User talk:Raiolu/Positions on the "China" naming dispute

ROC/PRC/China
I notice you comment my issue on Jpech95 talk page. I lost my temper because of all the ignorance of the issue. Actually I'm only part Chinese as when I was a kid I looked up to PRC as a great country out of ancestry, but now knowing Tiananmen Square Massacre and finding a military video of the Republic of China has open my eyes. But I will not allow them to call Taiwan a country unless DPP successfully renames the Republic of China but I think we both know that's not going to happen. So I decided to look at Wikipedia in the different languages to see if any of them have done the mistake we are doing now. Luckily most of the major languages have not done that (Polish, Russian, French, Dutch, German, Japanese, and of course both Traditional and Simplified Chinese) have kept the Republic of China and People's Republic of China as respected countries. But I notice something on the PRC's Polish page that I click on and showed just China on a separate article from the PRC yet briefly mentions and links to the two respected countries. I'm guessing this was based off the Simplified Chinese Wikipedia as many of the languages mentioned above have the same format; a separate China page. As shown here http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B. Now I'm thinking we could use that format, so we don't have to clarify to readers the difference of the Republic of China and People's Republic of China based on common name. So should we do something similar to that?Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not reading your user page. Our proposals are nearly the same.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that someone has similar views on the matter like me, but since the PRC article was successfully moved to "China", even I was caught off-guard and have been consistently opposing the move. The status-quo before the move (China - civilization, with ROC and PRC as separate articles), albeit imperfect, to me it was still the best choice. I am not sure if we're fighting a losing battle, since the pro-move editors have more firepower and support from the net compared to us. Whether part or "whole" ethnic Chinese, regardless of nationality, the blood of our people still flows in you, so we're more or less like family haha. The main reason I'm helping out Jpech95's draft article is to ensure that the new country article still has a sizable amount of content that mentions or is related to the ROC. If the China/Taiwan format stays permanently, the ROC is still there, and not relegated to the history books like the 1912-1949 article, which is trying to portray it as a defunct state, with no relation at all with the current ROC. Raiolu (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We are probably are fighting a losing battle but some losing battles are sometimes worth fighting for. Though if we bring enough ROC supporters into the issue; we wouldn't be as severely handicapped as we are. Heck even diehard PRC supporters could support us since Taiwan belongs to China. I understand why you're helping Jpech95. You don't need to explain to me. But you know my issue with the article the commas in the line "Taiwan, officially known as the Republic of China, is a sovereign state..." is additional information that can be removed and the sentence will still make sense. Though a lot of us wouldn't even fight this issue if DPP successfully made Republic of China to Republic of Taiwan. Then his article would work perfectly despite that it would only work for a short time.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Plus I don't want this issue over common name to become larger than it actually is. If someone tipped off the PRC of the move. I don't think I need to clarify what would happen to Wikipedia when the PRC 'informs' this issue to Wikipedia for violating its neutrality. It's much guaranteed there will be some ROC supporters that will act rude about it after the move and will put holes, arguments, and insults in the current discussion page if the Taiwan page still has that line.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah, the PRC will just continue to block Wikipedia. I was in Shanghai till this Tuesday, and was able to access English Wikipedia for a number of times, but all attempts got blocked within a few seconds. Raiolu (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe and hopefully you are right, but since it does support Taiwanese independence they may get involve. Who knows. If you can change that line then I might support his article.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 17:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

There goes my proposal in the trash. So much for democracy and neutrality of Wikipedia. I think I know a way around the issue they brought up but I know not lot of them would support it as it would be going around the admins decision. Create a separate PRC page and use the current China page as the civilization, but I don't know Wikipedia a whole lot whether or not this change affects the redirect. Also avoiding or going against the admins decision would likely mean vandalism which is not worth it.

