish (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish

I added some references regarding economic ties. Feel free to edit my wording or change the references, but I feel the underlying message is accurate, that China has grown rapidly in the last 10 years, resulting in closer economic ties to Taiwan (and the rest of the world). Military and political ties are still strained. Neurofish (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Neurofish

Merging with ROC or Taiwan Province (of the ROC)
Everything in this Taiwan article can fit into sections of the Taiwan Province article and the ROC article. Much of the information is actually repeated in said articles. The alliance (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, we can't merge the 2, the 2 are entirely different things. This article is about the island, the ROC is the State, and The Province is the Province.  You're talking about putting a province, island, and state all on the same article.  The ROC doesn't just include the island and the province, and the province doesn't include all of the island, nor does it include only the island.  Liu Tao (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should combine three articles into one. I am saying that everything in the Taiwan article (except the History before 1945) overlaps with the sections and information about the ROC in those respective categories. The History of Taiwan before 1945 can go in the Taiwan Province article. I don't understand what you mean by "the province doesn't include all of the island, nor does it include only the island" The alliance (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This would be the same as merging South Carolina into the United States article. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not understand your analogy. Please explain. The alliance (talk) 22:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * ROC is the Country, Taiwan is the Province. South Carolina is the State, United States is the Country.  As for that quote, it means exactly what it says.  Apparently you don't know that there's an island called "Taiwan" just like the Province is.  Liu Tao (talk) 02:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, there is no need to be rude. Second, it is a faulty analogy, because SC is a small part of the USA while the island of Taiwan comprises almost 100% of the ROC's jurisdiction; therefore the two are inextricably related. Third, the Taiwan article includes much more information than just the geographical aspects of the island, including culture, history, government, etc., all of which can easily be combined with the two articles in question. The alliance (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The only major place where Taiwan is used to mean STRICTLY ONLY the main island of Taiwan is on Wikipedia. This artificial usage was created specifically to keep people from merging the ROC and Taiwan articles.  Now people use it as evidence as if it were really the way Taiwan is defined.  Pretty ridiculous and circular.--61.224.52.87 (talk) 10:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, the Taiwan (Island) article includes way too much of the political and the other irrelevant information, which is what I've been trying to get fixed for the past month, but apparently they stopped replying to my rebuttals and requests. Tried to change it myself, but it just gets changed back.  Apparently people can't tell the difference between the island, province, and state.  Liu Tao (talk) 14:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, the Taiwan (Island) article includes way too much... That is why there has been so much back and forth about the title of this article.  An article about "Taiwan" should not be limited to the rock and dirt under people's feet, and to make it solely about the "island" is too limiting.  But the proposed solution, to tie Taiwan to a provincial article, is a blatant attempt at POV pushing. Why not tie it instead to the "Taiwan Area"  Why not make it about any or all the Taiwans that have existed in various forms - as an area, a colony of China, a province of China, a nation in its own right as the ROC, a colony of Japan etc.. Readin (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Taiwan has been part of the ROC for only a small portion of its history. Similarly, the ROC has controlled Taiwan for only about 2/3 of its history.  Unlike, for example, the French Republic where the location has always been limited to France, Taiwan and ROC have very different histories and are very different concepts.  Also, the province is problematic as to why it should be preferred over the "Taiwan Area".  Readin (talk) 13:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand what you mean when you say that ROC has only controlled Taiwan for a small portion of its history. However, does that mean that we need to have separate articles for things like California before and after it became a state of the United States? The same applies to Taiwan, in my opinion. Just because it has only been under ROC rule since 1945 doesn't mean that we cannot include the history of Taiwan island in the Taiwan Province article. The alliance (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's exactly what Alta California is. It has specific information about that era's territorial aspects. There are also separate history pages for different (approximately) centuries. DMacks (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Completely different things. Valerian456 Hush,  Rush 18:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Having a rational discussion here on the talk-page is the right way to resolve this issue and decide about the merger. Any user trying to establish "facts on the ground" or change the status quo of any of the related articles prior to consensus here will be blocked immediately for disruptive editing. DMacks (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Were we to have a single article for ROC and Taiwan, making it a state/country articles similar to France (French Republic) and Spain (Kingdom of Spain), naming conventions would dictate that we call it by the common name, "Taiwan" and that would draw a lot of protest and edit warring from people wanting to change it to "Republic of China". It's is disruptive enough when article content is frequently changed. Frequent changes to article title would be a greater problem. Readin (talk) 17:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Better to keep the different articles than try to put everything into one which will lead to major edit wars. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - These articles are over two completely topics. The RoC is the political entity that occupies the island, while the Taiwan article is over the island itself. It would be similar to us trying to merge North America into the United States/Canada article, because those nations are on it. Doesnt work. Thanks, Ono (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Definitely not. Taiwan is the common name which should continue to be used for the RoC as it is today. However, the RoC was the government of mainland China for several years. Republic of China is just as much about that entity that controlled the mainland as it is about the one that controls Taiwan today. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose One is a geographic region and the other is about a government. It is best to keep the two separate, than to create confusion. Citybug (talk) 04:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree The separation of Taiwan and the Republic of China is confusing to most readers who normally identify the two as one single entity. The Times, Le Monde, El Mundo, The China Post and plenty of well respected newspapers use Taiwan and the ROC interchangeably, and I think that Wikipedia should reflect this consensus. Likewise, major encyclopedias like Encyclopaedia Britannica and Encyclopedia Universalis have only one article for Taiwan and the Republic of China. Finally, the threat of an edit war shouldn't be a criteria for splitting articles that way, because it would open the door to all sorts of abuse and innacuracies on Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 10:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The main arguments that keep coming back against the merge kind of make sense, however they are not in my opinion incompatible with a merge:
 * 1) "Taiwan and the ROC are two different things" - but so is "France" and "French Republic", "Germany" and the "Federal Republic of Germany", etc. Yet they both have a single article for both the geographical location and the political entity. We can definitely do the same for Taiwan, and eventually end up with a much clearer article.
 * 2) "Don't do it because that would trigger an edit war" - not a valid reason, as there are ways to deal with edit wars. The main one obviously is to reach a consensus, which can be done by properly integrating all the POV into the article.
 * 3) "The ROC has not always been located in Taiwan." - agree, and this is definitely something that we'd need to document, perhaps by creating a separate "History of the ROC" article? The French governement was not in France either during World War II, yet nobody would split the France article in two for that reason.
 * Eventually, I think it all boils down to the fact that Taiwan is not officially a country. However we don't need to describe it as such - we can do as the Encylopaedia Britannica did and call it a "self governing island", which I think cannot be denied. Even China would accept it since being "self governing" doesn't make Taiwan independent and is not incompatible with the One China policy. Again, there is a nearly international consensus that Taiwan and the ROC are interchangeable, yet this consensus is not reflected on Wikipedia. Laurent (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh... for the first one, there's French Fifth Republic... --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 11:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is purely about the form of government and its origins, and is not comparable to a country article. Probably the closest equivalent for the ROC would be Government of the Republic of China. Laurent (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But then if you look at the historic French Third Republic, it is written in the historical states format. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 02:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, there's Kingdom of the Netherlands and Netherlands. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)


