Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:58, 16 February 2011

Taiwan has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones Date Process Result August 9, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 13, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed September 4, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed November 21, 2007 Good article nominee Listed May 9, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted July 26, 2008 Peer review Reviewed June 13, 2009 Good article nominee Listed July 14, 2009 Peer review Reviewed August 16, 2009 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Template:VA

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Taiwan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. East Asia (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Asia, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.East AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject East AsiaTemplate:WikiProject East AsiaEast Asia Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry WikiProject Countries to-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Check out the article alerts; see if anything catches your fancy. Cleanup : clean-up listing for Countries Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stubs by region. Other : add {{WPCountries}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess. Template:WP1.0

Talk:Republic of China/article guidelines

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 10, 2004.

PRC's official policy

It's quite obvious that Mainland China would exercise military force to regain Taiwan, but moreover, the official policy is to remain in the status quo with aims for eventual peaceful unification under the "One country, two systems" model. It is absolutely urgent that somewhere within the text, it should say PRC is using Hong Kong as a run up model for a Taiwan Special Administrative Region under Mainland Chinese rule. That is the official policy, and the fact that it's not even mentioned is appalling. Because in a 100 years, Taiwan (if it indeed capitulates to Mainland) will be (according to the PRC) adopted and integrated into China proper using Hong Kong style reunification. For those that are not following, the eventual aim of the PRC (official policy) is that Taiwan becomes an SAR after war is over. Phead128 01:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Government in Exile

There's a dispute over at Talk:Government in exile over the sovereignty of the ROC, and whether or not it is a gov't in exile. There is also a request for comment for one of the editors involved. More input is needed to resolve this issue, thanks.

Request for comment: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mafia_godfather T-1000 (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

From the wording in the disputed line it seems to be describing what the Republic of China considers itself to be (a Government-in-exile) rather than public opinion or any external opinion for that matter. I do not think this line should be disputed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.178.190 (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the ROC does not consider itself to be in exile as a factual matter, since it controls and currently runs Taiwan as its own (it considers itself the rightful sovereign of Taiwan, as well as over all the rest of China and some additional territories). The neutrality and accuracy of the source from where the statement was derived is being disputed, FWIW. Ngchen (talk) 12:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Says Ngchen and a few other editors. I urge people to please uphold wikipiedia policy of verifiability WP:V on these POV-pushed theories such as "Taiwan is a part of ROC". There are no credible 3rd party sources indicate ROC has acquired territorial sovereignty of Taiwan and also no official documents from ROC government stating that disposition of Taiwan has been formalized through its constitutional process(prior to the national assembly reform, modification of national territories need to be passed by ROC National Assembly). Just because ROC government administers Taiwan like the way US administered Iraq does not make it an owner of Taiwan. Mafia godfather (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, says every Taiwanese who thinks Taiwan is a country. If the ROC does not have the sovereignty of Taiwan, then Taiwan could not be a country. Or are you seriously arguing that most Taiwanese don't think that Taiwan is a country? T-1000 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan is not an official country, whatever Taiwanese THINK is irrelevant. Just because bunch of people believe earth is flat does not make earth "flat". This is wikipedia, we do not publish opinions as facts, we can only publish facts of opinions. And facts of FACTS will be just as it is. It is obvious that your perspective is the fringe one because up until now you or others have yet provided any reliable sources that can challenge the facts I have contributed. My advice to you is, let it rest, because I have plenty of time and energy. Mafia godfather (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If the majority of Taiwanese thinks that Taiwan is a country, then your contributions are in violation of this guideline:

"If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Misplaced Pages, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Misplaced Pages is not the place for original research.

Read the parts in bold, whether or not you can prove your case doesn't matter one bit. T-1000 (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I told you a thousand times, that guideline deals with perspectives, not facts. Please read the entire NPOV page, or refer back to RfC. Mafia godfather (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, facts are ""a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute", and it's common knowledge that majority of Taiwanese dispute "Taiwan is not a country". T-1000 (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you are not getting this. What taiwanese think is irrelevant in this case because they are basing it on an OPINION and opinion may not always be fact. Just because majority of people in a village believes world is flat does not mean earth is indeed flat in that village. Do you get the NPOV policy at all? You cannot use opinion to dispute fact, only facts can dispute fact. Do you have any valid facts from reliable sources that can counter the fact I have contributed? I am waiting. Mafia godfather (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your contributions do not meet Wiki's definition of "fact" in the first place. Saying it's a fact over and over again do not help one bit. T-1000 (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Says you? I am sorry, but I have provided enough reliable sources that state it as a fact. Note, I did not "prove" what I have contributed is a fact, I provided reference that have stated it is a fact. So far, your fringe theory have not been evidenced except for your argument that it is an opinion of some that my fact isnt a fact. You better do better than thatMafia godfather (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, says the definition found on Misplaced Pages. T-1000 (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, talk about contradictory. You bash every reference that doesn't support your narrow-minded perspective, and wholeheartedly support anything that does. That, my friend, is not NPOV. Even basic facts like "The ROC has control of Taiwan" you end up disputing. "No official documents?" Please! And if you think the ROC and Taiwan is ANYTHING like the United States and Iraq, you need a serious lesson in both history and current events. I'll stop arguing there because with someone like you, there's obviously nothing that will convince you otherwise regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Stop asking for evidence when you'll just dispute it anyway. Multivariable (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who suggested to have "The ROC has control of Taiwan" to be worded as fact, see , I am only disputing "Taiwan is a part of ROC". Just to get the record straight before you digress further. Just curious, you said I have disputed every reference and evidence, can you name one? I have not seen an evidence provided by the other side yet. Mafia godfather (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki policy: "NPOV also focuses on facts being used to support a perspective. Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but DO NOT ASSERT OPINIONS THEMSELVES. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible. WP:NPOV