I have one last trump card left which guarantees us more ROC supporters or people who know the issue, but honestly I don't wish to use him. He is a diehard, an absolute diehard, of the Republic of China, but he has many connections to other supporters as he has 457 subscriptions on Youtube. As you know there is a division among us ROC supporters. We either support the status quo, support military action to regain the Mainland, Chinese reunification, or just support the ROC over the Mainland because of the many wrongs the PRC has done over the years. His status is not clear to me. A quote from his youtube page which much describes his stance on ROC, "The Republic of China consists of Mainland China, Hong Kong, Macao, Outer Mongolia, Xinjiang, TAIWAN and TIBET. All the ethnicities of China need to support each other, and bring forth a new era of greatness. Chinese Nationalists (KMT) should not forget that we have an obligation to recover mainland China and work for its revival." But says he supports Chinese reunification. He also uses a quote from Chiang Kai-Shek, "Whoever plays with Taiwan independence, I will rip his brains out." Shows he is clearly against Taiwanese independence and calls DPP terrorist because of what Taiwanese independence can do to both the ROC and Taiwan. He had once created a Why Mongolia hates China video showed he was clearly against the Republic of Mongolia and I believe he was little bit extreme in that. So I don't know whether or not he can keep a cool head or go in a blind rage over this ignorance. But those numbers would very much benefit our side greatly. I would have to think about this.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 05:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's do things in a civil way and not blow this out of proportion due to our emotions over the issue. Plus I'm not for extremism (whether Pan-Blue or Pan-Green). The problem now is the editing system in Wikipedia, where three administrators with little knowledge (and did not take note of the sensitivity) over the issue unilaterally started merging/moving the PRC article to "China". Instead of asking a band of online hooligans to vandalize Wikipedia (which is counter-productive), we should find the source of the problem (which is the overwhelming power the admins have), and put it right. I don't wish to see the White Terror coming back again, whether in real life or online. Raiolu (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, I feel uneasy with using him anyway. His cool and a strong supporter with many connections as he knows the situation quite well and not all of his buddies are that extreme, but I don't know how long he can keep himself civil with all this ignorance. Creating a new PRC came to my head but I had feeling it would be going against the law of the admins and wouldn't be much of use if it does prove to be vandalism and like you said counter-productive. I still need to think about whether or not to use him, carefully.71.184.217.18 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've decided not to use him. He may keep his cool but I don't whether or not he and some of the others would handle defeat well. But beware my vacation is coming to a close, so you and the others may be arguing this issue without my help. Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, that's okay. Have a Happy New Year ahead! Raiolu (talk) 11:55, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Have a great Happy New Year!Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a good thing that I didn't invite CaptainCool07 in the issue. He and many others patriotic ROC supporters would have not like Shrigley's comment and I don't think Captain would have liked to be called living in the past. But Shrigley's comment was so insulting that it made me go into a fit. Luckily, I stopped myself from posting my comment to him. The only source that can defend Taiwan not being a country is the Anti-Secession Law. I just I wish I knew of this issue before. I know I shouldn't wish this, but if the PRC ever comes into the issue they would be really "helpful" to clear the issue up with Wikipedia. Anyway, pretty much the main reason why CaptainCool07 is so well-liked or in the center of the ROC supporters on Youtube is because of this one video Chinese Civil War 1945-1950 Defenders of the R.O.C. 中華民國. I think you may like it.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 06:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The matter of renaming the historical Republic of China articles
This was discussed at Talk:Republic of China (1912–1949). The discussion reached a close with no people outstandingly opposed to the rearrangement and you did not respond to my last post there - so I assumed you did not have any problems with it. If you wish to reactivate that conversation and add your point of view to the discussion, you may.--R-41 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message. Firstly, apologies for not replying to your last message in the ROC (1912-1949) article talk page. I guess many of the ROC editors, are still mostly embroiled in the heated debate whether to move the ROC article to Taiwan or not. My current position is to allow the articles in question to remain as they are now, until we sort out this entire fiasco, - which is to sort the entire timeline of the ROC (from 1911.10.10 till today), agree on suitable titles for articles related to it, and more importantly to prevent future senseless edit wars. I do appreciate your contributions, especially with the article on CCP-held territory from 1927-1949. Just to inform you that there is a Chinese Soviet Republic article on Wikipedia, and it might contain similar content. If possible, please help by consolidating and expanding on their content. Raiolu (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Response to your comment on the ROC proposal
I had seen that you had supported it but there was something you said I just wanted to make clearer, we won't be using the change as an excuse to change everything from ROC to Taiwan, for example, the President will remain the President of the Republic of China, just as the President of China is at President of the People's Republic of China, and I have seen no motivation for that to move. If there is anyone who does try to use this as an excuse, I would go against it, because government offices generally have nothing to do with the common name of a country. And thank you for supporting it, you've put your fair share of work into the proposal yourself, I'm surprised we didn't credit you to be honest.  JPECH 95  20:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it does happen though we need to be prepare because us ROC supporters are in the minority. And because of our view of preferring the old ROC/PRC/China format some of our fellow English speakers will call us being bias for allowing our views get in the way of their view of "neutrality" or some other policy. I do believe we have to refrain others of calling the Double Ten Day holiday a Taiwanese holiday especially. This holiday celebrates the anniversary of the birth of the Republic of China not a Taiwanese holiday because of the current political issues between Taiwanese independence, Chinese reunification and the status quo.