This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sadko (talk | contribs) at 21:03, 27 June 2023 (OneClickArchiver archived Enough. to Talk:Culture of Taiwan/Archive 1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:03, 27 June 2023 by Sadko (talk | contribs) (OneClickArchiver archived Enough. to Talk:Culture of Taiwan/Archive 1)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Culture of Taiwan article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | 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.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Archives | |
|
|
warning to members of WP:China
Seeing my edits as disruptive is a testament to blueshirts as PalaceGuard008 (Sumple's sockpuppet)'s arrogant mindset and POV-pushing intent. More than a year ago, a neutral editor, Maowang, made a whole bunch of contributions with strong sources to this article. Since then, there has only been POV pushing from members of WP:China spreading Chinese propaganda and discreting Taiwan's unique culture. As plainly apparent in the talkpage, blueshirt has also been edit warring with Penwhale on this article, among others, which violate the spririt of WP:OWN. Future reverts from these 2 editors without discussion will be consider vandalism and reverted on sight.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Your past history has shown you to be an uncooperative, disruptive, and vandalizing editor. And please show evidence that I was edit warring with Penwhale, right on this page as you said. In addition, none of the editors I'm aware of, and certainly not me, were edit warring with Maowang, who did absolutely a great job with his sourced material, but hasn't replied to question regarding his citation in the lead paragraph. Now, please avoid more wikilawyering and throwing off loaded terms like WP:OWN and immediately stop blanket revertion of copyediting and addition of cited info. Blueshirts (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- And your involvement? Randomly calling established editor a troll is frankly dickish behavior. I suggest you read WP:DICK for your own benefit. And don't try to stalk me. It's harassment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Certified.Gangsta (talk • contribs)
- Okay, can you please enlighten us what does this diff show besides the fact that I put all your arguments into one paragraph, without changing one word, because you apparently don't know the markup for indentations? Blueshirts (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- And your involvement? Randomly calling established editor a troll is frankly dickish behavior. I suggest you read WP:DICK for your own benefit. And don't try to stalk me. It's harassment.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Certified.Gangsta (talk • contribs)
Seriously, if you think I'm a troll, boot me off the project. You and Sumple are just pissed off because Ideogram's sock got busted by me. You think I don't know y'all? The arbCom case pretty much got started because I busted RevolverOcelotX's sock farm, so y'all from WikiProject:China got pissed off because y'all are essentially using Ideogram and Lionheartx as bad-hand accounts to troll the project anyway.
Check out Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram/Evidence Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram for blueshirt and Sumple/PalaceGuard008's debating style. I'm still waiting for you to explain yours and PalaceGuard/Sumple's unilateral edits.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 08:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- If it makes you sleep better, please request a checkuser on me, Palaceguard, and Ideogram. I am not really waiting for your excuse for blanket reversions of sourced additions and copyedits, because I know you won't say it's vandalism. And please show where I was edit warring with Penwhale and Maowang, as you made in your accusation. Blueshirts (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see my edits as vandalism either. The fact that you are undermining Prestyberian Church's effect on politics, toning down Chiang Kai-Shek and Chinese Nationalists brutality against ethnic Taiwanese, and undermining Taiwanese contemporary popular culture (the section was endorsed by maowang) is at best WP:GAME and at worse deliberate trolling. You know what I think of you. You know what you think of me. It is best we stay out of each other's editing scope. This page wasn't edited for over half a year until a few days ago. Then you and Sumple suddenly see the need to make POV-pushing edits just because I updated a few things. I don't know what to say. It looks like wiki-stalking, baiting, and being in dick (WP:DICK). I'm trying to assume good faith here, but I'm having problems doing that if you don't start explaining your edits to the article. I'm not a mind reader but note that one can be a dick without the subjective intention of being a dick. Keep that in mind. You're in danger of committing dickish behavior either deliberately or subconsciously.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
As for your suggestion about checkuser, I don't think it would be accepted so it's pointless. I never accused all 3 of you as the same person. But there is a concerted effort to boot me off the project by quite a few people, most of them Ideogram's blind supporters. My point was that you like Ideogram's and Lionheartx's Chinese propaganda edits and edit warring/stalking style, so you can achieve what you want without actually getting into the middle of it yourself, essentially using Ideogram as a bad-hand account. That's all I'm saying.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 09:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- You have not explained any of your blanket reversions of sourced statements and copyedits and I am frankly tired of repeating the same question with the same simple wording. Also you have not pointed out where I was edit warring with penwhale and maowang. Adding a couple more paragraphs straying from the main point is not really helping you much. Blueshirts (talk) 09:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- I don't have to explain anything until you start explaining your unilateral changes, which I removed, then you edited back.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Certified.Gangsta, it would be more productive if you discussed content issues in good faith instead of 1) blank reverting substantive edits and 2) making wild and baseless accusations of other editors. No one really cares who you dislike, but if you have a comment to contribute about the content of the article, this is the place to post it in. If you have nothing to contribute on the content of the article, then please refrain from touching the revert button. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Suppression of Taiwanese nationalism
