User talk:Taiwancontributor/Special state-to-state relations

I am restarting this article. It appears it was deleted by people who aren't from Taiwan, aren't experts in Chinese or Taiwanese affairs (political or otherwise) and don't know Chinese.

If it was deleted due to lack of sourcing, that can be remedied. If it was deleted because it should be included in a larger article on "Cross-Strait Relations," I would urge those urging deletion to look at the numerous other articles of phrases made by Chinese and Taiwanese leaders over the years. The issue isn't whether they have "caught on", but rather their importance at that time and what trends they were describing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_non-state-to-state_relations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Country_on_Each_Side http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noes_and_One_Without http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_China_Policy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Consensus

and there are many more. Making a giant article and throwing all these things into that article exclusively is not reasonable.

If it was deleted because it should be placed in a Lee Teng-hui article, I think that downplays the significance of the term. We don't confine statements/plans by leaders to their pages alone.

The current Chair of the DPP, one of the two major parties in Taiwan is largely notable for several accomplishments in her career, one is the drafting of this doctrine. The debate over the relationship between China is THE central issue in Taiwanese politics, which is certainly of significance to the world, and particularly the United States.

The Chair of the DPP is THE political opposition figure in Taiwan, and has been for three years. At least a brief page on one of the issues she is largely known for and credited with crafting hardly seems unreasonable. Additionally, she is running for the nomination of the presidency from her party, and currently leading polls.

I would add more, but my time isn't infinite. Hopefully this start will encourage others to contribute, but I as well will contribute more later.

---

“This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies,"

This page is targeted for speedy deletion due to G4 of the guidelines for deletion. After reading over the deletion discussion, I came to the conclusion that the people there didn't seem to have a good grasp of the Taiwanese politics. I determine due to the voters not really understanding the significance of the term, doctrine and background, combined with Tsai Ing-wen's rise to prominence and her relationship with this term, it deserves its own page.

If the objections are that the page as it stands now is not sufficient, and a fuller, more complete and sourced article should be prepared before putting it live, that is something I can accept that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taiwancontributor (talk • contribs) 08:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * G'day Taiwan contributor. I have a tendency to verbosity myself, but it's generally a good idea to try and say things with as few words as possible. If it helps, maybe make some bullet points, and keep only the first sentence.
 * Anyway, you object to people nominating this article for deletion because we don't have a "good grasp of Taiwanese politics". Unfortunately, that's not actually a good enough basis to retain the article. The article needs to establish its own legitimacy through verifiable citaitons to reliable sources. Neither the deleted article, nor your rewrite, contain any.
 * In fact, at the moment, the article merely describes the political status of Taiwan, from a Taiwanese perspective. It doesn't even help me understand what "special state-to-state relations" is meant to mean!
 * I know you think this article is important. I think the best approach for you, instead of working here, is to work on the Cross-Straits relations article, and if there's a big enough section about the concept of "special state-to-state relations", spin it off into another article. There's much more lee-way for including information within an article, than for an article itself: an article needs to prove it is verifiably significant, whereas contents merely needs to be germane and verifiable.
 * —Felix the Cassowary 09:26, 5 April 2011 (UTC)