I have provided "facts" with credible sources to back these facts, and if there are any credible disputes to this fact, these disputes should be made with reliable sources as well, standards apply to any "perspective" as far as wikipedisa's concern should be applied to these "disputes". I have seen none of such credible disputes other than your rants. In fact, the fact I have provided these sources that blatantly dispute YOUR "fact" and you cannot provide any to respond to that, that means your position is FRINGE. NOw we have a couple editors also dispute your theory, and since you cannot provide any relevant sources to show that what you are saying is a fact without serious disputes, you should let it rest for wikipidia is no place for your fringe theories. Mafia godfather (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Read your own quotes: "That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things, so we assert as many of them as possible." Your contributions do not meet the text in bold. T-1000 (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, can you provide any evidence of "serious disputes" to my fact? Please don't tell me it is YOU. Please don't. Mafia godfather (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The Taiwanese people. They are not "no one", are they? T-1000 (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am a Taiwanese and I know enough of people like myself who disagree with you and recognize the fact i contributed. Yet, I did not use the opinion of those who are like me when I contributed the fact. You know why? Possibility of bias. Japanese have a very different version of what really happened in Nanjing and they certainly disagree with facts seen by rest of the world. You going to take 127 million people's words for it? What about what happened at Tianamen Square for China? You going to say not many people died because 1.3 billion Chinese people think so? Please. Anyway, I asked for evidence of this serious dispute, please me a serious dispute from 3rd party reliable source(OTHER THAN Taiwanese or ROC government or they are the ones in dispute). Mafia godfather (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Events like Tiananmen Square are disputed, which is why the article gives the number of people killed by the PRC: "The official Chinese government figure is 241 dead, including soldiers, and 7,000 wounded." and other sources, such as the NATO intelligences "7,000 deaths – NATO intelligence." to comply with the NPOV policy. You, on the other hand, totally ignore those countries that recognize PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan, and the POV of the majority of Taiwanese. That is a direct violation of NPOV. T-1000 (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Mafia godfather, I think there is a misunderstanding here. When reliable sources report conflicting information, it's not our job to say that one source is right and the other wrong. Rather, neutrality requires that all conflicting perspectives be stated, without implying that any one is more correct than any other one. Now, as for opposing perspectives (or "facts," if you will), I'll make an incomplete summary of them here. Reliable references to them are found at legal status of Taiwan. (1) SFPT should be interpreted "consistent" with JIS. (2) JIS transferred sovereignty. (3) prescription rule applies. (4) Uti possedetis applies w/r/t the Treaty of Taipei. All of these arguments have been published in reliable sources too, and we cannot ignore them. Facts about law can be disputed all the time, and here is a classic dispute in law that we cannot take sides in. Claiming that side X's legal arguments are better than side Y's would violate neutrality, as well as the rule against original research. The existence of the dispute is the undisputed fact. Oh, BTW, there may be issues with USA-Centrism as well if one takes Dulles and his views and make them too dominant. Ngchen (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ngchen, right now we do not have a conflict because there are no reliable information on the fringe theory of Taiwan is a part of ROC. I have provided a fact and there are no evidence of serious disputes other than T-1000, you, and a few other editors. Yet, none of you provided any reliable sources to challenge the evidences I have provided that CLEALR stated my contribution as fact. Neutrality is not an issue here for a fringe theory of "Taiwan is a part of ROC" that is only accepted within the jurisdiction of the disputed party(China, particularly ROC). Furthermore, I have seen no reliable references at legal status of Taiwan, otherwise, you probably would have thrown at me before I find them. My next project is to go to that page and put "citation needed" on all parts I found dubious and not evidenced, we'll get there, don't worry.

Back to your numbered points.

"(1) SFPT should be interpreted "consistent" with JIS."

SFPT is consistent with JIS as JIS is a legal to-do list and SFPT is a legal agreement of settlement. Objective of SFPT clearly was to hold Japanese obligation per JIS fulfilled. In the speech by John Foster Dulles on SFPT during the meeting that time, he made it clear that the treaty settles the issues with Japan and Allied Powers. Legality wise, SFPT is the ultimate legal agreement on WW2 so its legality supercedes JIS, whatever JIS listed and not fulfilled by SFPT would be deemed settled or forgiven.

"(2) JIS transferred sovereignty."

JIS cannot and does not transfer sovereignty. It listed demands and Japan has agreed to fulfill them, that's it. Instrument of surrender is merely a memorandum and its listed demands are subject to be changed or altered in the future if new events(such as Chinese civil war) arise. Taiwan was still a part of Japan from the moment JIS signed to the day before SFPT comes into force. No territorial sovereignty can be transferred by military annexation, this is violation of Hague Convention IV article 55. If you do not know about the relevant history or legal concepts, please do a bit more research.

"(3) prescription rule applies"

It is a form of adverse possession that allows one country to take over a land of another if the other does not protest for a prolonged peiod of time. In normal real estate laws, like California, adverse possession needs to meet certain tests and the prolonged period of time is 5 years. It is not unheard of. However, such form of acquiring territories is no longer applicable in today's world under UN charter. The only law that can come close to this is UN Article 73. "Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end..." ADVERSE POSSESSION is what the world trying to prevent from happening now. The territorial sovereignty of Taiwan belonged to Taiwanese people after it became a limbo cession, and Taiwanese were not given opportunities to properly decide on if they should dispute ROC's claim or not due to 5 decades of martial law. I am sorry, Ngchen, nice try there. I will address that on the wiki article later.

"(4) Uti possedetis applies w/r/t the Treaty of Taipei."

Disregard the fact most of the application of this legal principle has been before enactment of UN charter and Hague Convention IV of 1907. The legal concept MAY be applicable to justify ROC's control of Taiwan, not necessarily ownership, especially there is a clear treatry that states Taiwan's disposition is to be remain undetermined. ROC acquired rights to control Taiwan as a military occupying power for the Allied Powers via General Order Number One issued by Allied Powers, and the Allied Powers signed a treaty with Japan to settle Taiwan's issue by not awarding to anyone, including ROC. Thus possessor of Taiwanese sovereignty is back to Taiwanese people, not ROC, for ROC has never "possessed" sovereigty of Taiwan and they actually were acting on Allied Powers' behalf(see General Order No. 1) and the Allied Powers regarded Japan as the rightful owner of Taiwan until the SFPT comes into force. That was why Japan was asked to renounce sovereignty of Taiwan. Treaty of Taipei came into force AFTER Taiwan has been given up. Uti Possedetis as you can see mostly apply to the natural people of the newly formed independent states(BY UN Charter Article 1 sec 2 to be default owners of territory by principle of self determination), in this case, it would be more of a justification for Taiwan than ROC. As what the International Court of Justice in the 1986 rules... " is a general principle, which is logically connected with the phenomenon of obtaining independence, wherever it occurs. Its obvious purpose is to prevent the independence and stability of new states being endangered by fratricidal struggles provoked by the changing of frontiers following the withdrawal of the administering power. " Is ROC a natively established government of Taiwan seeking independence from Japan? There is simply very little merit for this argument, and that is why it is also a fringe theory used to justfy ROC's claim.