Why is the statement that the KMT suppressed Taiwanese nationalism being deleted? Readin (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Do you have a cite for it? The sentence, even if true, was in the wrong context. There was no such thing as "Taiwanese nationalism" in the 1940s to 1950s. It was a Taiwan autonomy movement coupled with a pro-Communist, anti-Kuomintang movement. It wasn't until the 1980s and 1990s that a Taiwanese "nationalism" arose in any significant way. This was the time when the CPC turned from supporting and sponsoring the DPP to gradually turning against it and towards the KMT. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Parties' cultural identifications
When saying that the election of the DPP is an important step in localization, it helps to point out that this is because the KMT was a Chinese party (to what extent is still is can be debated, but its origins are certainly Chinese and many of its members consider themselves Chinese) while the DPP is a Taiwanese party. Readin (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Again, this is very misleading. Most of the KMT members, their elected officials, and their voters are not mainlanders, who only make up a small proportion of the population of Taiwan. The party itself has undergone many reforms to re-invent itself as a native Taiwanese party. In addition, the presidential election in 2000 is rather late to be labeled a turning point in localization. First of all, the 2000 election was not the first sweeping election that the DPP captured. They did that in the 1990s and early 2000s when they defeated the KMT in legislative, county and many other local elections. The cultural scene has already made huge transformations way before the 2000 election. It was not an important step in localization in the cultural sense. Blueshirts (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
KMT's view of localization
"While both major political parties, the KMT and the DPP, are generally supportive of localisation, the DPP made localisation a key plank in its political platform". How has the the KMT been "generally supportive of localisation"? Readin (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- The main issue here is the time frame. The KMT has been pro-localization since the 1980s, or even earlier when the KMT gave up retaking the mainland and when Chiang Ching-kuo stated that he was also a "Taiwanese" and began promoting native Taiwanese people to high party ranks, including Lee Teng-hui, Lin Yang-kang, and a whole bunch of others. It would be incredibly misleading to simply label the KMT as "pro-China" or anti-localization without giving a time frame, especially when most of the KMT members and their constituents are native Taiwanese and many of whom hold high ranks of the KMT hierarchy. I believe the sentence itself is rather extraneous and it does not clearly state the fact that the issue of localization and which party is "more native" has been used mainly for political opponents to smear each other. Blueshirts (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I inserted the sentence to balance out the previous content which seemed to simplistically label the KMT as pro-China and anti-localisation, and the DPP as the sole and unalloyed champion of localisation. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- The timeline needs to be clarified then. The fact that it was mainly KMT and other pan-blue parties that opposed renaming attempts, putting "Taiwan" on passports, and other localization measures should not be ignored.
- I question Blueshirts's timeline. Chiang Ching-kuo may have stated he was also Taiwanese, but what evidence is there that his sentiments were shared by the rest of the party. Lee Teng-hui is a particularly bad example of KMT embracing localization as he was expelled from the party. If I remember correctly, wasn't Ma's position during the campaign that he didn't really care one way or the other about localization issues like renaming organizations? That hardly sounds like "generally supporting". Readin (talk) 14:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Funny, I finished writing the above and went to read the Taipei Times. Look what I found ‘Taiwan Post’ sent into history
- Asked for comment, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Kuo Su-chun (郭素春) said it was “reasonable” for the company to change its name back now that the KMT was in power.
- She said the legislature never approved the postal service’s proposal to change its name to Taiwan Post, adding that as a result “Taiwan Post never existed.”
- Anyone want to guess which party's representatives prevented the name change from being approved by the legislature? I doubt it was the DPP.
- Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Yeh Yi-ching (葉宜津) told a press conference that “few people outside Taiwan know where letters with the Chunghwa Post postmark are from.”
- Anyone want to guess which party's representatives prevented the name change from being approved by the legislature? I doubt it was the DPP.
- She said the company should at least keep “Taiwan” on the postmark, as it would allow more people abroad to know that Taiwan is a sovereign state.
- DPP caucus whip Chang Hwa-kuan (張花冠) said it was ridiculous for “the post company to spend NT$20 million to diminish ‘Taiwan’ and reinstate ‘Chunghwa.’”
- Readin (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Look, renaming is NOT about localization anymore. It's identity politics and most people in Taiwan are frankly tired of getting played by the DPP with this kind of crap, and that's one chief reason they voted overwhelmingly for the KMT in both the presidential and legislative elections. Chunghwa Post was changed back to its name because that's the name for the past fifty years, and plus many people and most importantly the union were against it, and it was also an "illegal" change by Chen, much like the renaming of the CKS memorial hall. It has nothing to do "localization", because frankly, Taiwan has been "localized" enough. Blueshirts (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Blueshirts. Tearing your national institutions apart with a crowbar is not "localisation". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- Look, renaming is NOT about localization anymore. It's identity politics and most people in Taiwan are frankly tired of getting played by the DPP with this kind of crap, and that's one chief reason they voted overwhelmingly for the KMT in both the presidential and legislative elections. Chunghwa Post was changed back to its name because that's the name for the past fifty years, and plus many people and most importantly the union were against it, and it was also an "illegal" change by Chen, much like the renaming of the CKS memorial hall. It has nothing to do "localization", because frankly, Taiwan has been "localized" enough. Blueshirts (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
School curricula changes
"changing school curricula to focus more on Taiwan's own history to the exclusion of China". So no Chinese history is being taught at all? They aren't even learning about it as a foreign history? They don't learn anything about the Chinese Civil War or how the KMT ended up in Taiwan? China isn't being "excluded", it is simply no longer the focus. Readin (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The statement of Sun Yat Sen is being treated proves that China isn't being "excluded". Readin (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Please read the sentence again. It does not say that the curriculum is to the exclusion of China; it says the curriculum focuses on Taiwan's own history to the exclusion of China, as opposed to treating Taiwan's history as part of Chinese history, as was the norm previously. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Previously the norm was to not pay attention to Taiwanese history at all.
- Perhaps better wording would be "revising textbooks and changing school curricula to focus more on Taiwan's separate history rather than treating Taiwan's history only as it related to China."Readin (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's simplistic and sensationalistic. The curriculum changes were more about excluding China than focussing on Taiwan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Inconguities
"These policies sometimes led to incongruities such as the "Father of the Country" Sun Yat-sen being treated as a "foreign" (Chinese) historical figure." That statement isn't very encyclopedic. Readin (talk) 06:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't add this sentence, but stuff like this happened. I remember when the minister of justice (DPP) was asked by reporters whether he considered Bao Zheng, the Chinese god of justice he was dressing up for an event, a "foreigner". In addition, some textbooks began referring to historical China in history books as "China" rather than "our country" as customary. Blueshirts (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Why isn't it encyclopaedic? It is an example of how the school curriculum changed, and adds content to what is otherwise a generalising statement. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- I reworded it so make it more neutral as to whether Sun was foreign or the father of the country.
on the incongruities theme
How can this be: "Mobile penetration rate stands at just over 100%" ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.246.133 (talk) 02:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Taiwanese Cuisine
The section on Taiwanese cuisine talks almost entirely about the foreign foods from places like China and Japan. Bubble Tea, which originated in Taiwan, gets a mention, but hardly anything else that comes from Taiwan. I don't have sources to use, but it would seem that an article about the cuisine of a nation of 23 million people, 90% of whom come from families that have been there for hundreds of years, and another portion being aboriginies, would have some dishes that were developed in the country. Some should be listed, even if they are simply changes to dishes that originated elsewhere (like the American hot dog started as a German food, but achieved its present form in America and can thus be called an American invention). Readin (talk) 06:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
-_- Oh come on Readin. Are you seriously telling me that Taiwanese cuisine is not a branch of Chinese cuisine? It's comprehensively based on Fujian cuisine and developed with influence from all the other cuisine styles which have become widespread in Taiwan since 1945.
Just because the development of the regional cuisine has been influenced by decidedly foreign cultures does not make it necessarily separate. Shanghainese cuisine is hugely influenced by continental (European) and Russian cuisine. Does that make it non-Chinese? I doubt it. Ditto for Hong Kong cuisine.
Aboriginal cuisine is, of course, different from Chinese cuisine. But widespread is its influence in mainstream Taiwanese cuisine? I would say - very little. It should be mentioned but treated separately from mainstream Taiwanese cuisine.
I keep saying this, but Taiwan is not America. Taiwanese is not to Chinese what American is to German/Anglo Saxons/French. The base assumptions are just too far apart for the analogy to work properly. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually it is exactly that. If you call American cuisine different from European, or deny that it is a mixture of European cuisines, then it is exactly the same with Taiwanese cuisine. Indeed, it has Chinese, Japanese and even Korean influences, but even it's own dishes from the aborigines. Or did you ever eat bat in China? 快樂龍 14:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuaile Long (talk • contribs)
Culture of Taiwan and views
The book: Wachman, Alan. Taiwan: National Identity and Democratization. M.E. Sharpe, 1994. ISBN 1563243989, 9781563243981. Pages 122-123.
- ... talks about how some groups view Taiwanese culture as a part of Chinese culture, and some don't
WhisperToMe (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Culture of Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731072739/http://www.7-eleven.com/AboutUs/InternationalLicensing/tabid/115/Default.aspx to http://www.7-eleven.com/AboutUs/InternationalLicensing/tabid/115/Default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Culture of Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070526015030/http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/brief/info04_19.html to http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/brief/info04_19.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Culture of Taiwan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061128153701/http://ecommerce.taipeitimes.com/yearbook2004/P351.htm to http://ecommerce.taipeitimes.com/yearbook2004/P351.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Taiwan articles
- Top-importance Taiwan articles
- WikiProject Taiwan articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Japan-related articles
- High-importance Japan-related articles
- WikiProject Japan articles
- B-Class China-related articles
- High-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of High-importance
- WikiProject China articles