 * oppose,be a chinese,Taiwan(island) is not ROC(contry),it is a diffence conception. --Time mades Hero (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose As has been stated, these are two very different topics. The merger of the two would invite no end of edit warring and even more disagreement then we have now.  Folic_Acid 07:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

One important factor to consider is that Taiwan is the name most often used by Taiwan to describe itself and is also used internationally to represent the area of land governed by the ROC. But it is in such common usage, as opposed to ROC. Here's an example: if you sent a letter addressed to "TAIWAN" it would reach its recipient. If it was addressed "REPUBLIC OF CHINA" it would end up in some dead end office in the PRC. (Of course, if you sent it from China as "TAIWAN" rather than "TAIWAN, R.O.C." the letter would be destroyed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.116.8.172 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Original research, irrelevant, and a hasty generalization. I've held a ROC flag in Beijing many times, and look, I'm not in prison. Oh, and non-verifiable and WP:POV. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose: Merging of entirely different concepts. Just like "Macedonia" the country and "Macedonia" the province of Greece, the notions of Country, Island and Province do not equate under any circumstances. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 08:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose: These pages is looking up the ones with the names of selves in Chinese Wikipedia. They are two different definitions on historical and political issues. Same as the Fujian Province (minor places) of ROC and the Fujian Province (major places) of PRC. --Gzyeah (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose: People tend to (conveniently) forget that the Republic of China did NOT include Taiwan from 1912 to 1945 i.e. quite a significant portion of its history. --TokyoJapan (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree: Taiwan was definitely under Japanese rule from 1895 to 1945, therefore absolute equation between Taiwan and the ROC is absolutely absurd. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 12:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per above. TastyCakes (talk) 15:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposing Reform
I'm proposing reforming and cleaning this article. This article is becoming more politically oriented and much of its information is more about the ROC as a whole instead of just about the Island itself. I propose we clean out the "non-relevant" information, whether deleting them outright or moving them to the ROC article, and begin to remodel it to the geographical article it should be. We can use the Great Britain article as a model, they've seemed to have done a good job with separating the Great Britain article as well as the United Kingdoms article. I also propose we renaming the article to "Taiwan Island" and making the DAB page the "Taiwan" article like what was done with the Britain article. Liu Tao (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose we reform by ending the idea that we can treat Taiwan as a hunk of rock and dirt. It has a population with a unique culture.  It has a unique history very distinct from the Republic of China.  The idea that this is a "geographic article" is the problem.  Readin (talk) 16:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Per policy, dab pages should not exist when there is a primary topic for a word. Making Taiwan a dab page won't work, because the primary topic of the word "Taiwan" in reliable sources refers to the current gov't of the RoC and current territory of the Free Area of the RoC.  The reason this article keeps getting political edits is because generalist readers expect to find it here. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I expounded on this above, but consider "Italy". It is a state (the "Italian Republic"), it is a geographic area (the peninsula), it is a historical region, it is a cultural region.   But everyone simply says "Italy" regardless of which they are talking about.  And in most cases they mean all of them at once.  The same is true of "Taiwan" except that the state doesn't fit quite so nicely.  Unlike the Italian Republic which uses "Italy" for short and which has always made its home in the historical, geographic and cultural Italy, the Repuglic of China does not officially use "Taiwan" for short (though everyone else does) and it has not always made its home in the historical, geographical and cultural Taiwan.  We can't do anything about the history.  And the only real way to fix the name is to persuade the "Republic of China" government to change its name, which won't happen so long as it remains dependent on the US for defense from China's threats.   Until that happens, we're stuck with one article for the government and a separate article for the cultural, geographic and historical region.  Readin (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (READIN)This article IS a geographical article, and is NOT the problem. The problem is that you act upon by your POV and are constantly trying to make this article into a political article.  Look at the Great Britain article, what's wrong with article?  They don't seem to have any issues with it being an article about an Island called "Great Britain".  It talks about the Geography, History, Terminology, Wildelife, Settlements, and Major Cities.  As for Italy, there is a SEPERATE Italian Penninsula article, which is even MORE ambiguous then the Great Britain article.  And as for the ROC's "short" name being "Taiwan", some says it's "Taiwan", some "ROC", some "China", etc. ugh, it gets complicated.  Anyways, point is that the British has made separate articles and distinctified and identified exactly what the different terms are.  Great Britain is the Island, British Isles is an island group, United Kingdom the state, etc etc.  You want to do culture?  Sure, you can do it, but do it in the ROC state (You heard me, STATE, ROC IS A STATE, NOT A GOVERNMENT, IT HAS A GOVERNMENT THAT'S CALLED THE "GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA, WHICH ITSELF HAS A SEPARATE ARTICLE) article or the Taiwan Province article like every other article does.  Or, you can be like Europe and do an entirely separate article for Taiwan Culture and link it to these 3 articles (Republic of China, Taiwan, Taiwan Province), heck there is an article for Taiwan Culture already.  As for politics, they don't belong in this article at all.  Taiwan is a hunk of rock, when you are using it in the geographical context.  We're talking about the island, not the people, there's a separate article for the people that's titled Taiwanese People.  You have to differentiate between all the different entities called "Taiwan".  There's the DAB page which lists clearly as hell the different entities that are called "Taiwan".  However, because apparently you seem to be too lazy to check out the page yourself, I take the liberty of copying and pasting it for you to read the different uses of "Taiwan":