Finally, most of these arguments you provided were opinions or arguments and do not constitute as facts. Joe Hung as research associate of a government think tank is already biased for ROC, we will disregard that. What about Claude S Phillips Jr.? Aside from the fact nobody really know him, if you read his article you can see that he is bringing an argument or a different perspctive to a prevailing understanding of the fact that ROC did not indeed have Taiwan. The only claims otherwise were from China and ROC who did not have any capacity to decide on Taiwan's disposition. US may have pressumed Taiwan is a Chinese territory when Truman declared Taiwan was a Chinese territory "liberated" by World War 2, but this position was no longer the case when the language of transferring sovereignty of Taiwan to China was removed from the SFPT at the end. I brought John Foster Dulles into the picture because he is not only secretary of state for a country that has been an ally of ROC(less likely to bash ROC interest) and he is also the co-author of SFPT. He would have more capacity to interpret SFPT than Cluade Phillips or Joe Hung.Mafia godfather (talk) 22:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I rest my case with regard to the existence of the dispute :-). And your harping on "doing more research" is precisely what the rule on original research forbids. You may not like the arguments presented in these reliable sources, but the fact is that they have been made, and are held by at least substantial minorities. So, again my point is that the existence of the dispute is well documented. Finally, there might be a misunderstanding on your part about neutrally reporting disputes. Let's say there is a dispute between X and Y, and think-tank of X publishes an argument. That argument forms part of the description of the dispute, since X is a party, and it would violate neutrality to say "Oh, think-tank of X is wrong because of blah blah blah..." Ngchen (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ngchen, you notice that what is disputable is not ROC is not a government in exile or Taiwan is not a part of ROC, it is because ROC claims to be owner of Taiwan, right? Since you were kind enough to open up to us and show us how disputable ROC claim is, I acknowledge your intention to rest your case. =) Once again, I do not dispute the fact that ROC's claim over Taiwanese sovereignty is disputable.

Regarding your analogy. I will respond this: If X was a perspective argued by X supporters and Y is a perspective argued by Y supporters, then your analogy woud work. However, lets say X presents a fact that Y does not like but cannot bring out another fact that would challenge it, then we have no issues with NPOV for a fact has no serious documented disputes and thus NOT subject to NPOV limitation. You understand what I am trying to say here? So, if you say that "ROC is a government in exile" is wrong and my referenced evidences are wrong, show me another 3rd party reliable source that states ROC is NOT government in exile. Do not show me another argument or opinion, show me a fact. If you say that "ROC does not have territorial sovereignty of Taiwan" is fringe, show me a reliable 3rd party source that states ROC is owner of Taiwanese sovereignty or sovereignty has indeed been transferred to ROC. There is none. Mafia godfather (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well, since the ROC's claim over Taiwan's territorial sovereignty is disputable, then it would violate neutrality to state in an article that the ROC "is" a government-in-exile, wouldn't it? After all, what if Joe Hung and others are right? Ngchen (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

In my contributed section, ROC declared its self to be government-in-exile. I am not going to dispute it if ROC declares its self so. If you call yourself Ngchen, why would you dispute yourself? As you can see from this comment , it was clear to outsiders that there isnt anything wrong with it. Mafia godfather (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(Combining the above thread) Actually, the source you use has a footnote questioning the notion that the ROC is in exile if I remember correctly. Now, in terms of X bringing out a fact that Y does not like, and Y argues that X is wrong because of a series of other facts, we cannot take sides and say that X is right, or that Y is right. As for a question such as sovereignty, there are historical facts, and then there are questions of law. The historical facts are things such as the SFPT being signed, Japan surrendering, the ROC claiming Taiwan, and so on. Questions of law are things like whether sovereignty of Taiwan was transferred to the ROC, the natives, the PRC, nobody, etc. These questions, as well as ones like whether the ROC "legitimately" exists or not, are questions of law, and they are disputed. Whether the ROC is in exile falls into the second category; after all, for the sake of argument, let's suppose Joe Hung is right. Then the ROC would have sovereignty over Taiwan per the Treaty of Taipei, and the ROC would not be in exile. Of course, we can then suppose that he's wrong, and the ROC could then be in exile. Hung's view has substantial numbers of followers, so it cannot be ignored. Ngchen (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Footnote of ROC government questions its self as a government in exile? I must have missed that. Can I see that series of facts Y brought out against X from you? So far I see a lot of arguments made by other X supporters and none of the arguments can constitute as "facts". The facts made by X are validated from reliable sources, the "facts" argued by Y, eh... Who knows Joe Hung? Who knows Claude Phillips Jr.? Are they respectable academics by peers in the world(since we are discussing an international issue now)? I simply pointed out 2 facts.