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 21:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it does, I'll be going with you against it, because he's not the President of Taiwan, he's the President of the Republic of China. I mean, that's common name, President of Taiwan, but it's not justifiable nearly as much as ROC --> Taiwan is, in my opinion. And I just don't like the ROC supporters that will practically attack us, otherwise I have no problem with them.  JPECH 95  21:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Because merely you don't understand the sensitivity of the issue. The reason why ROC supporters are attacking you is because we don't want to see the Republic of China end. The Republic of China stands for Chinese democracy, it doesn't stand for the Taiwanese. "Taiwan is a sovereign state" is pro-Taiwanese independence statement. In theory Taiwan is a sovereign state but in actual reality it isn't because of the existence of Taiwanese independence. If the Republic of China becomes the Republic of Taiwan the hope for Chinese democracy to be restored onto the Mainland dies with it as the PRC will invade it and no other nation will support Taiwan in their defense. That results in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese people and destruction of many cities throughout the Republic of China and forcing Taiwan as a part of the PRC. I have a feeling you like the People's Republic of China because of China's magnificent history. We, however, have Chinese ancestry and can recognize the faults of the PRC quickly though we take pride in our ancestry and history, but we don't put blame on the Chinese people living in the Mainland for the PRC's actions. The PRC's actions against our democracy that we hold dear can't be ignored by us. That is why some of us choose to recognize the Republic of China over the PRC and prefer the ROC/PRC/China format as we recognize the Republic of China's claims to the Mainland as legitimate. But ROC supporters ourselves vary of how we support it: military intervention to regain the Mainland but we don't have the support of other nations unless the ROC is attacked by the PRC, support the current status quo, Chinese reunification (even that is vague among us) or merely hate or dislike the PRC for their actions. So what I have said doesn't represent all of our opinions like Raiolu will probably disagree with me on some points but it depends on how patriotic we are to the Republic of China.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * See now to me much of that I wouldn't have intimate knowledge about because one, I'm American, and two, I'm in high school. So right there are two reasons that would make people see me more as worthless. Now personally, even though I am a strong supporter of ROC --> Taiwan, in reality I would like to see the Republic of China become the People's Republic of China Special Administrative Region of Taiwan, but only until China gives Hong Kong and Macau the rights it truly deserves as SARs, and when China has better human rights. So, yes, I am not Taiwanese, Chinese, or anything so I suppose me supporting ROC --> Taiwan on wikipedia isn't worth much, and I don't understand how sensitive it is, no, but I know that it is a topic that is hard to talk about, and because of that, I prefer to go with the truth, the de facto, what things really are right now, not what we want them to be. I don't want to get into an argument, especially not on this page, so after this I'm going to stop.  JPECH 95  23:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah I already knew that you were American. That makes me sad as I'm an American and I'm your same age. And my ancestry is Irish, French, German, Dutch, Indonesian, and Chinese. I just wish your side was more knowledgeable about the issue that your side is challenging but your side is going to win regardless so it's not worth my voice in this consensus when they already won by a huge margin.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's only been two days, you could still oppose it.  JPECH 95  03:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should I? I don't think I can argue against your compatriots whom I deemed to be ignorant and every time I have to be careful in what I write not to insult your compatriots unlike Hilo47 who has openly insulted us and Shrigley who called us living in the past. However, despite my views in the matter, I stand by Raiolu's and Jiang's support. But my main concern now is towards the other Republic of China articles and to protect them from being moved.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 05:02, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I would like to thank JPECH for your acknowledgement of my contributions as well as your support in my stance against unilateral changes in the titles of ROC-related articles. However, I must agree on Typhoonstorm95's indignation of the open insults did by some pro-move editors, including the admin mentioned above, and casts them in an unprofessional and immature light. I do not see any instances whereby anyone in the pro-ROC camp has made personal digs at the opposing camp. In addition, I do not get how is open support for the ROC is equivalent to "living in the past". Has the Republic of China been abolished and an independent "Republic of Taiwan" take its place? Has the ROC Constitution become a useless piece of paper shoved down the rubbish chute? As for whether Taiwan keeps to the status quo, reunifies under the communist banner or declares independence, it is up to the 23 million people living in Taiwan to decide on their future. Supporting the blue or green camp is fine as everyone is entitled to their own opinions and beliefs, but direct insults against an individual's personal character and beliefs should never be tolerated as it is akin to bullying. That shouldn't be the behavior of those who declare themselves matured and civilized individuals living in an open democratic society. Raiolu (talk) 06:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerned about Biographies
Hey Raiolu, I am concerned about the biographies, in particular, with the ones that were born in China during the ROC rule for both the living and the dead. I fear that people with little to no knowledge of the subject will change these to just Taiwan without checking on the location or read the article or sources. Many of articles have the ROC as their birth place which now links to Taiwan instead of ROC (1912-1949) and there is literally dozens of them. Just wanted to give you the heads up.Typhoonstorm95 (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)