Talk:Taiwan Province

reworded
Reworded the sentence a but. I know some people from Taiwan who aren't strong pro-independence supporters but get annoyed when the term Taiwan province is used by the PRC. -- User:Roadrunner, July 2003

chairperson
The government seems to still refer to the "Chairperson" as the "provincial governor": http://www.roc-taiwan.org.au/taiwan/5-gp/yearbook/chpt05-6.htm

I think the website in Chinese http://www.tpg.gov.tw uses the term "zhuxi", which translates into "Chairman". Can someone with slightly more literacy than me verify this? --Jiang 09:01, 21 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * On this blinking smiley-filled, yet official, page, it translates it into "chairman". The Australian page is either informal or trapped back in time. --Menchi 10:08, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, that's not the real governor. Who is he? His name is Lin, not Fan. The term is used here. --Jiang 11:03, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * This is strange. The Chinese version does call him zhuxi! And the vice-chairman isn't the same in Chinese & English. Why would there be two zhuxi and two fu-zhuxi in one province?! --Menchi 11:11, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It turns out that Lin is the new chairman! It happened just last month. Li was a former magistrate of Hsinchu County.  --Menchi 11:14, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

We call the zhuxi of the People's Republic of China the "president" even though the term was translated as chairman in the past. The "former governors" page seems not to make a distinction between the zhuxi and shengzhang. --Jiang 03:08, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

PRC
Does the PRC have any sort of government-in-exile for Taiwan Province? Morwen 15:40, May 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * I remember reading something about there being "representitives" for Taiwan at the last CCP meeting, however none of them had ever been to Taiwan.... I'm not sure how they were chosen. Loren 07:08, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taiwan was never ceded to ROC
Everyone should be cautious about using the term cede. Taiwan was never ceded to ROC. If anyone does not agree, please show us a treaty says so. I can not believe this blatant POV can stay on the article without drawing people's attention.Mababa 04:28, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The statement you are making is in itself POV. You claim it wasnt ceded, other claim it was. Let's leave it at that. --Jiang 20:25, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your comment. I was actually planning to rephrase it. What I was saying is indeed my POV, but a factual one. Even though I understand that the policy is to write what people believe not what the true fact is, I still want make this in the record: there is not a single treaty in this universe makes Taiwan ceded to ROC. Unless someone come from a parallele universe. If one insists to have the old statement in the article claiming: "Taiwan transfered to Japan" and "Taiwan was ceded to ROC", then we should make everyone be informed that which one has a treaty to back their ruling and which one does not. I am totally happy with the current version. Yes, let's leave it as it is now. :)Mababa 06:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

--Taiwan was ceded to the ROC by Japan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.88.201.100 (talk) 20:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above statement is not correct. Whoever made the above unsigned statement probably has not read the Treaty of San Francisco where Taiwan was "given up" without a recipient. The legitimacy of the Treaty of Taipei is debatable and the whole controversy regarding the "transfer" of Taiwan (then Formosa, along with Penghu) is covered in Political status of Taiwan, and Taiwan Independence. To say "not ceded" is not POV, but a fact. The only absolutely correct way to describe it was a "transfer". Mistakefinder (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

PRC section is POV
The PRC section is biased and written from a Taiwan perspective. In fact, I believe supporters of Taiwan can voice their opinion in the ROC section, however, the PRC perspective should be known in the PRC section. This would only be fair. Just as mainland Chinese may find it offensive to call Taiwan a "country" or mentioning of the ROC as a legitimate entity, the ROC section is actually full of it. Why can't the PRC section be focused on how the PRC views Taiwan as a province, because POV comments such as listed below are biased and opinion and should be ommitted or posted elsewhere.

1. "Certain web-based postal address programs also label the country designation name for Taiwan as "Taiwan, Province of China" to the chagrin of the Taiwanese postal authorities"

I propose changing it to this: "Certain web-based postal address programs also label the island as "Taiwan, Province of China".

2. "Taiwan Province (Simplified Chinese: 台湾省) is a term used by leaders and people from the People's Republic of China to refer to Taiwan and depending on the context (if referring to the entire Republic of China government as "provincial," as such is often the case) can provoke a bad reaction by most Taiwanese people."

I propose changing it to this: "Taiwan Province (Simplified Chinese: 台湾省) is a term used by leaders and people from the People's Republic of China to refer to Taiwan."