1. ROC declared its self to be legitimate Chinese government in exile. Because it can declare what its self is, I am not going to dispute that. This position of course was also shared by Council on Foreign Relations, an influenctial American non profit organization on US foreign policies existed since 1921.(Detroit Free Press, April 29 1955 page 8 col. 1)

2. Territorial sovereignty of Taiwan has never been transferred to ROC and ROC has never received territorial sovereignty of Taiwan by any legal agreements in history. Such "fact" can be seen in many places that are considered to be reliable sources. UNHCR or the official government record that recorded John Dulles's meeting with a foreign premier. Even Claude Phillips Jr., who made the argument about prescription law mentioned mainstream journalists like Walter Lippmann of NY Herald Tribune that time consider Taiwan not a territorial sovereignty of ROC. He even quoted Arthur Dean, former diplomat of US and key adviser of numerous US president that Taiwan was a terra nullius.(see "United States Foreign Policy and Formosa" Foreign Affairs, XXXIII(1955)). So, I am sorry, Hung and Phillips obviously are not of their caliber. Not saying Joe is right or wrong, but since research associate Joe's interpretation of Uti possidetis is so outdated, I would rather take the interpretation of International Court of Justice in the 1986 Case Burkina-Faso v Mali over Hung. There used to be similar publication as such, but most of them are removed, such as by Huang who also argued in favor of ROC's claim. Joe Hung may be next. :) Mafia godfather (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Very well then, we have come to a conclusion. One, that a dispute exists. Two, that substantial (non-negligible) numbers of followers exist in each camp. Therefore, neutrality requires that we do not take sides and to simply describe the dispute accurately, and claiming that the ROC "is" in exile would be taking a side. Although quite a few scholars take the view that the ROC is in exile, obviously that is not the only view. Ngchen (talk) 00:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have provided that views of diplomat, researcher of a congress report, a Stanford textbook, and think tanks that recognize the fact ROC is a governemnt in exile. Not to mention, ROC government's own admission of this. There is nothing to be disputed about ROC is a government in exile. Unless you can provide evidences from 3rd party reliable sources that expressively state ROC is not a government in exile. What is disputable is your claim that ROC isnt. Since that dispute exists, I will not take any side to say your view is disputed or not. I remain firm about the fact that ROC is a government in exile. Mafia godfather (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read your (heated) discussion, and it seems to me that both sides are well represented in terms of well-sourced views that support both points of view. A diplomat, U.S. Congress, textbooks, thinktanks... They'll all very good. But the point that Mr. "Mafia Godfather" is missing is that it is not our place to decide who is right. It's not our place to think, or to decide whose opinions (and they are ALL opinions) on a conflict are right or wrong. All we can do is say that the opinions exist. Mr. Kent (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

AESAN in lead

I have reverted this edit by an IP as I think it's a too vague to write that Taiwan is north of the AESAN and it's also borderline innaccurate - in particular Vietnam and Burma are certainly not south of Taiwan. Instead, I think it's clearer to just mention the countries that are directly below Taiwan; i.e. the Philippines, Indonesia and Australia. Any objections? Laurent (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Tensions and Status Quo

POV problem: Article says The current president, Ma Ying-jeou, however managed to ease tension with the PRC by maintaining the status quo.

Chen maintained more of the status quo, while Ma has actually been making changes to the status quo by making Taiwan more economically and politically dependent on China. Readin (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we shouldn't talk about "status quo" at all since it looks like it could mean different things to different readers. We could simply rewrite the sentence to:

"The current president, Ma Ying-jeou, managed to ease tension with the PRC by stating that there will be no unification nor declaration of independance during his presidency."

What do you think? Laurent (talk) 10:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the term "status quo" is problematic for the reason you give. Also, ascribing motives to the PRC (or to anyone) can be a problem if when the PRC hasn't actually stated what their motives are.

The references provided in the article suggest other reasons the tensions are supposed to be decreasing.

For example, Ma said a number of things that fit with China's view that Taiwanese people are China's possessions. He said that relations between ROC and PRC are not "between two countries" but instead are just "special relations" (This changed status quo by " reversing a decade-long government position"). Ma said that "mainland China" is part of the ROC. Ma has adopted the supposed "1992 Consensus". The motivation for China to ease its threats has been interpreted by many to simply be a way to make common league with fellow opponents of the Taiwanese people's dream of formal independence (according to polls a solid majority would choose independence over unification with China).

As for the idea that it was Ma's promises, Chen made very similar promises at the beginning of his term. He only laid them aside when China neither responded by easing tensions nor leaving them as they were, but instead continued to increase its pressure and threats.

We need to be very careful about claiming to know what is in the hearts of the Chinese leaders and what are their motivations. Readin (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

From what you are saying, I think it would take far too much space to expose all the POVs and make this paragraph completely neutral. But perhaps we don't need to have the opinion of Lee, Chen and Ma in there - we could move them to the "Political issues" section, and expand at will from there. I think it's actually a bit wp:undue to have them in the lead anyway (or else why not Chiang or his son).

The current paragraph, without these opinions, would then simply be about the Cross-Strait relations (and perhaps we could expand and state the influence of China on Taiwan's international relations). How about it? Laurent (talk) 19:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Readin (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Map concerns

The ROC's infobox map only shows the Free Area as colored in, whereas the PRC's map colors in the Mainland, Taiwan, and Arunachal Pradesh. If we're showing the PRC's claims and not just their de facto territory, why does the ROC's map not include the Mainland Area?

I also mentioned this on the PRC's discussion page. 174.99.48.72 (talk) 02:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Info box is really a place for facts. The map is based on the area in reality controlled by ROC government right now, or the "free area". ROC claims the entire mainland but they do not really administer it from geographical stand point. New ROC constitution amendments also implies that ROC no longer consider Chinese people in mainland area as ROC nationals for they are stripped of their ROC constitutional rights unless they are currently registered as ROC citizen. Mafia godfather (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The following was moved from the PRC talkpage: --Cybercobra (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does the map in the PRC infobox include Taiwan and parts of India, but the ROC's infobox map only includes the Free Area? Interesting double standard. 174.99.48.72 (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really a double standard, since there is no single great editor for both articles. In the case of the PRC, the government has claims on those areas, while not controlling them. I´m not sure about the status of ROC´s claims on "Continental China", but feel free to start a discussion on that article about that. This is even the reason why I pushed towards adding a label bellow the map. Uirauna (talk) 02:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The ROC claims Mainland China, although only one of the two major parties actively pursues these claims. It seems like we should have consistency across the two articles - IMHO, the best solution would be to only highlight areas de-facto controlled by each government. 174.99.48.72 (talk) 02:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, I even created another map for PRC with only the controlled areas, but had to make a compromise. On the other hand, the India article also shows claimed territories. Also, in the case of ROC it would look kinda weird, since "continental china" is a lot bigger than Taiwan. Does the ROC´s government officially claims "continental china"? Uirauna (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and some additional areas not claimed by the PRC. http://en.wikipedia.org/File:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.png I agree with you that this would look silly, which is why I think the optimal solution would be de-facto control only. Since PRC claims on Taiwan and Arunachal are by no means universally accepted, and PRC has no de facto control, why do we need to show them? 174.99.48.72 (talk) 02:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It would look silly because the claims made by both sides are silly. But that's not for us to judge. As an encyclopedia we should just show how things are. Since every country has a map, and many countries have claims over territory they don't control, there should really be a wikipedia-wide standard. Does anyone have any idea where such a guideline might be found - or where we should go to make one? Readin (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, things are fine the way they currently are. Maybe it's a double standard; however, it's only the PRC that's actively pressing its claims. The ROC map with the mainland is relevant only as a historical curiosity, and to make it more prominent would create an issue with undue weight. Again, just my opinion - feel free to disagree. Ngchen (talk) 03:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