* Taiwan, the island in East Asia, historically also known as Formosa * Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan, the state governing the island of Taiwan. o Taiwan Area, the geopolitical area which is governed by the Republic of China (ROC). o Taiwan Province, the administrative division of the ROC. * Chinese Taipei, the name that the Taiwan or the ROC competes under in the Olympics and many other international events. * Tainan City, historically named "Taiwan Prefecture" or "Taiwan-fu" in the 19th century * Republic of Formosa, the historical republic * Republic of Taiwan, the proposed state * Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, the theoretical province claimed, but never controlled, by the People's Republic of China * Ilha Formosa: Requiem for the Formosan Martyrs, a musical composition by Tyzen Hsiao


 * Aparently you keep on thinking that all of these DIFFERENT entities are the same thing, that's what's wrong with you. You REFUSE to differentiate between all of these uses.  You got 2 lads who are named John, does it mean they're the same person?  No, they're two people called John.  Same is here, we got multiple entities named or referred to as "Taiwan", but it does not mean that they're all the same entities.  We got an island, a state, a region, a province.  They're not the same thing, and it is stated DISTINCTIVELY which is what and the difference can me touched upon as well.


 * (Schmucky)There is no 'primary' target for the term "Taiwan". I have said already, there's the 3 'biggies' of what "Taiwan" can mean in common speech, the ROC, Island, and Province.  And as for those primary sources, exactly what sources are those?  Because I have read plenty of encyclopedias and they have separate entries for the ROC, Island, and Province.  And as for those 'generalist' people, it is more reason to make the DAB page the main page.
 * There is no single definition of the term 'Taiwan', in different contexts it means different things. Also, there is no universal 'general' definition of the term 'Taiwan'.  Some people use the term to describe the ROC, some the Province, some the Island, Region, etc.  Some people specifically define what they're talking about before only using the term 'Taiwan', and some don't 'generalise' the term at all.  To make the Island the main page is to support the viewpoint that the term 'Taiwan' is 'generalised' as the Island which is barely the case at all.  And as for the generalist readers, if they know what they're looking for (state, island, province, region, etc) then they know which link to click on.  All of the links have a description besides it, I think they should be able to understand what it says and don't mind the 'one-more-click'.  Liu Tao (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree: What Liu Tao has proposed is what I have been trying to express all along in this talk page. I have checked out the new article pages for Taiwan and ROC and think it is much better than before when there were so many overlapping areas that were unnecessary. The alliance (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Various issues with recent edits
An IP editor has been making changes that have many problems. Readin (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Attempting to use "the mainland People's Republic of China (PRC)".  However while we have accepted as convention to include the POV term "mainland China" for want of a better term, it is far more POV to claim that the PRC is the "mainland" of Taiwan.
 * 2) "Since the unofficial end of the last Chinese Civil War following World War II, the island group has been under the government of the Republic of China (ROC)".  This is simply incorrect.  Taiwan was annexed by the ROC at the end of WWII, not at the end of China's civil war.
 * 3) "while the mainland has been".   While the term "mainland China" is POV as it tends to imply that China is the "mainland" of Taiwan, it at least leaves open the interpretation of it being a simply geographic location.  However to simply return to China as "the mainland" in the context of Taiwan does not leave open this interpretation and is therefor even more POV.  We have a convention of always using "mainland China" rather than simply "mainland" for that reason.