Therefore I propose the PRC section needs to be improved. --Zhj 18:58, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * NPOV calls for presenting both viewpoints. Your edits are instead self-imposed censorship in an attempt to segregate viewpoints. This is not NPOV. Instead, try adding in the PRC viewpoint if you see it missing. Please don't delete useful information. --Jiang 20:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What is wrong with a clear and separate presentation of both views? Currently, it's all blurred. I think the comment "can provoke a bad reaction by most Taiwanese people" should be based on some sources, because it's only an insinuation, and not fact. --Zhj 21:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "In contrast with the aforementioned survey question, the other question touching on the sovereignty issue was clear-cut. It asked respondents whether they approved of China's proposed "one country, two systems" formula, whereby Taiwan would accept Chinese sovereignty and thenceforth become a local government of the People's Republic of China, giving up the name Republic of China. The result: 80.8 percent disapproved, 7.3 percent approved, while 10.8 percent offered no opinion. The 80.8-percent rejection rate is 9.4 percentage points higher than that in a similar MAC survey conducted in November 2003." It follows that calling Taiwan a province of the PRC and the ROC a provincial government would provoke a bad reaction by most Taiwanese people. --Jiang 06:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ive restore most of the info but left "chagrin of the Taiwanese postal authorities" out. "Country" does not have be synonymous with "state". Oftentimes these web-based portals list "Hong Kong" and "Macau" among the "countries". (In the broad definition of the word, they are...) Using "island" may be inaccurate because "Taiwan Province" consists of more than one island. --Jiang 20:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Since a Province is not a country, it's illogical to call Taiwan Province a country. Therefore I suggest renaming "country" in this context to "Taiwan Island, the surrounding islets and the Pescadores". So: "Certain web-based postal address programs also label Taiwan Island, the surrounding islets and the Pescadores as "Taiwan, Province of China."" --Zhj 21:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "country designation name" can be changed to "country or regional designation name". --Jiang 06:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried editing it to make it NPOV, as well as remove some erroneous information. It's the western media that refers to the PRC's calling of Taiwan as a "renegade province." In fact, the PRC doesn't refer to Taiwan that way in its official publications. The stuff on Chinese Taipei is IMO a term of art to deal with sensitivities on all sides, and I deleted it, adding a link to it in the "see also" section. I also made a note of how staunch supporters of Chinese reunification probably do not object to the term "Taiwan province" though the (deliberate?) ambiguity of the context may have a lot to do with that. Ngchen 05:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Biased content and biased admin
Taiwan Province (Traditional Chinese: 臺灣省) is an administrative subdivision of the People's Republic of China (PRC). The corrent Taiwan government is pushing Taiwan people to war. What the local government should do is to emphasize improving people's quality of life other than playing with politics. No one wants war. No one wants splittism either. Just imagine, if Taipei wants to split from Taiwan to be an autonomous country, will Taiwan people agree? What PRC advocates is to keep peace and develop economy. If all the people from both mainland and Taiwan are rich, every other things can then be solved gradually. Why wouldn't the Taiwan local governors consider these positive aspects? I add things here because the editor of this page is biased. The PRC part of this page is full of biased words which is not fair!! If the admin thinks he can ignore the unhappiness of mainland people in seeing the PRC part of Taiwan Province page, he has no right to be an admin. Viewers could say my view is biased. I partially admit. But the reason I'm doing this is for fairness. Why do we allowed a biased version of ROC part but dispute against corresponding PRC part? Interested viewers can look at the history of this article for old versions. Viewers could also pay attention to whom the admin is and what his political standing is. I reserve right to sue the admin in future. (unsigned comment by Special:Contributions/82.139.83.225)


 * If you knew how wikipedia worked, you would have realized that the admin has no control over what people are posting. Wikis are made to be contributed by many people, fairly. I understand how some things might seem controversial, but your generalization that an admin controls everything is incorrect. There is no such thing as absolute control by a single admin, that is not how societies work, even online societies. I don't see what you have to be so hyped up about an article on the internet. Does it really matter to you what opinions or political views people have? Please don't be so persistent, and don't turn politics into religion. Be open and accepting. I'm not telling you to change your political views, I'm just saying that others have the right to have one too. I'm not against your changes, but please don't lean the bias towards your side too... you say that this article is biased towards a certain population. Well then change it so that it's not bias at all. The way you want to change it sounds like you're bias towards your own opinions, and frankly, they aren't everyones. Please don't feel offended by this comment or any other comments or articles, because in no way does that help yourself or anyone else. 207.81.184.128 22:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

get over it
-   - It is clear that the person who posted “Biased content and biased admin” has already been totally brain washed by the mainland government. It is useless and futile to argue with these types of people, because they are not able to neither comprehend nor understand reason. They are only capable of reiterating dogmatic clauses, and idiotic dreams of one china ruled under the communist party. The island of Taiwan has never been in the hands of the communist government and never will be; therefore their claim to our land is just as idiotic as my claim on your home.