However, I believe it is still the official stance of the Republic of China that Mainland China is a part of the Republic of China, therefore it continues to claim Mainland China. Bambuway (talk) 22:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just as soon revert the caption to what I originally had it as, which specified that only the Free Area of the Republic of China was depicted. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Cybercobra. Ngchen (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the "Free Area of the ROC" is a POV term that we should avoid using if possible. Using it implies that the ROC is the legitimate republic of China and that the rest of China still remains to be freed. Although that may be the official POV of the ROC, I don't think we should use it ourself in the infobox, without any explanations. Perhaps, as an alternative, we could use "Taiwan Area of the Republic of China", which is equivalent and less POV (and clearer than "Free Area"). It also seems to be more frequently used by the government (3795 results for "Taiwan area" against 444 for "Free area" on gio.gov.tw). Laurent (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Or you could use Republic of China administered area and Republic of China claimed area Bambuway (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn´t we move this discussion to the ROC talk page?Uirauna (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

So moved. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I really dont think the map should be a "political map" and more of a geographical map since most mapmakers would have geographical/effective controlled area supercede political/claimed area anyway. You hardly see any maps out there with entire mainland as ROC these days. I think Republic of China administered area could work and have just Taiwanese islands and Kinmen/Matsu islands be included in the Republic of China administered area .Mafia godfather (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

'Free Area of the Republic of China' is not a POV term. It's the official terminology used by the government and in the Constitution as well. The are currently controlled by the ROC IS the 'free area of the Republic of China'. People uses it all the time as well. 'Ziyouqu' is used all the time and universally understood. As for the map, by no ways should it be a Geographical map. This article is about a political entity, not a geographical. Sure, it can be a political-geographical map, a map with geographical features and political boundaries, but it must by all means have boundaries and some way to make the RoC stand out from the neighbouring states. Anyways, 'Free Area of the ROC', 'Area administered by the RoC' will all work in my opinion. As for whether or not to include the mainland and all that stuff, I would recommend putting in a redirect link of some kind to the Free Area of the Republic of China article. This at least allows easy access for the reader to go into the area if they want to. If a link is provided, then the naming issue should relax a bit. Liu Tao (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

PRC being a Neighboring country to ROC

I am starting this discussion to avoid an edit war. The Chinese Naming conventions at state that "Text should not take a position on whether they are considered separate nations.", Obviously, if PRC is a Neighboring country to ROC, then that imply that they are two separate countries, thus is in violation the Naming convention (as there is a major POV that Taiwan is part of PRC). The sentence is also useless, as the sentence before it already said Taiwan is east of the coast of Mainland China. T-1000 (talk) 00:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a change my noting the PRC's geographical location in the following sentence. Would that be OK? Ngchen (talk) 00:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. T-1000 (talk) 00:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

T-1000, it's not useless because it contains a link to People's Republic of China as well as the acronym. Since it's one of the most notable neighbour of the ROC, it makes sense to introduce it early in the lead.

As for the naming convention, I personnally don't think any position is being taken. The ROC exists and so does the PRC, saying otherwise or implying that there's nothing off the west coast of the ROC (or that the ROC controls mainland China) would be taking a massive POV. We are just describing the facts without, indeed, taking any position.

Finally, the POV that Taiwan is part of China is introduced in the fourth paragraph so there's no NPOV issue. Laurent (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The re-wording was implying that the PRC was not a separate country. To bypass the "country" issue since the ROC is a state rather than a country, I went back to the earlier wording but switched "country" to "state" and used state names instead of country names. Readin (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of China (Taiwan) is NOT a regional "state" as the user Readin implies, but in actuality, is a functional independent sovereign nation-state or country with their own democratically elected President (aka. Commander-in-Chief, Head of State), Vice-President, their own government, and their own armed military forces composed of the Republic of China (Taiwan) Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Military Police, and Space Command (a NASA equivalent Space Agency) which is "officially" a "civilian" organization but during times of war would also serve a paramilitary purpose of launching Taiwanese space weapons and spy satellites, which the ROC (Taiwan) government has done before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.6.81 (talk) 00:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the WP:OR policy. There are sources saying that ROC and PRC are two countries, and there are sources saying the PRC and ROC are not two countries. You, as an editor, are not allowed to conduct original research to "prove" that the former is correct. T-1000 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the issue, to be honest. It is a fact that the ROC operates as an independent, sovereign state. Were we to suggest otherwise, we would in fact be compromising POV concerns, since we would allowing the PRC POV to override reality. Acknowledging that the ROC is a neighbouring country to the PRC, while also mentioning the territorial dispute within the confines of the article, seems perfectly legitimate to me. 94.173.12.152 (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

English Corrections Needed

I normally just make these kind of corrections myself, but this page is protected. Buchs (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Item 1

Corruption within the government and lack of direction also prevented any significant reform to take place

should be replaced with:

Corruption within the government and lack of direction also prevented any significant reform from taking place

Item 2

Because of the Cold War, most Western nations and the United Nations regarded the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China until the 1970s and especially after the termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty; after that, most nations switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC.

should be replaced with:

Because of the Cold War, most Western nations and the United Nations regarded the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China until the 1970s. Later and especially after the termination of the Sino-American Mutual Defense Treaty, most nations switched diplomatic recognition to the PRC.