 * Okay, either your geography sucks or I dunno what to say. Mainland China is Mainland China, it's a geopolitical term.  There is nothing POV about it.  The ROC doesn't just claim the PRC, it claims other territory as well.  Mainland China can be interpreted to include all those territories or some.  And nobody said that the PRC is the "mainland" of Taiwan.  "Mainland Taiwan" is the same as the Taiwan Island.  I mean same as in their the same exact geographical entity, just different names.  Anyone who is in their right minds know that Mainland China refers to, well, mainland china.  There is nothing POV about it.  Liu Tao (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That is one interpretation, and perhaps it would be helpful to capitalize the M, but the other way to look at it is that in an article about Taiwan, saying "mainland China" implies that "mainland China" is the "mainland" of a larger entity Taiwan is a part of. That is POV.  Despite this problem, "Mainland China" is used per convention because we don't have really good NPOV terms to use and "Mainland China" seems least problematic of the POV terms available.
 * As for the specific edits - the IP editor was changing "mainland China" to just "mainland" or to "mainland People's Republic of China", both of which have more serious POV issues. Readin (talk) 00:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mainland China is a very POV term. It's also a lensed term - from the perspective within TW/HK/MO. From a global perspective, "mainland China" is just plain "China", without the lens. Wikipedia should be written from a global perspective, without the use of specialised terms. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * There are indeed very few instances when the term "mainland China" is useful. Perhaps it can be used to avoid ambiguity when discussing the One-China policy or the Chinese Civil War, but otherwise it can easily be replaced by just "China". The POV is not really a problem IMO because it may both mean that Taiwan is part of the PRC, and that China is part of the ROC. In my experience, editors don't really care when I replace it with just "China". In any case, "mainland People's Republic of China" is definitely wrong. Laurent (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Mainland China in no sense includes Taiwan. Mainland China in chinese is "Dalu", it does NOT include Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macau.  It's just mainland.  It's used in the same sense that mainland Europe is used.  I seriously don't see how it can even include Taiwan.  Mainland means mainland.  Liu Tao (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody said the term included Taiwan. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Well, that's what Readin's trying to assert. 06:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not assert that. Perhaps you should quote the words that concern you. Readin (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote, ""while the mainland has been". While the term "mainland China" is POV as it tends to imply that China is the "mainland" of Taiwan" --  Readin
 * Mainland China is a geopolitical term, it has always been used to refer directly to Mainland China. That big piece of territory in East Asia, that is Mainland China.  It has nothing to do with Taiwan being in whatever.  You're trying to twist these already established geological terms which has nothing to do with politics and trying to make em POV based whilst they're not.  Mainland China does not mean China is the mainland of anything.  Mainland China is the mainland of China.  It doesn't just apply to Taiwan as well.  Here's an example (I'm not using Taiwan cause one of you are gonna start spewing crap about it), let's take Hainan.  Hainan is part of China, but it's not part of Mainland China.  Mainland China is bits and pieces of China that is located on the continent, it does not include the offshore islands and stuff.  It's the same with the term Mainland Europe.  Britain and Ireland are part of Europe, but not part of Mainland Europe.  Liu Tao (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think today the term "mainland China" makes sense when talking about the territory that's not Honk Kong or Macau. Taiwan is so clearly out of it that nobody would seriously use it as a POV term unless there's an ambiguity (maybe when talking about the one-China policy). In general, people just say "China" when talking about "mainland China" and "Hong Kong", "Macau", etc. when talking about the other territories. Laurent (talk) 03:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you 100%, which is why I have no idea why Readin wants to reword the "Mainland China".Liu Tao (talk) 07:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're misreading this discussion Liu Tao. Per current convention, I've been re-wording "the mainland" to "mainland China" or "Mainland China".   I did point out a POV problem with "mainland China", but I also said it is the best term we have so far and so I haven't argued that we should change it.


 * Leaving aside common usage for the moment, both "mainland China" and "China" have a problem in that one takes a Taiwan subjugation position while the other takes a Taiwan independence position.
 * The word "mainland" in "mainland China" implies that there is another land that is part of China but not part of "mainland" China. Otherwise "China" and "mainland China" would be exactly the same thing and there would be no need to include the term "mainland".  So what is this other piece of land?  Is it Hainan?  Let's see "..travel between mainland China and Taiwan has been...".  In such a sentence we are not attempting to exclude Hainan, so this use of "mainland China" does not make sense if "mainland" is meant to distinguish Hainan from the rest of China.
 * But if we take the Taiwan subjugationist point of view that Taiwan is part of China, then the sentence makes sense. "...when mainland China and Taiwan were united by the ROC after WWII..."
 * On the other hand, if we take the Taiwan freedom point of view, the sentence is more difficult. Why would we say "mainland China" rather than simply "China"?  We don't talk about travel between "Japan and mainland China" or "the United States and mainland China", we just say "Japan and China" or "the United States and China".


 * Simply saying "China" has problems for Taiwan subjugationists. For someone who believes Taiwan is already part of China, saying "travel between Taiwan and China" makes as much sense as "travel between Tokyo and Japan".