 * Having different sections, which are on different topics, exhibit different forms of POV is unacceptable. The entire article has to be NPOV. If there is a portion of the text that you feel is not NPOV, quote it here and suggest some changes so we can revise it something better. Please also note that Wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Jiang 18:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Please give a way to sue you agaist tolerating POV.
I specify that I will be monitoring this page. Please kindly respond to me here. I want a speedier response so please don't forget to check mine. (sorry to re-use your sentence. I'm just trying to follow the correct format.)

Please give a way to sue you agaist tolerating POV. Or a way to give message to higher authority in wiki. Thank you. (unsigned comment by Special:Contributions/82.139.83.225)


 * refer to dispute resolution --Jiang 18:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please also sign your comments. Refer to WP:Sign_your_comments. 207.81.184.128 22:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't endure
I see here something really similiar as those PRC offcial medias would say, isn't it funny?

Politics is the same important along with people's daily life quality. Even ccording to the commenter's view, how many PRC peasant workers are starving? One of them in Chengdu even ate sands.

Someone wants splittism. Even the loyal supporter of unifism has to admit this.

''Taiwan Province (Traditional Chinese: 臺灣省) is an administrative subdivision of the People's Republic of China (PRC). The corrent Taiwan government is pushing Taiwan people to war. What the local government should do is to emphasize improving people's quality of life other than playing with politics. No one wants war. No one wants splittism either. Just imagine, if Taipei wants to split from Taiwan to be an autonomous country, will Taiwan people agree? What PRC advocates is to keep peace and develop economy. If all the people from both mainland and Taiwan are rich, every other things can then be solved gradually. Why wouldn't the Taiwan local governors consider these positive aspects? I add things here because the editor of this page is biased. The PRC part of this page is full of biased words which is not fair!! If the admin thinks he can ignore the unhappiness of mainland people in seeing the PRC part of Taiwan Province page, he has no right to be an admin. Viewers could say my view is biased. I partially admit. But the reason I'm doing this is for fairness. Why do we allowed a biased version of ROC part but dispute against corresponding PRC part? Interested viewers can look at the history of this article for old versions. Viewers could also pay attention to whom the admin is and what his political standing is. I reserve right to sue the admin in future. (unsigned comment by Special:Contributions/82.139.83.225)''

"I see here something really similiar as those PRC offcial medias would say, isn't it funny?" First of all, Did you mean to say "I see something really similar to what the PRC official medias would say, isn't it funny?" Second of all, no, it isn't funny. "Someone wants splittism." Did you mean "someone wants separatism"? Before you want talk about politics, make sure you can write and speak first. Otherwise just read and keep your mouth shut. -- User: Ruolin59


 * The word splittism was invented by another commenter 207.81.184.128 22:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Grammar mistakes and digression
Omg, u guys r such n00bs. Whoever wrote the section of Taiwan as the PRC made so many grammar mistakes, and some sentences dont even make sense at all. As well, a lot of things in that section are irrevelent to the topic. i have deleted those sections as they are incredibly biased and do not offer readers any information about Taiwan, PRC. --User:Ruolin59, June 5 2006

Hanyu pinyin shouldn't be used in some parts of this article
For the counties of Taiwan Province, ROC, they already have wades glides and other ways of spelling. Hanyu pinyin shouldn't be put next to it (Chiang Kai-shek 18:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC))


 * Hanyu pinyin is just another way to spell it. We shouldn't be changing the way of spelling to fit the dialects of other regions. 207.81.184.128 22:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Split..?
Should the ROC's and PRC's Taiwan Province be split into two articles? &mdash; Instantnood 13:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. SchmuckyTheCat 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

With the split, the title of this article should be modified for clarity sake. Since the PRC's version of the article has the title "Taiwan Province (People's Republic of China)", i suggest this article to change its title to "Taiwan Province (Republic of China)". This is a lot more clear to readers and it removes the biased POV. - User:Ruolin59 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ruolin59 (talk • contribs) 00:05, June 26, 2006 (UTC).