Done. Thank you very much for your input. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote Improvement

{{editsemiprotected}}

{{For2|the culture and geography of the territories governed by the Republic of China, most notably Taiwan|] and ]}} should be changed to {{about||the culture and geography of the territories governed by the Republic of China, most notably Taiwan|Taiwan|and|List of islands of the Republic of China}}.174.3.98.236 (talk) 07:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Years in the headlines should be removed because the years do not correspond to the content in the sections.174.3.98.236 (talk) 08:01, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The hatnote change  Not done: it would have no effect; observe:

Currently:

You propose:

And passing "and" as a parameter seems like slight template abuse.

It has no VISUAL effect, but it reduces manual square bracketing.174.3.98.236 (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It's vastly more readable in the For2 form. Can't see how it's an improvement to chop up natural language just to take advantage of some template funkery.--Father Goose (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

:/ Well I've changed it. No difference, but it's easy to put things in fields.174.3.98.236 (talk) 15:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into the year-section-title thing. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: I see no obvious errors. If you can point out something more specific... --Cybercobra (talk) 09:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

===Chinese Civil War and World War II (1927–1945)=== begins at 1925. Since that title is incorrect and should have the years removed, all titles should have their years removed.174.3.98.236 (talk) 09:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done --Cybercobra (talk) 23:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

"The founding of the Republic of China began on 10 October 1911 as a result of the Wuchang Uprising, but it was not formally established until 1 January 1912. The ROC had once encompassed mainland China and Outer Mongolia."

The tense "had once" seems strange here. When? More generally, the article is not terribly clear here, and in a few other places, whether the RoC originally was China, or whether there remained another entity called "China" which, during that time, just happened to be encompassed by the RoC. Do you see what I'm getting at?

The introduction to the "History" section does not make clear the drastic readjustment of the RoC's territory (from the whole of China to just Taiwan). It talks about the "The Republic of China on mainland China" and "The Republic of China on Taiwan" as if they both still exist. 86.161.41.187 (talk) 20:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

Read the entire bloody paragraph you presented:

"At the end of World War II, with the surrender of Japan, the Republic of China took over the island groups of Taiwan and Penghu from the Japanese Empire. After the end of the world war, the government drafted the Constitution of the Republic of China, which was adopted on 25 December 1947. When the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang, KMT), the then leading party of the ROC, lost mainland China in the Chinese Civil War to the Communist Party of China (CPC) in 1949, the central government relocated to Taiwan, establishing Taipei as its provisional capital. Despite being forced out of mainland China, Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist leader, declared that the ROC was still the legitimate government of China and Outer Mongolia. In mainland China, the victorious Communist party founded the People's Republic of China. The Taiwan Area became the extent of the Republic of China's jurisdiction."

It clearly states what had happened, as for the history, if you had read the introductory paragraph of the article itself, you should know that the Republic no longer has control of the mainland. As for the History section, that's after the introductory to the article. People who knows how to read should know to read the introduction first before reading anything else. It's common sense. You read from top down, not bottom up. Liu Tao (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

As well as clearly being too stupid to understand my point, you are also extremely rude. 86.172.103.81 (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC).

What was your point? The point you have made is that the 'had once' made it seem strange, I do not see how it seems strange, it had once encompassed mainland China and Mongolia, now it does not. As for when, the reader can continue reading the paragraph and see what had happened. The RoC lost all of its mainland territory to the Communists in 1949. As for the 'other places', you need to give specific examples. If one has read the entire article, or if something does not seem clear, then you continue reading or do further research. As I've said, it's common sense. You don't read an article bottom up, nor do you learn Trigonometry before learning Algebra. I'm not being rude, I'm just being cold and straightforward. Liu Tao (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't get your point either, Anon (86.172.103.81). The history of the ROC's territorial possession is quite complicated both because it was an empire (as the PRC is now) and because of it's reality bending claims that Taiwan is still part of China and that the ROC is still the legitimate government of China. Given all that, I think the opening paragraphs are about as clear as we know how to make them. If you have any specific suggestions for improvements I'm willing to listen but I'm not sure what we can do with just your criticism.

Giving orders to other readers is rude. Using "bloody" in a sentence is rude. Doing both in the first sentence of a reply to someone's first post is very rude and probably grounds for an administrative talking to. Readin (talk) 03:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, get this straight, the PRC is not an Empire, it is not ruled by an Emperor. It is a Socialist Republic.

As for giving orders, I was telling him to do what was obvious and common sense. The lad read the first 2 sentences of a paragraph and then started crying 'unclear'. Had the lad read the entire paragraph, he should not have any issues at all and this would have never been brought up. Using the term 'bloody' is not rude, only to very little. People use it all the time, it carries no offense. If the lad is offended, then tell him to swallow it down, because just the fact that he brought this 'issue' up is offensive to some as well. You can't please everyone, you never can, and you never will. Tis the cold hard truth, either accept it or don't. Liu Tao (talk) 07:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear. According to Misplaced Pages, an empire is "a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy." Can you think of a better description of China? You're right they don't have a emperor (though Mao probably qualified for the title) but they do have an oligarchy as called for in the definition. The territory is geographically extensive, and it consists of many former states and many ethnically diverse peoples speaking many languages (although the government is working hard to make them all speak the same language).

As for your use of language, there is no need for foul language whether mildly or severely offensive. The offense of the term varies by country and given that people all over the world may read this you should avoid using it.

The fact that you say you were "telling him to do what was obvious and common sense" when you gave the order just shows why it was offensive. You were implying that the editor was childish or dumb and needed you to tell him to do the obvious. Readin (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh, it's about time that you've pulled information from other Wiki-articles and using them on the grounds for 'consistency', I've been doing that since I've joined, yet you just shoot me down each and every single time. I will say no more about that. But back to the issue, what about the term 'oligarchy' then? What's the wiki-definition for it? How does the PRC qualify as an oligarchy? As for 'geographically extensive', what is the line between geographically extensive and not geographically extensive? The Bulgarian Empire was an Empire, yet the Spanish Kingdom is larger than the Bulgarian Empire, then how come the Bulgarian Empire is an Empire but the Spanish Kingdom is not? Many former states? The Kingdoms of Greece and Yugoslavia both consists of many former states yet they were Kingdoms, not an Empires. Ethnically diverse, both the Kingdoms of Greece, Yugoslavia, and Spain all have many different language speaking people, yet they were/are Kingdoms, not Empires. So, mind you explaining all of these 'why's for me one by one?