 * It really is a situation where neither term is completely POV free, and there seems to be no third term available.
 * Hong Kong/Macao provides a little bit of relief for "mainland China" as the argument can be made that "mainland" is distinguishing the rest of China from Hong Kong and Macao. The sentence about "travel between Taiwan and mainland China" then makes sense because we are not intending to include Hong Kong - thus the use of the term "mainland".  To use an analogy provided by Liu Tao above, this would be like a Hawaiian saying "Germany either controlled or had a neutrality with all powers of mainland Europe by lat 1943".  This would make sense.
 * However, getting back to my original statement about the problem of "the mainland", it would not make sense for a Hawaiian to say "Germany either controlled or had a neutrality with all powers of the mainland by lat 1943" since "the mainland" for Hawaii is the part of the U.S.A in North America, not the mainland part of Europe. Similarly, unless we consider Taiwan to be part of China (and Wikipedia chooses not to take a position), then saying "the mainland" is unclear because we don't know which mainland is being talked about.  Is it mainland Europe, mainland U.S.A, or the largest island of Taiwan?
 * I think that because of the Hong Kong thing, "mainland China" is workable. Perhaps to clarify that "mainland" is part of the name rather than descriptive in relation to Taiwan, capitalizing the M might be a good idea.
 * From a common usage perspective, simply saying "China" as proposed by Laurent and Schmucky is the way to go and I would certainly support that change. However, I do know long-time editors, such as PalaceGuard, Jiang, and Blueshirts, who will almost certainly object.  This would be a significant change affecting a lot of articles, and they would notice eventually and we would have to argue it out.  Before making such a change, we should be sure we get a broad consensus, and I think we all know that won't be possible.  Readin (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think using the terms "mainland China" and "Taiwan" together are the most non-POV terms. They imply that geographically, these are two separate entities without any reference to politics. It is an indisputable fact. Nobody would be able to argue that one is part of the other. To use the terms "China" and "Taiwan" implies "two countries, two systems" and obvious POV. The alliance (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * They are technically two countries and they have very different political systems: China has a Communist government while Taiwan has a democratic one not unlike the one we have here in the United States. Additionally, the people of Taiwan do not need to pay any taxes to the Mainland. Just because a country is not a member of the United Nations doesn't mean it's not independent. As a side note, the only reason Taiwan doesn't have UN membership was because Chiang Kai-Shek was not happy about Mainland China (by then a Communist nation) being allowed membership and refused to join.--Twilight Helryx (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the point about there being two political entities, one on the mainland and one on Taiwan. It is my personal belief that the government in Taipei is legitimate. However, Wikipedia enforces neutrality and I am agreeing with Readin that the terms "Mainland China" and "Taiwan" when used together is the most neutral way to refer to these two political entities. I specifically highlight "two countries, two systems" as problematic, because that was a position adopted by certain prominent politicians on Taiwan that can lead to POV issues here on Wikipedia. However, regardless of one's political beliefs, there is no denying the fact that Mainland China and Taiwan are two separate and distinct geographical areas. The alliance (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand me. "Taiwan" and "mainland China" are for the geo-cultural-historical regions.  They may be called separate "geopolitical" region as well, having a long history of different political experience (either rule by separate entities, or rule by the same entity but being treated differently by that entity).  But for the modern political entities we should continue to use the names "People's Republic of China" and "Republic of China", or I would approve of shortening to more simple terms "Taiwan" and "China".  The term "mainland China" to refer to the political PRC would be confusing as the PRC now includes Hong Kong and Macau - which are not considered part of mainland China.  Readin (talk) 07:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Military
There isn't a section on the current structure of armed forces. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That section is located here, because it is not specifically a cultural or geographical topic particular to Taiwan. The military is operated by the state. The alliance (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Flag of Taiwan
Why the flag of Taiwan is not being shown in big sizes icon as the flags of other nations? रोहित रावत (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This page refers to the island and not the political state. You may be looking for ROC. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Kuomintang martial law period
It should state Chinese Kuomintang martial law period, because the official name of the Kuomintang is Chinese Kuomintang. I believe the Chinese who went to Taiwan after losing their civil war in China want to brainwash the Taiwanese. That's why they leave out the word Chinese in Chinese character and in English as well. Kuo means nationals in Chinese character, they want the Taiwanese to think they are part of the Chinese nation. That's the why the Chinese brainwash people. It's Chinese Kuomintang, not just Kuomintang. What is Kuomintang to someone who doesn't know about Taiwan or China? It doesn't mean a whole lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.137.201.43 (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Classification of Taiwanese people
Taiwanese people should be either classified as Han Chinese/Taiwanese Aborigines (generally accepted) or four groups of Aborigines/Minnan/Hakka/Waishengren (in common use in Taiwan). Classifying Taiwanese people into three groups of Taiwanese/Waishengren/Aborigines is either unreasonable, or purely from the viewpoint of pan-greens, and is therefore not from a neutral point of view. Abc root (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The lad has a point. These classifications are based upon political and historical aspects, not based upon ethnicity.  Liu Tao (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The three-way split is not coming the pan-green viewpoint, in fact it comes from a source that has supported the KMT for decades and worked to weaken the pan-green while they were in the presidency. The source? The U.S. government.  "Ethnic groups:  Taiwanese (including Hakka) 84%, mainland Chinese 14%, indigenous 2%" (CIA World Factbook: Taiwan)
 * There are any number of ways the divisions could be drawn. The mainland Chinese could be divided up based on which part of China they came from.  The aborigines could be divided up by tribe.  Ethnicity doesn't have strict lines.
 * The CIA factbook has weaknesses (those weaknesses are why it is no longer listed in the article), but it is at least a source. Before we change it we would try to find another source that can be considered reasonably unbiased (which unfortunately would tend to exclude the most likely source, the Taiwan government source).  But hopefully some unbiased academic or scholarly source might be found.
 * As I was typing the above, I realized I had an encyclopedia handy.  World Book 1992 has this to say about the people of Taiwan: "Most Taiwanese are Chinese whose ancestors came to the island from Fujian (also spelled Fukien) and Guangdong (Kwantung) provinces on the mainland sic.  Over 1 1/2 million more people fled to Taiwan from the mainlan sic after the Communist take-over in 1949.  About 2 percent of the population are non-Chinese native peoples related to Indonesians and Filipinos."  So World Book also divides the Taiwanese into the same three groups (though it doesn't list them explicitly, it does introduce and describe them separately).
 * I wouldn't consider either of these sources to be the greatest, but they are better than nothing. If we are going to change we should come up with a better source first. Readin (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * These classifications did not serve as the 'official' classifications of the people by the RoC government. If I remember correctly, people were registered based on the province they were from.  As for ethnicity, people were educated based upon the different ethnic groups.  These classifications used now were not, and still is not the 'official' classification of people by the government.  This classification was used by the common folks to differentiate themselves from each other.  As for the 'better than nothing' part, I'd beg to differ.  Sometimes nothing is better than unwanted material.  Liu Tao (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify any misunderstanding: weak sources are better than no sources. Readin (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the current classifications of Taiwanese, waishengren, and aboriginals is ok, because if you classify the people as Han Chinese and aboriginals, it is not culturally salient. The alliance (talk) 11:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you classify them as Taiwanese/waishengren/aboriginals it becomes split geopolitically. If you want to classify the 'kind' of people people are, it should be based upon ethnicity.  Sure, even if you classify the people as Han or Aborginals, you can still go down further.  Everyone knows that there are multiple subgroups for Han and Aborginals, you can even divide them up if you have the stats.  Liu Tao (talk) 05:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So long as we can find a decent source, I do not object to clarifying the Hokkien/Hakka split since if I understand correctly it has been an important source of ethnic tension in the nation for hundreds of years and still today is important in politics.
 * Ethnicity is largely the result of people being split by geography and politics, so I don't think we should be concerned that the Taiwanese/waishengren/aboriginals classification is "split geopolitically". Readin (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is not true. Ethnicity split could be because of geography and politics, but it is by no means directly linked to politics or geography.  Ethnicity is based primarily upon blood, not politics or geography.  If you want to split and do numbers on ethnic groups, you do it on ethnic groups, but what you do not do is to list Taiwanese, Extraprovincials, and the Natives as seperate ethnic groups.  That is incorrect by many folds. Taiwanese is not an ethnicity, it's a demonym for those that are of Taiwan.  Extraprovincials define those who are from outside the province.  These 2 categorisations are already obviously not qualifiable by no means as categories for ethnicities.  As for the Natives, they are split into 16 ethnic groups.  You wanna split the people amongst these catogorisations is one thing, but to list them as ethnic groups which they are not is on a whole different grounds here.  Liu Tao (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I've heard of "Taiwanese" only in relation to nationality and culture, but not ethinicity! Isn't Taiwan 98% Han Chinese? Official statistics don't lie. There is not such thing as a "Taiwanese" ethnicity (unless you're referring to aboriginals). Most of modern-day Taiwanese nationals descended from Han Chinese in China, especially the Fujian province. Sure, their culture may be different from China's. But they're still Han Chinese by blood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.194.158 (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't mind that I moved your comments to the end of the discussion so that it flows better.
 * You say Official statistics don't lie.  There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.  Beyond the problems with statistics for a hard to define metric, consider the first word in your statement, "Official".  I assume by "Offical" you mean government, and by "government" we mean that organization run by politicians who are so well known for their honesty.  And let's not forget the political agenda of the foreign government that has been running Taiwan for most of the last 60 years.
 * You say Sure, their culture may be different from China's. But they're still Han Chinese by blood. The definition of "ethnicity" includes both race and culture. Readin (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Han Chinese
Is Taiwanese really Han Chinese? Shouldn't it include North Koreans, South Koreans, and Japanese? Because these people look similar. Who's to say Taiwanese is Han Chinese? I think the Taiwanese just branched off later than the Japanese and Koreans. Are Mongolians Han Chinese. If Taiwanese is Han Chinese, I think the whole Asian continent should be Chinese excluding the Indians and alike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.137.201.43 (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I fainted reading this. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * haha, is this guy for real? Anyways...  Not to be a jerk or bragging or whatever, but this stuff with the Han ethnicity is like common knowledge, something every Chinese should know.  But then, it's the English Wiki, not Chinese, people here are westerners who knows naught about the Far East.  Anyways, Han is an ethnicity, Taiwanese is not an ethnicity.  Taiwanese is a demonym, used for those who are of the island or province known as Taiwan.  Ethnicity is based upon the blood lineage, demonym is based upon the locality.  Those who are from Taiwan are Taiwanese, those who are of the Han ethnicity are Han.  These are 2 categories from 2 different types of classifications.  Don't read them in as of the same type of classification, they aren't.  That is all I'm going to say.  If you dun understand, then say so and I'll break it down even more for you bit by bit.  Just remember to read and absorb all that I write, I dun like wasting my time explaining stuff that can be easily understood with 20 min of research.  Liu Tao (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

ethnic 2 a : of or relating to large groups of people classed according to common racial, national, tribal, religious, linguistic, or cultural origin or background

Ethnicity is not just about "blood lineage". And if it were, there would need to be a separate "Taiwanese" ethnicity to deal with the fact that the "Han" of Taiwan are actually a mixture of Han Chinese and Taiwanese aborigine ancestry - not to mention that Han Chinese isn't really a blood line ethnicity as much as it is the result of historical assimilations of various ethnicities throught China and other countries (for example, Taiwan where many lowland aboriginies chose to assimilate in the richer more technilogically advance Han Chinese colonists). Readin (talk) 23:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)


 * To my understanding, blood-based classification is what ethnicity is, or primarily is. Ethnicity is a sub-category of race.  As for separate 'Taiwanese' ethnicity, no, not true.  'Taiwanese' by no means is an ethnicity, I've never heard of 'Taiwanese' described as an ethnicity.  There 4 main 'categories' of people in Taiwan - Hoklo, Hakka, Natives, and the Extra-provincials. The Hoklo and Hakka are both sub-groups of the larger Han ethnicity. The Natives on the other hand, de facto speaking are composed of 16 different ethnic groups. As for the Extra-provincials, they're just people from outside the Province and can be of any ethnicity, but as they come from the mainland, they tend to be of Han ethnicity.  That is what the textbooks say, go read all about it.  It's also what the common perception is as well.  Of course, many pro-greens don't like the view of them originating on Mainland, so they try to downplay it and all that stuff.  But as far as common knowledge goes, Hakka and Hoklo peoples of the Han group that came over hundreds of years ago, more or less.
 * As for the 'assimilations', that's not necessarily true either. Based upon traditional Chinese ways of reckoning, one is what their father is.  We dun give a damn about the 'biological' parts, we care about the paternal lines.  If your father is a Han, you're a Han regardless what your mum or 'biological components' are.  Long story short, there is no such thing as '50% Han 50% whatever'. You're either one or the other.  For example, with me, biologically speaking, I'm only 1/4 extra-provincial.  Only my Paternal Grandfather is from the Mainland, my Grandmum is a Taiya and my mum is a Hoklo.  But, based on the traditional chinese reckonings, because my Grandfather is an extra-provincial, my father is as well, and because he is one, I am as well.  So despite that I'm only 1/4th Extra-Provincial, and 50% Hoklo, I'm not a Hoklo, I'm an Extra-provincial, more specifically Jiangsu.  That is how it's determined.
 * The same concepts can be put to work with the Natives as well. By the traditional reckonings, only those children who are borne of a Han father are considered 'Han'. Everyone else is considered to be non-Han, traditionally speaking.  So by theory, all 'Han' people have some sort of 'Han' blood in them.  Not all people with Han blood are Han, but all who are Han have Han blood.
 * Don't tell me you didn't know this... If you live in Taiwan you should be know of this.  Liu Tao (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Ethnicity" is an English word. Few people in Taiwan or China speak English fluently, and hardly any speak it natively.  When we use the word "ethnicity" we are speaking English.  However people in Taiwan or China may define a similar concept, it is not necessarily the same concept.  Suppose that it is discovered that Bill Clinton is a direct male line descendant of Genghis Khan (it is possible; some of Khan's armies reached Europe and after generations of marrying white women the oriental features would be hard to see), would that make Bill Clinton Chinese or Mongolian ethnicity?  In your value system, perhaps the race and the bloodline is very important.  In mine I'm offended that ethnicity includes race at all - it should be about culture only.  But neither one of us gets to decide on Wikipedia - we're stuck using reliable sources like the dictionary.
 * With a word like "ethnicity" it is hard to make clear logical rules - that's why Wikipedia's directions for biographical pages is to use whatever ethnicity the person in question assigns to himself. For large groups of people the question is more difficult.  Readin (talk) 06:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, to get one thing straight, 'Chinese' is a nationality, not an ethnicity. But based on the Traditional Chinese way of reckoning, aye, Clinton would be a Mongolian. Back to the Han-Taiwanese issue.  Even if you want to throw culture into the factors (Dun get me wrong, but I also put culture into play, but only to a limited extent), then how big of a difference must the cultures be to be considered different cultures?  To my eyes, the cultural difference between the Hoklo, Hakka, and the rest of the Han groups are not that different.  Their difference is akin to the difference in the Han cultures of Northern and Southern China.  And also, another thing, Taiwan isn't the only place with Hakka and Hoklo peoples.  The 'root' of the Hoklos lie in Southern Fukien, where the majority of the Hoklos, or Minnan still resides.  As for Hakka, they find their 'roots' in Kwangtung, where most of them resides as well.  You've got no grounds for a seperate classification of the Minnan and Hakka as a separate ethnicity.  The official RoC and PRC stances are that they are subgroups of the Greater Han ethnicity.  As for a consensus, even if you want a concensus within those of the Hakka and Minnan groups themselves, the majority still consideres themselves as of a Han subgroup.  The only really main difference between the Minnan, Hakka, and the rest of the Han group is a language difference.  Culturally speaking, there's only minor and small differences where it's just minor variations between a few traditions and stuff.  If you propose to separate the Minnan and Hakka from the Han group just because of these small and minor cultural or language differences, you're proposing to split the rest of the Han group into several groups, and the Han ethnicity itself would cease to exist as there is no 'root' or 'base' Han group.  Liu Tao (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The official RoC and PRC stances are that they are subgroups of the Greater Han ethnicity. The China and the Chinese Nationalist led ROC both have political and ideological reasons to introduce bias to this question.
 * and the Han ethnicity itself would cease to exist Like language groups, ethnicities come sub-groups and super-groups. Just as Spanish and German might be considered ethnicities within a larger European ethnicity, the Han groups might be considered ethnicities within a larger Han ethnicity.
 * Taiwan isn't the only place with Hakka and Hoklo peoples but are the Taiwan Hakka and Hoklo exactly the same as the China Hakka and Hoklo? I never, for example, saw a Tulou in Taiwan (I wish I had though, the sure look cool in the pictures).  I don't know much about the Chinese Hakka and and Hoklo, but it is easy for me to imagine them being someone different from the Taiwan Hakka and Hoklo due to hundreds of years of separation - just Americans are different from their relatives in other parts of the world.  I don't for sure though, and we could argue around in circles, with you pointing out similarities and me doing some research and pointing out differences.  And we could try to could the thousands of each and argue about which are more importand and which are less important and just how different people have to be to be considered a different ethnicity or just how similar they have to be to be the same ethnicity.  In the end it would all come down to opinion and feeling.
 * You've done a good job highlighting the many problems with the idea of classifying people by "ethnicity". It's not a concept to which one can apply logical rules and come up with an unassailable answer.  It's fuzzy, not distinct.  That's why Wikipedia's directions for biographical pages is to use whatever ethnicity the person in question assigns to himself.  For large groups of people the question is even more difficult.  That's why we use sources rather than arguing about our opinions.  Of course finding reliable unbiased sources for a question which in this case has strong political overtones can be extremely difficult.  Readin (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, you wanna **** with me, I'll **** with you then. Then lemme ask you, are the Minnan people of a village exactly the same as the Minnan people of a village over? Are the Minnan in northern Taiwan exactly the same as the Minnan in Southern Taiwan?  Are the Minnan living next to me exactly the same as the Minnan a room over?  Obviously no, no two people are 'exactly' the same by definition.  What you are saying is the obvious.
 * Anyways, got an idea, instead of listing the ethnicities only as '98% Han and 2% Native' or '70% Hoklo 18% Hakka etc etc', what if we combine it into 1 single list. We list '98% Han', under it, we sub it into 3 groups, Minnan/Hoklo, Hakka, Extra-provincials. You said that the Han is one big ethnic group, and the 'little groups' inside are ethnic groups as well.  If so, then you should have no problem with listing the groups like so.
 * A similiar concept can be done for the Natives, but you dun wish to list all 16 groups, you can apply a link instead. Technically, or officially speaking based upon RoC numbers and stance, the Natives aren't a single ethnicity, but unless you prefer to list all 16 groups, we're going to have to put in the 'Natives' and a link or footnote under it.
 * What do you think of this idea?Liu Tao (talk) 15:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Or we could divide it into "Native Taiwanese" and "Mainlanders", then subdivide "Native Taiwanese" into Hakka, Hoklo and Aborigines. But even better would be to try to find an unbiased reliable source.
 * Your question about the two neighboring villages again illustrates the problem. As does the example that the DNA of a human and a fruit fly are (so I've heard) more than 90% the same.  Surely you wouldn't put two creatures that are so genetically similar into separate ethnic groups! You can't draw simple clear lines between the groups; there are no hard and fast logical rules. Readin (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What the **** is your problem? Unbiased sources?!  Everyone knows, as a common fact and knowledge that the Hoklo and Hakka are Han subgroups.  The fact that you're trying to disregard it is insulting and a disgrace.  Even the Hoklo and Hakka themselves regard themselves as Han subgroups, INCLUDING the ones in Taiwan.  The textbooks say it, the definition itself for Hakka and Hoklo itself says it.  Genetically similar?!  Do not talk biology with me, you are not a biologist or geneticist.  In genetics, 99% identical DNA doesn't mean a thing.  Human DNA differences amongst themselves are no where as low as 99%, the difference is much much MUCH lower than 99%.  And as I've said, this has nothing to do with DNA similarity directly, it has to do with lineage.  I've already told you the Chinese method of reckoning, that reckoning has nothing to do with biological or DNA tests/similarity.  It has to do with lineage and which side of lineage you are from.
 * Your notion of 'Native Taiwanese', then what is your definition of natives? I've never heard of Hoklos or Hakka defined as 'natives'.  I've only heard of the aborgines called 'natives', because they are.  They are the first people to occupy and live in Taiwan for the past thousands of years.  The Hoklos and Hakkas have only been in Taiwan for a few hundred years, akin to the British Colonists in America.  If you define natives as people borne on the Island, then you're going to have to take in the Extra-provincials in, because almost ALL of them are borne in Taiwan.  Most of those who are borne in Mainland are dead.
 * Your classification of Hakka and Hoklo as Native Taiwanese are not sufficient either, because NOT ALL Hoklo and Hakka are from Taiwan. Not even ALL are from Taiwan, the majority of Hakka and Hoklo live in mainland, and don't gimme that bull about them being different.  The difference is minimal.  The difference between the Hoklo in northern/southern Taiwan are akin to the difference between the Hoklos in central/southern Fukien and even in cross-straight comparisons, the difference is just about the same as well.
 * Find an unbiased reliable source?! What is 'unbiased'?!  Wikipolicy and manual itself states that all sources are biased.  What matters is reliability and verifiability.  You want a source, here is the source straight off from the ROC government wesite:

http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/yearbook/ch2.html


 * Now, you are telling that the CIA's information about the ROC is more reliable then the information given by the ROC? Is that what you are saying?  That these foreigners know about the ROC better then the ROC knows about itself?  That the CIA is more reliable on data concerning a nation more than the Nation itself?  Is that what you are saying?  Because if that is, then wow, I never knew that the family living a floor above knows more about my own family.  Liu Tao (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we've both made our points multiple times. If you still think your case is clear cut enough to make a change, then please try gettin some third opinions to form a consensus.  If you want to do it formally you can see the link in the Government in Exile discussion below for an example.  Readin (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, this is a different point. Previously you claimed of the lack of citing and verifiability. Now I have a source from the ROC government website.  I'm waiting for you to take a look at it and reply towards it.  And don't tell me that it's 'biased' or that other crap.  'Biased' is defined as 'opinionated'. Unless the source has opinions, which is something you should be able to differentiate from statements/facts, the source is not biased.  If both of these sources are not biased, it's down to which source is more reliable, the source from the ROC government itself, or the source from a foreign government organisation.  If you still want a third party to get involved, I will, but not before you answer to this source of mine.  Liu Tao (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The choice of how to define ethnic groups is always opinion, not fact. The ROC is obviously biased as all the yuans are controlled (and the civil service largely populated) by the KMT aka the "Chinese Nationalist" party, a party with a strong ideological commitment to the theory that Taiwan is part of China and must politically united with China.
 * The U.S. government may not know as much about Taiwan, but it doesn't have anywhere near the degree of bias on the issue in question. I've answered your questions. Please avail yourself of dispute resolution if you still wish to treat the ROC opinion as fact. Readin (talk) 04:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ignorance can just as much lead to bias and stereotypism. I've seen way too many ignorant people who have come to quick conclusions about certain stuff with only the little knowledge they have on it.  If one doesn't know, they can only assume and guess.  When one starts to make assumptions and guesses, especially on something they know little of, stereotypes and biases starts to form.  When Westerners first came into contact with the Chinese writing system, they thought it was a pictographic system and thought that the Chinese civilisation was primitive and barbaric when the Chinese writing system was actually a logographic system and not as primitive and 'barbaric' as the westerners had thought.  The same thing happened with the Egyptian heiroglyphs, even today, the majority of the people in the world think that the Egyptian Heiroglyphs is a pictographic system, when it's actually a phonetic system, leading to a lot of misinterpretation and misunderstanding of ancient egyptian history and culture.  Ignorance is not above 'potentially bias'.  Statements made out of ignorance are of even more opinionated then the so said 'biased' sources.  At least the 'biased' sources have more facts and understanding of the situation to back their own claims unlike the ignorants who has little understanding and backing of their claims.
 * Plus, your claim with the KMT in a conspiracy to 'change' the actual basis of the ethnicities in Taiwan is entirely unsupported, meaning you have no evidence to back your claim. I can just as well claim that the American government is trying to seperate Taiwan from the ROC or any other China.  The CIA website itself is all numbers and statistics with little to no explanation behind their numbers.  At least the RoC website has an entire page of explanation and information regarding the ethnic groupings, subgroupings, etc etc.  Long story short, the RoC explains their statistics and groupings, whilst the CIA does not.  Something is not 'bias' if it supports a particular view upon things; something is 'bias' if it has little backing or reasoning towards it.
 * And last, if you're saying that how ethnic groups are defined is all opinions, then these ethnic categorisations should not be in Wikipedia at all. Wikipedia does not support opinions and biases, they only support information and facts, something opinions are not.  If that is the case, then this ethnicity grouping and statistics should be deleted.  Liu Tao (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)