 * ROC's Taiwan Province is the one that actually exists. PRC's doesn't. &mdash; Instantnood 22:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will change the title to Taiwan Province (Republic of China) for clarity, as doing so would make it clear that the "Taiwan Province" that it refers to is that of the ROC and not PRC. It's not our job to determine what exists and what doesn't, it should be WP:NPOV. JSIN 10:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This should not be done with at least fixing the links that lead here. "Taiwan Province" also existed under the Qing dynasty, and the ROC page contained the history of the province. I think a merge of the articles, or a use of summary style, is in order.--Jiang 10:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep "Taiwan Province" under this article that will deal with Qing Dynasty, Empire of Japan, Republic of China, and People's Republic of China. Do we really need to create many articles from this one? — Nrtm81 12:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think they should be recombined and have different sections inside the one page. John Smith&#39;s 17:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The status quo of the articles is certainly not acceptable. Firstly, it is not NPOV, as it assumes that "Taiwan Province" automatically refers to the administrative division under one of two Chinese governments (one, or both, which may or may not be illegitimate). We should ensure that NPOV is followed, by using a disambig page from Taiwan Province to either the Province of the PRC or the Province of the ROC. Perhaps a solution, like that of User:John Smith's, would be most fitting. An area or region that has gone through several stages or legal statuses should be kept on the one article. For example please see New South Wales. The article covers both NSW as a previous British colony and its current status as a State of the Commonwealth of Australia. JSIN 04:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The NPOV way is to reflect the status quo. The other Taiwan Province doesn't exist and has never existed. &mdash; Instantnood 19:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make sense to create a seperate article for the PRC. If this is the NPOV you are talking about, then all the claimed provinces of the ROC (which are now under PRC administration) should also be created to reflect NPOV. The constitution of the ROC has never removed those territories.
 * Instantnood, you say that the other Taiwan Province "doesn't exist". That's your POV but in Wikipedia, as I've said earlier, we shouldn't be determining what exists or doesn't exist. JSIN 05:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Just as Taiwan Province under PRC doesn't exist, the mainland provinces of ROC doesn't exist (no longer exists) either, but both ROC and PRC governments claim them and it is written into law. Article 4 (ROC constitution): The territory of the Republic of China according to its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by resolution of the National Assembly. To date, the ROC constitution has not been amended with regards to mainland provinces. — Nrtm81 02:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nrtm81, the ROC has not ever recently referred to its claimed mainland provinces. However, Chinese news agencies and the PRC makes frequent referrals to "southeast China's Taiwan Province". JSIN 05:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason why the ROC has not referred to its mainland provinces is simply explained by the fact that the recent presidents, Chen Shui-bian (2000-present) and Lee Teng-hui (1998-2000) both openly and actively support Taiwan independence. — Nrtm81 10:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nrtm81: The problem with that is the fact that PRC claims Taiwan as a province of PRC. I think the better solution would be to either A) split into 2 pages, one with the historical factor factors and the other with the current PRC/ROC version merge, or B) 1 page, and then section them. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 07:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is much to write about on the history of Taiwan province (Three short paragraphs under "History"). If there is to be a page dealing with ROC/PRC, then that would just be the page merge I suggested. But if we have seperate articles, this one should be moved to Taiwan Province (Republic of China) to reflect the name convention used for Fukien Province (Republic of China). This will also be balanced in reflecting Taiwan Province (People's Republic of China). I would recommend that Taiwan Province use a redirect to the disambiguation page Taiwan (disambiguation). Would this be alright? — Nrtm81 10:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a good solution. I did that recently but it got reverted. JSIN 10:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what's going on now. Fukien Province (Republic of China) deals with ROC's current control over a few small islands off the Fujian coast. The intro links to Fujian for the whole province. Taiwan Province deals with the whole province while the PRC, which only has a claim to it, is Taiwan Province (People's Republic of China). I'm going to remove the merge tags and move The Claimed Taiwan Province of the People's Republic of China back to Taiwan Province (People's Republic of China). If anyone objects, then I'll leave it to them to find another solution. — Nrtm81 11:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * TAIWWAN ISN'T A PROVINCE. ANYONE WHO SAYS SO IS A BRAINWASHED CHINESE PROPAGANDA MAKER WHO MURDERS PEOPLE IN TIBET —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.12.224 (talk • contribs)

Let me rephrase what you said
 * WHAT I SAY IS FACT. ANYONE WHO OPPOSE WHAT I SAY IS A BRAINWASHED CHINESE PROPAGANDA MAKER WHO MURDERS PEOPLE IN TIBET —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.7.12.224 (talk • contribs)

pre-provincial history
I yanked this: The earliest written record about taiwan island could be dated to about 200ad when china mailand was divided by three kingdoms Wei, SHU and Wu. The king of Wu (covering the southern part of china) dispatched Wei Wen and Zhuge Zhi to Yizhou (the old name of Taiwan island). In Yuan dynasty (1271-1368),a provincial organization was established to manage affairs of Ryukyu, Penghu and Taiwan. Since the early 16th century, with the development of nagivation technologies in western Europe, spanish, followed by Dutch and British invaded most countries in the Southeast Asia. As the the Ming Dysnasty was troubled by normative tribes from the mid Asia, maritime trade was forbidden by the Emporor and great fleet of Zheng He never sailed to the sea again. It was after that Portugese started harassing China's litoral area, invaded Macao. In 1571, Spanish invaded Luzon island (an island of the northwest current Philippines) and started invading Taiwan. Dutch's invasion of China started in 1601, intending to control trade to China and plunder wealth. Later the Dutch navy fought against Portugese for control of Macao. After failing the war with Portugese, Dutch turned towards Java island. Since 1920, Dutch had been sending fleet harassing Taiwan. In 1624, after beating the Ming force stationed in the Southern Part of taiwan island, they started competition with Spanish troops occupying the northern part. In August of 1641, Dutch force launched attack against the SPanish forces and forced them to pull out of taiwan in September that year. Since then, Dutch took control of thw whole island.

This history of Taiwan island is better covered in articles like Taiwan and History of Taiwan. This article is about the province and should stick to the history of how it became a province and what has happened to it as a province.

Also the information about the Yuan dynasty, I've read a lot about Taiwan and believe I'm familiar with most conventional versions of its history and this version of events is new to me, so it needs a reliable source.Readin (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

UN info
The long arguments and debates about Taiwan are not explored in this article for the sake of brevity. There is a separate article about the Political Status of Taiwan for such information. The UN's POV on Taiwan's sovereignty is explored there. Readin (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that should be explored on the Republic of China page, not Taiwan's as Taiwan (the province) is a distinct entity of the Chinese state.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

ROC clarification
What was the purpose for undoing correct information that serves the purpose of clarifying for less knowledgeable readers that the ROC is the state they often see or hear referred to as "Taiwan"? Readin (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it is uneccessary and superfulous. It's already stated on the top of the page in italics.  Liu Tao (talk) 23:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Most people won't read the disambiguation. Readin (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then that means they're not confused about what they're reading then. If they see that they're reading something they don't think they're looking for, they go to the disambiguation up above.  Either that, or it's their problem.  Why should something at the top of the page in large font and italics, something so obvious, should be restated in the introductory article?  Also, it's considerably difficult trying to get to the Taiwan Province article.  There aren't a lot of articles linking to it, and the main ones that do is the Island and the DAB page, which both explains the Province article before linking it.  Liu Tao (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what's the rebuttal then? You fail to respond to my reasoning yet you still undo my changes.  Either you stop ignoring my reasoning and discuss, or stop undoing what you failed to respond to.  Liu Tao (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Oregon
On Oregon's page, Taiwan Province is listed as a "Sister State." However, on this page, Ohio and Florida are listed as sister states, but not Oregon. Anyone know what's up? 24.20.165.55 (talk) 08:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Dunno, find reference of the sister state status and either add the province to Oregon's page or if we can't find a ref remove Oregon from Taiwan's page. Liu Tao (talk) 03:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Official Language: Guoyu
Shouldn't this be changed to "Mandarin Chinese"? Guoyu is 國語 just written in pinyin. I think "Guoyu" might be misleading to people not familiar with Chinese, leading them to think it's yet another Chinese dialect. Before someone retorts with "well 'Guoyu' is the official language in legal docs", well so is 'Español' in Spain and it says Spanish. If anything, it should maybe be "國語 (Mandarin Chinese)". Or even Standard Chinese is good (compare Taiwan (ROC/country?) article) but I personally think Mandarin is more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.124.94 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep, Guoyü is misleading, I'll change it if it's still in the article.
 * Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Economy
Are there any basic stats for the Province's economy? GDP or GDP per capita? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.96.66 (talk) 20:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 07:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

What does sister state even mean?
What does sister state even mean? American states are unrelated. 68.134.243.51 (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Changhua Baguashan Großer Buddha 4.jpg