As for my use of language, 'bloody' is not foul nor is it offensive, nor is it offensive from those who I have learnt the language from. As for variation of offense of terms, I can say oh, the word 'dumb' which you later used is rude or offensive towards me, so you cannot say it. I can also say that the fact that he is questioning the effectiveness and criticising of wikipedia articles is insulting as well. If he feels offended by my way of speech, then I'll say I'm offended by his actions, so he should avoid making criticisms. I will speak to him just as I speak to every other lad, he is not my superior, I've no reason to watch what I say when I speak to him. If he is offended, then tell him to swallow his pride and feelings, this is how many people speak, there is no reason for millions to change their way of speech just because of this one man. Liu Tao (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

If I were arguing for a change to the article, you would be right to point out the problem of using another article as a source. But since this isn't about an edit, a wikipedia article will do. Readin (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

So, you are saying that it is okay to call for consistency in speech based on Wiki-articles but not when editing? Wow, what's that word to describe these kinds of actions? It starts with an 'H', I think... Can't remember...

And answer my bloody refutement, don't try to change the bloody subject! If you want to reply to what I've said outside article subject, go ahead, but do not do only that, at the least refute the stuff that HAS to do with the article and subject at hand. Liu Tao (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have time to go point by point on why China is an empire. In any case you know enough about China to recognize the truth of it regardless of whether it fits with your political views.

As for whether your comments are offensive, we can always ask an admin how they fit with wp:civil. Readin (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Political views?! This is common sense! An Empire is headed by an Emperor or Empress, tis why it is called an empire. An Empire is proclaimed, it is a form of political entity, not created. The Korean Empire is an Empire, yet it is composed of only the Korean Ethnic Group, speaking only the Korean language and restricted to the Korean Peninsula.

As for being civil, go ahead. As I've said, I've insulted no one, if you feel the way I talk is a bit vulgar or rough, it's the way I talk. Many talk the way I am and don't take offense to what I say. I'm not 'uncivil' just because I use the word 'bloody'. As for the 'impression', that's up for one to decide. Unless he is going to admit that he didn't do what I said one with common sense would do or something that should have been done, what I was saying did not have anything to do with him. Have some common sense people! I am sick and tired of having to tell critics and editors to keep reading the articles. This situation is even more ridiculous. He quotes the first 2 sentences of a paragraph and says that they're 'unclear' with something, but the rest of the paragraph explains exactly what he's complaining about the sentences being 'unclear' about.

Anyways, are you going to refute my questions or not? Do not say that you do not have time, because apparently you have enough time to respond to this. If you are not going to back up your claims or views, you should not bring them up in the first place. Now, answer my questions and stop avoiding them. Liu Tao (talk) 04:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specific change you are proposing we make to the article. If you have a specific change, propose it and we can discuss it. If you don't have a specific change, please read WP:FORUM, "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article". It seemed to me we were going off-topic.Readin (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

First of all, this was like a month and a half ago. Second of all, I didn't propose the change, the lad that started the discussion did. You just extended it. I wasn't proposing for change, I was trying to keep the article as is. Liu Tao (talk) 04:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

"island nation"

The sentence stating that the ROC "is an island nation comprising the islands of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu and other minor islands" is redundant. The terms "island" and "nation" (not factually true, you mean state?) are already mentioned in this sentence and the sentence before it. Why apply this unnecessary, pov label? The Republic of China is the political entity, so using the word state is acceptable. Since when has anyone called the ROC an "island nation"?--Jiang (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"State of Taiwan"

This text "It is also often informally referred to as the "State of Taiwan", in particular in countries where the ROC is not officially recognized" cites sources which do not support that statement. In the French Article it shows chef de l'Etat de Taiwan (meaning Head of State of Taiwan) aka the President of the Republic of China, there is no reference to any "State of Taiwan". The other article, which is in Italian however does cite "Taipei, capital of the State of Taiwan". The other two articles did not make any reference to support that statement. Officially, countries which do not maintain diplomatic relations with the ROC use "Taiwan", or in some cases "Chinese Taipei" while most non-Chinese mass media use "Taiwan", "Taiwan's government/people/economy", "the island's government/people/economy" etc. on topics regarding the ROC or Taiwan. It is the first time I've heard "State of Taiwan" being mentioned outside "Taiwan independence" articles or topics. Anyone care to clarify or to disagree? Rtzj(talk) 18:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles in question:
http://www.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/monde/chronologies/asie-2006.shtml
http://www.gloobal.net/iepala/gloobal/fichas/ficha.php?entidad=Textos&id=7001
http://www.paesionline.it/asia/taiwan_taipei/guida_turistica_citta_taipei.asp
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,675094,00.html

The ROC is commonly called "State of Taiwan" in the French language, including in official documents, and in other European countries. This is because France doesn't recognize the ROC and so use a description (rather than a name) for it. See for instance the French article where "État de Taïwan" is bolded like a common name. Laurent (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

There's an User:71.68.249.98 pushing the POV that ROC/Taiwan is a country and ignore all other POV's, The discussion is here: . Given that we just had a discussion on this topic, if you guys could take a look at it and give your input in would be great. Thanks. T-1000 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC

Don't listen to the incoherent rambling of T-1000 who has repeatedly pov edited in clear violation of official Misplaced Pages naming convention policy. Just examining his edits would be self-explanatory and conclusive that he is at fault in pov pushing as well as violating the Misplaced Pages naming conventions.

For anyone interested in the other issue, it was who built the IDF fighters:

Okay, so I looked up citations, and I've found this: . It seems that the issue is that the IP user removed American involvement in designing these planes, as seen here: , but the global security websites states that:

"Taiwan produced the Ching-kuo Indigenous Defense Fighter with extensive assistance by American corporations, led by General Dynamics. The project consisted of four sub-projects. They were the Ying-yang project (in cooperation with General Dynamics Corporation) which made the air-frame; the Yun-han project (in cooperation with Hughes Corporation), which designed the engine; the Tian-lei project (in cooperation with Westinghouse Company), which took care of the avionics system; and the Tian-chien project, which developed the weapons system. "

So this is a classic case of POV pushing by the IP user to try to push a POV that the Americans were not involved. At best, the issue is disputed. T-1000 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the word "state" to "island chain", as island chain is a neutral term. How can a region be deemed a soverign state,if it is not formally recognised as one by the international community(vast majority)?lso, the fact that

I altered the intro slightly,again(as it was chcnged back to state: The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan, is a largely internationally unrecognised and disputed state entity in East Asia located off the east coast of mainland China

"this is acceptable, and neutral. however, due to POV opinions,it is being edited constantly. so for for wiki neutrality —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.54.72 (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you drunk or something? Laurent (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

very mature Laurent —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.54.72 (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't too far fetched... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

User:MakmoudHassan

Now there is a User:MakmoudHassan trying to change every instance of "country" to "sovereign state" in order to POV push for the ROC, lol. Thoughts on this and how to deal with this user? T-1000 (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's anything we can do besides continuing to revert his edits and issue warnings, like what's currently being done. Maybe if there's a consistent reversion comment or link, others will take note. These types usually give up quickly, which is good. -Multivariable (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

With this note on the talk page, I don't think anyone is going to mind using rollback without an edit summary for this particular user, correct? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Now blocked. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject States With Limited Recognition Proposal

There is a proposal for a Wikiproject at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/States With Limited Recognition. This proposed project would have within it's scope the 10 "Other States" of International Politics and their subpages(significant locations, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on). The project would help to maintain and expand these articles. If you are interested please indicate your support for the proposed project on the above linked page. This page would be within the Project's scope. Outback the koala (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I noticed the map of Taiwan in the "country infobox" has, as its alt mouseover text: "A map depicting a relatively small island in East Asia". Now I know that things on the Taiwan page are different from other countries' pages, due to Taiwan's contested status, but to me, it smells of vandalism (describing it in such vague, unflattering terms). I can't find what it has been, as the text seems to have been there quite a while. Normally, I change these things on the spot (if it were up to me, to make it as NPOV as possible, I'd label it "A map of Taiwan and other islands controlled by the Republic of China") but I figure with the Taiwan article being undoubtedly a hot article, and my having no prior involvement in it (in other words, despite being a longtime Wikipedian, I'd be seen as a newbie here) I'd just put it out here and see what the consensus is. --Canuckguy (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the alt text. It's intended to describe what the image visually looks like for those who are blind or similar. It's different from the caption due to this different purpose. See also Misplaced Pages:Alternative text for images. --Cybercobra (talk) 07:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering Japan and the Philippines both have "Location of ___" while Indonesia doesn't have any alt text, I would suggest changing it since yes, it seems unflattering. Since the Republic of China is not a single island and since the purpose of the map is to show where it is located (rather than its relative size), I would suggest changing it to simple "Location of the Republic of China". -Multivariable (talk) 00:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask at WP:ALT what is a good alt text for a map. I think "Location of..." is not useful for a blind person because they won't learn anything from that. We should rather describe how the island looks, perhaps how far it is from the coast, its size relatively to the surrounding islands, etc. Laurent (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

To Canuckguy - This page is routinely vandalized by PRC operatives and should generally be ignored. You only really need to know one thing about Taiwan -- it will NEVER (under any circumstances,) become part of the PRC. Taiwan is a sovereign nation state. End of story.97.125.85.230 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Democratisation

A citation is needed for democratisation due to the contested social sciences definitions of this. Should be easy to supply from at least one analytical perspective. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Claims of inflation over time are highly dubious it needs specific inline citation, and ought to indicate the method of calculation used (GDP, CPI, etc.) and its equivalence being given in USD is high dubious as this was not the currency in use. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The inflation cite needs a second source due to the extreme dubiousness of calculating worth over time (especially when rendered in a currency other than the one where debt was expended). The cite fails to indicate CPI or GDP inflation, or the year when inflated from or to. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is just an estimate, it's obvious it's not going to be 100% accurate but at least it gives some rough idea. The source it comes from is reliable so I don't think the dubious tag is appropriate. If you have a source that provides a different estimate, feel free to add it to the article. Laurent (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

In relation to Fenby, he's neither a historian nor an economic historian. He's entirely out of speciality, and there are many good reasons (Measuring worth) to refuse him verifiability on the inflation measure point. In particular, in relation to dubiousness of inflation measures, see . It requires disciplinary expertise in time inflation, which Fenby is two removes from (academia, disciplinarity). Penguin is not a full academic press for this kind of measure where the author lacks speciality. Fenby needs back up on the dubiousness of a current USD of many years past state debt. Fifelfoo (talk)

Citation required for "not without reason" Fifelfoo (talk) 09:01, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he calculated this amount by himself as it's not hard to ask an economist. I don't have the book with me but I seem to remember he credits many historians and other specialists he was in contact with when he wrote the book. The book was first published by Ecco (Harper Collins). Sorry to ask again but do you have another source with a different estimate? Laurent (talk) 10:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Name historians and cite. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Issue with highlighting in Map

I invite users who have any concerns regarding this issue to add their input here, under the appropriate section. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

In favour of "Locator map of the ROC Taiwan.svg" (beige highlighting):

• I prefer the SVG map, it's more detailed. Maybe we can change its color if it's different from other country maps. Laurent (talk) 04:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• I was the editor of the SVG type map... the reason that I worked on it is the original png map obviously difficult to be viewed and inaccurate. In spite of this, if some editors still suppose that the current appearance of SVG type make map which looked choppy or less distinct, I will try to reform it in identical as other locator maps if everyone consider it is necessary...--ILVTW (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

In favour of "LocationROC.png" (green highlighting):

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class China-related articles
• Top-importance China-related articles
• GA-Class China-related articles of Top-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• GA-Class Taiwan articles
• Top-importance Taiwan articles
• WikiProject Taiwan articles
• GA-Class country articles
• WikiProject Countries articles
• Selected anniversaries (October 2004)
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists