Talk:Taiwan

History Section Scope

The discussion got sidetracked but that seems to have settled down so this is another attempt. The "Main Article" for the History section is "History of Taiwan". However the history section covers both the history of Taiwan going back to and including pre-history, and the history of the Republic of China incluing 1912 to 1949. I believe both are proper topics for this History section of this article. In most articles about states the article discusses both the entire history of the state and the entire history of the country the state governs. In most articles, the history of the state is a proper subset of the history of the country. For the Republic of China which moved from mainland China to Taiwan there is a part of the state history that did not take place in the current country. Since this article is a logical place to look for both the pre-1945 Taiwan history and the 1912 to 1949 ROC history, it makes sense to cover both in this article. The result then, is that I think we should have 2 main articles for this article's History section. Instead of "Main Article: History of Taiwan" we should have "Main Articles: History of Taiwan, History of Republic of China". Readin (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That works if we're able to make is nice and concise enough to fit into one beautiful section. As it is now, with its jumble of subsections, the History of Republic of China is placed in an appropriate subsection. Another alternative is to condense the text into three subsections: 1) Taiwan pre-1945/9, main History of Taiwan, 2) ROC pre 1949, main History of Republic of China 3) post 1949. CMD (talk) 17:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't think of a clean way of doing this either. At the moment the history section is largely handled chronologically, with the main article 'History of Taiwan' being a summary article that spans the prehistory onwards. Putting a link to the history of the Republic of China at the top of the section there as well seems a bit awkward since it would be out of chronological place. I'd like to see the top level 'main article' link for the history section removed or put somewhere else, honestly, but I can't think of anywhere better to put it. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been meaning to implement my 3-subsection proposal above (which most people seem okay with), but I have been busy. I was thinking that there would be no main article for the larger history section, and History of Taiwan and History of the Republic of China would be main articles for the pre-1949 Taiwan and ROC subsections, respectively (basically what CMD said above). It's not a perfect fit, since both articles cover post-1949 ROC on Taiwan, but I think it works well enough. Could someone start the reorganisation, if there is no significant objection? wctaiwan (talk) 02:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I have now attempted a rough 3-section organization. It's not very fine-grained due to time constraints. (I just added a section lead and moved a couple paragraphs around.) Please revert / make changes / discuss as needed. Thanks. wctaiwan (talk) 05:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Shorten Intro

The intro section is way too long. Shouldn't include paleo-type prehistory. Should summarize key issues/history that led to current status which affects current political life/sovereignty/identity issues. Details about political camps should be left out other than the different stances in unification/independence issue. "Thriving democracy..." should move into govt or a democracy period section within history. Mistakefinder (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The intro is only slightly longer than the intros for France and Germany, and as the merger of two separate topics (the country called "Taiwan" and the government called "Republic of China") whose relationships both to each other and to the outside world are unusual, controversial and filled with misconceptions, I think the intro is only as long as it has to be. Even the sentence about the paleolithic error is useful for dispelling the common notion that Taiwan was an uninhabited island prior to the Chinese arriving in 1949, or the other common notion that the island was uninhabited until the Chinese started arriving at some other point in time. Readin (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Government on Taiwan

This whole part here:

"Little or no distinction was made between the government and the Kuomintang, with public property, government property, and party property being largely interchangeable. Government workers and party members were mostly indistinguishable, with many government workers required to become KMT members, and party workers paid salaries and promised retirement benefits along the lines of government employees."

The above has no citation. It should actually be removed as per WP:Citing_Sources because it has no citation. Also, the article makes it sound like the central government imposed martial law when it was actually the Governor of Taiwan that imposed martial law in 1948 prior to the central government's retreat (the central government having officially retreated to Taiwan in 1949). The 2 paragraphs are inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I will fix the last part. Mixed up the declaration of martial law with the Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of Communist Rebellion; my bad. I'd prefer that the part you quoted be sourced and tweaked accordingly, since the conflating of the state and the party did happen (classic example: One would say that they were "忠黨愛國" (loyal to the party and patriotic)), and it is a notable phenomenon in the modern history of the ROC. wctaiwan (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Revert of economy-related paragraphs

I have reverted this edit because it is not neutral, as it frames the issue negatively and seems to criticise current policies, choosing indicators that support the particular view. Even if it were sourced, we need broad consensus among sources (or a reputable source stating that the view is the consensus) to say what the edit said in Wikipedia's voice. wctaiwan (talk) 03:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The topic of the Taiwan article should be Taiwan

I suspect that most readers coming to an article with the title Taiwan expect to be reading about, you know, Taiwan. We should follow the lead of the published secondary sources on this topic, for example Taiwan: A New History. (No, this book does not even mention Yuan Shikai.) The vast majority of English-speakers will assume a Republic of China to be located somewhere in the area that is commonly referred to as "China". Using this phrase to refer the government of Taiwan was never mainstream usage. The chapter heading in Cambridge History of China is "Taiwan under Nationalist rule". Newspaper usage was Taiwan or "Nationalist China" until 1971,[1] and has been almost exclusively "Taiwan" since that time. The "Republic of China" lemma is available to tell an ROC-focused story. Kauffner (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As the country's name is "Republic of China", pointing that redirect anywhere but here would also be quite confusing. Similarly, Federal Republic of Germany redirects to Germany, not to West Germany. —Kusma (t·c) 08:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The majority of readers assume the "Republic of China" means the Chinese government, either because they are confused with "People's Republic China," or because they assume China must have a long form name in the form "Republic of Foo." According Insights, there are looking mainly for the Chinese embassy or the government Web portal. Why do so many readers who type in "Republic of China" also type in "Republic of Taiwan"? They obviously have no idea which one is correct, so they try both. Kauffner (talk) 08:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So they will learn that their assumption was incorrect. The correct presentation of facts (like the name of the country) is more important than catering to people's wrong assumptions, at least in an encyclopedia. —Kusma (t·c) 12:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There was an opinon poll that showed close to 80 percent support for "name rectification". It is not as if "Republic of China" is something that Taiwanese want to be called. Kauffner (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Opinion polls are not representative of the total population, per volunteer bias, and do not statistically represent, confirm or justify anything on a qualitative basis. People only participate in polls if they have an opinion and really are vocal in getting it across. If what you say is correct, then why is it that on Chinese Wikipedia, users from Taiwan with an userbox template reading "I come from the ROC" outnumber those that say "I come from Taiwan"? If your answer is "these users display volunteer bias", then you are correct. Furthermore, how do you explain the large crowds on the day of the 100th Anniversary of the Republic of China, if the majority do not recognise ROC legitimacy as you claim? Again, the proper answer is "these people display volunteer bias". Neither you nor I can prove anything with these things. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 14:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion poll is just that, an opinion. Until the Republic of China passes a constitutional amendment or the government on Taiwan declares independence from itself, it is still the Republic of China. It is not the "Republic of Taiwan," that's an indisputable fact and encyclopedias are supposed to present facts. In fact, the vast majority of the people in the ROC support the status quo, which means that the ROC remains the ROC. Only a small minority want to change the name to "Republic of Taiwan". Here's the article about the government survey supporting the status quo: http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20120518000028&cid=1101. Stop propagandizing here at Wikipedia, it's against policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.140 (talk) 21:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

You know, keeping such a belligerent tone isn't really helping. Just write the main points, and try not to say anything else. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

What change in the article is this suggesting? Sorry, but couldn't find one above. CMD (talk) 22:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The topic of this article is Taiwan. Taiwan is governed by the Republic of China. -- Peter ^{Talk · Contribs} 22:57, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

• wctaiwan is the midst reorganizing the article to put primary emphasis on the ROC. This is apparently based on the theory that "Taiwan" is simply the common name for ROC, which is ridiculous. Does any history book claim that Sun Yat-sen was president of Taiwan? If you think Taiwan is the common name, that should be the name used in the text. But it's "ROC" all over the place. Soon only the title will be "Taiwan". A section like "The Republic of China in mainland China" isn't related to Taiwan, and isn't needed at all. For the modern state, we can use Republic of China (Taiwan). It's on the president's Website. Kauffner (talk) 01:19, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm unlikely to make further major changes. And I have no particular preference for the current organisation--I actually support leaving the coverage of ROC-on-mainland to another article, but judging from this discussion, there doesn't seem to be consensus to do that. The reorganisation was done to solve the issue of the article jumping from Japanese rule of Taiwan to the establishment of the ROC with no transition / distinction, not to change the scope of coverage. wctaiwan (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This was one of the dilemmas that were mentioned during the requested move that was ignored and brushed aside by many of the people involved. No use complaining about it now, because mainland ROC history is integrally a part of the ROC topic, and we've decided to put the whole thing under an article titled Taiwan. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wctaiwan's edits were formatting, not adding or abolishing content. If there's a disagreement with the actual content inclusion, that is not the fault of wctaiwan's edits. And it's good to have a country article under its normal name. I only wish the world was so simple we never had to explain anything. CMD (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

• I think this quote sums it up nicely and should go in the "names" section: "When we say 'Taiwan' everybody abroad understands what we mean. When we call ourselves something else, it often sounds quite awkward, but we have to do it for political reasons," said a MOFA spokeswoman.[2] Kauffner (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the Republic of China, common name Taiwan; concensus was reached on this and 3 Admins approved it. Stop politicizing this article by trying to make it an article about the "Republic of Taiwan". Propagandizing is against policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.46.140 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Only in your imagination is anyone doing that IP. @Kauffner I wouldn't be against that addition. It's also a nice source for showing that even in Taiwan the island and the state are looked at as one thing and used interchangeably. CMD (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all that re what people are not doing and the use of that quote. I would though hold out against any use of "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in unattributed WP prose, if that's what's being suggested further above. It's an odd and confusing formulation - is there another ROC, or another version of it, say, in Hong Kong? - rarely seen in most sources. In fact, we need more use of straight "Taiwan" in the narrative text - that's what we've decided on for the name. Also, on the broader point, there's a balance to be struck, but I don't see how we can exclude at least some discussion of the ROC history and its relationship to the modern entity known as Taiwan, with links to more appropriate, detailed sub-articles as appropriate (I've lost track of where we are with the ROC history, government articles etc). N-HH talk/edits 18:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not Taiwan is interchangeable with ROC (within the country itself) depends on your political point of view. The use of it interchangeably is a moderate Pan-Green POV and Taiwan Independence ("Republic of Taiwan") being the extreme POV of that group. The Pan-Blue views Taiwan as being governed by the ROC (the ROC on Taiwan) with the extreme of that party viewing Taiwan as a part of China with some wanting immediate reunification and others thinking Taiwan should become a SAR like Hong Kong or Macau. You guys have your pick of POV's. Or we could stick to the current concensus as approved by 3 Admins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.174.144 (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we should think about what English language speakers are likely to think about the term. Only 0.01% of the English speaking world is going to understand what "pan-blue" and "pan-green" even mean. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Politics should be left at the "door" when it comes to Wikipedia. The article was renamed because of how English language users refer to the country of Taiwan. The content should follow suit. The history of the ROC prior to the nationalists seizing control of Taiwan is not relevant enough (except possibly the briefest of summaries). John Smith's (talk) 22:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There's a "Liberal Democratic" party in Canada. There's a "Liberal Democrats" party in the UK. When we talk about the "Democrats" in Canada, do we use the UK's definition or the Canadian definition? If we talk about Taiwan, do we use Taiwan's definition of itself or English definitions of it? If we use the English definitions about Taiwan, we are in essence redefining it for our own purposes and not stating the facts that exist in Taiwan which is what an Encyclopedia is supposed to do. You're using Original Research. Which is against policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.134.13 (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I've made some BOLD edits that I think addresses Kauffner's concerns. First, I removed the "pre-1949 history" heading. It smacks of "date resetting" as practised by dictatorial states. It also helps reduce sub-sub-headings (which look horrible). Second, I reduced the history relating to the ROC/KMT prior to the nationalists' defeat. There's an article on the history of the ROC up until 1949. Users should read that if they want to know what the KMT were up to before they came to Taiwan. I wouldn't object to a little more background info on why the KMT fled to Taiwan, but it should be kept simple. They were at war with the Communists, they lost, they fled to Taiwan. Simple. Anything else is undue weight.

Your setting forth a POV as stated by the former DPP Vice-President Annette Lu here: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2012/06/03/2003534405. The ROC recently celebrated its centennial: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/national/national-news/2011/01/01/285931/Record-crowds.htm. That's 100+ years of history. Since this article is about the ROC, common name Taiwan, all 100 years of history needs to be represented here. Because your edits are certifiably a Pan-Green POV that the Pan-Blues would disagree with, I'm going to undo it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.134.13 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid that you're mistaken. It is not the case that the Republic of China, i.e. the historical entity formed in 1912, is now referred to as "Taiwan". Most English-speaking people that talk about "Taiwan" don't even know that it's officially called the RoC. They're talking about the state centred around Taiwan. It is true that Taiwan is officially called the RoC, but that's a throw-back to KMT martial rule when they imposed a political system on the island without reference to the people.

Imagine the following scenario. There was a civil war in America, and the rebels won, declaring the new country name to be "the People's Republic of America". Loyalist forces sailed to Cuba, took control of the island and referred to themselves as the government of "The United States of America". Would we suddenly have to rewrite the Cuba article to take account of US history? No. The same applies to this article. This article is about the country of Taiwan, even if that is not its official title. John Smith's (talk) 19:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

DON'T UNDO ANYTHING, until there has been some genuine conversation on this. And please learn to sign your posts so that the conversation can be understood! HiLo48 (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It should never have been done in the 1st place. There was no concensus on the change John Smith made. It should be undone and it could be done again if there is concensus.

Republic of China history is taught in Taiwan. Why would we not "teach" ROC history here? Encyclopedias, INCLUDING Wikipedia represents FACTS. ROC history is a FACT of Taiwan. Please stop trying to make Wikipedia something it's not. It's against policy. Let's take this up to the Admins. Let's see if they think something that is taught in the school system in a given country should be excluded from being taught here on Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.134.13 (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

French history is taught in British schools, but I don't see anything in the UK article about the French Revolution.

The project provides information to people in a way they find logical. They don't go to an article on Taiwan expecting to find out about Chinese history. John Smith's (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This project is an Encyclopedia. It's not supposed to cater to people's preconceived expectations, it's supposed to represent the facts as they are known and documented. Some people find that the fact that the Holocaust existed to be false and others deny the Rape of Nanking, however, as an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia needs to represent the facts. That's what an Encyclopedia does. It is well documented that that the ROC entity on Taiwan is the same entity as on the Mainland. Everything else is politics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.134.13 (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

As I said, if people want to know about Chinese history, they go to the China article or the Chinese history article. They don't go to an article called "Taiwan". John Smith's (talk) 19:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm talking about ROC history. I'm not talking about the Han, Tang, Song, Ming etc, Dynasties and all that history. The consensus that the 3 Admins approved was to use "Taiwan" as the common name of the Republic of China. How can we not have ROC history in an article about the ROC?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.134.13 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

RoC history is Chinese history (at least up until the time the RoC became little more than Taiwan). And the closing admins merely said that the weight of policy-based argument comes down squarely on the side of renaming the article currently at Republic of China to Taiwan. They made no decision on the content of the article - it was a move request, nothing more. John Smith's (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If the ROC is the official name of Taiwan (that's not disputed, that's at the top of the page), shouldn't ROC history be represented in this article? What does ROC history being "Chinese" history have to do with presenting the historical facts of the ROC, common name Taiwan, in this article? What am I missing? Why does ROC history being Chinese history exclude it from and article about the Republic of China? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.40.134.13 (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If the ROC is the official name of Taiwan ... shouldn't ROC history be represented in this article? No, because the article's focus is on Taiwan. A brief explanation of the Chinese civil war and the KMT's occupation of Taiwan is relevant because it indicates why Taiwan is called the RoC, as well as why it was under a dictatorship for decades. But, as an example, the founding of the Chinese state in 1912 and what happened to it subsequently has no significant relevance to Taiwan, so should not be included. John Smith's (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying the American Revolution has no relevance to the USA. This article isn't only about Taiwan, it's about the Republic of China, common name Taiwan. The closing statement here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Taiwan/Archive_20#Final_closing_statement specifically states that that is the final decision. It was a merger of the Taiwan (Island) article with the Republic of China article, it was not to change this article's focus to be only Taiwan. It is to include both the island topics and the Republic of China topics. This article is supposed to be about the ROC and the island and your edits have cut out the ROC. And you've given no good reason why the ROC CAN'T be included in this article, except that it's Chinese which makes no sense. Whether or not the ROC is Chinese or something else, all of its history should be included. No part of a country's history should ever be covered up. Good or bad. Or whether or not you agree with it. The facts are the facts. And you've removed the facts. If you want to make this into a Taiwan-centric article, that should require a new consensus; the current consensus is that this article is about the Republic of China.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Midcent (talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That's like saying the American Revolution has no relevance to the USA Wrong, because the American Revolution was a defining event that led to the birth of the USA. What you want would be like giving the background of English history in the USA article because that's where the founding fathers came from. John Smith's (talk) 22:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The ROC coming to Taiwan IS a defining moment. Had the ROC not established itself on Taiwan, Taiwan would be a part of Japan and would be a province of Japan just like Okinawa/Ryukyu. Taiwan as a independent (albeit de facto) country would not exist. Treaty of Taipei

Please sign your posts. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The KMT coming to Taiwan is referred to in the article. Have you even bothered to read it thoroughly? John Smith's (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I note that you asked for confirmed status so you could roll back my changes. If you don't care what I think and just want to revert, why are you even bothering to discuss this? Is this a case of soapboxing? John Smith's (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I want to return this article to the consensus that was reached and approved by 3 Admins and then we can discuss and reach a new consensus on whether or not the editors here want to make this a more Taiwan-centric article. My understanding is that that is how it's done here.

My understanding is that we sign our posts here. Want even more respect? Register. HiLo48 (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Also I note there's nothing about Taiwan's history 2008-2012. That needs to be filled pronto. John Smith's (talk) 22:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

By the way, sorry if my attempts at copyediting are somewhat limited, but I think it's important to get the structure right first. After that the text should fall into place quite easily. John Smith's (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, can we please remove and replace citations from old publications/articles that appear to assert what current views/political positions are. This isn't 2001 or 2005! John Smith's (talk) 23:08, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

John Smith, you're completely on the right track here. Keep up the good work! HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Admins' closing comments

In order to put the above conversation to bed, please note the following comment that was made by the three closing admins.

An article narrowly formulated about the government of Taiwan and its history can be created at Republic of China.

If the admins had intended for this article (Taiwan) to include a history of the Republic of China, they would not have made the comment highlighted above. John Smith's (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The official name of Taiwan is the Republic of China. The Republic of China isn't the past, it is the present. Please present your facts that Taiwan is not the Republic of China and should not be presented here.

Please learn to sign your posts. HiLo48 (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me.

Since when is politely asking someone to sign their posts harassment? Fucking ridiculous! HiLo48 (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. The article is about what is currently known as "Taiwan". Both the country and the state currently go by that name. Taiwan was not known as "Taiwan" 150 years ago, but we still include the history of Taiwan that happened 150 years ago. The Republic of China was not known as "Taiwan" 90 years ago, but we should still include that history. Someone looking for the history of the state that they know of as "Taiwan" is just as likely to look as this article as someone looking for the history of the country they know as "Taiwan". We need to include both.

It looks like someone has been deleting the pre-1949 history of the ROC overview despite there clearly being no consensus for doing so.

The presence of narrowly focused more detailed article as the "Republic of China" page does not remove the responsibility to provide overview information on this page. Readin (talk) 01:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Readin, I have to disagree with you. The island/nation now known as Taiwan has a history, which is why the article refers to it. That does not necessarily involve Chinese history. More significantly, it makes no sense to have an article that is both about the island of Taiwan and the historical state of the Republic of China. I think it has to be one or the other. Both is a messy attempt at a compromise. John Smith's (talk) 09:00, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The article can be about just the country, it can be about just the state, or like most other similar articles it can be about both. The article's pre-1949 section of ROC history was too long before, and there was consensus for shortening it, but I haven't seen a consensus for removing the whole thing. The history of the country we now call "Taiwan" and the history of the state we now call "Taiwan" are both part of the history of what we now know as "Taiwan". Readin (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What is the official name of Taiwan? What languages do they speak on Taiwan? What is taught in the history books on Taiwan? Why should Chinese history not be taught in an article about a country called The Republic of China? Here's the most important question that should be considered: Why is Wikipedia teaching something different than what is taught in the history books in the school system on Taiwan?

Please sign your posts by placing 4 tildas after your comment.

Please stop harassing me. This is my second request.

If you're worried about publicly displaying your IP address and don't want to register for an account, can you at least put some unique set of letters and numbers that will distinguish your comments? something like: "--Bob". This helps two ways. It helps connect your posts so we can better understand what you want to communicate. Just as importantly it provides a punctuation to your post letting us know when it is completed and keeping it separate from other people's posts.Readin (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

He has registered an account, he just can't be bothered to sign his comments. John Smith's (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The reason Wikipedia may decide to teach something different than what is taught in the history books in Taiwan is that Wikipedia tries to by unbiased while the history books in Taiwan are the result of a very political process that has usually been pretty biased. It is unclear to what extent those biases have been removed. Readin (talk) 14:10, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

How could it be biased to teach the history of the Republic of China in a country called The Republic of China? It's like saying Scottish history shouldn't be taught in Great Britain because the Queen is English (well, really, she's of German stock). Quite the contrary, I think it's biased to not teach Republic of China history in a country called the Republic of China. If this article was about the Republic of Taiwan, then yes, Chinese history probably wouldn't belong here; however, even though we call this article "Taiwan", this article is still about the Republic of China.

The government, imported from China, is called "Republic of China". That government is trying to push its POV that Taiwan is part of China, so the government teaches the children a history of China that has nothing to do with those children. At least that is how I see it. I realize others see it differently. Our job at Wikipedia is not to promote anyone's particular view, whether that view belongs to some random guy behind a computer or whether that view belongs to a dictator who suppressed dissent until he and his ideological descendants were firmly in control of a country. Simply ruling a country does not make you unbiased and a government can be as biased as anyone else.

The Treaty of Taipei gave the ROC (right or wrong) the license to enforce their POV that exists to today. Just as surely the Louisiana Purchase gave the USA the right to enforce their POV onto the land that that treaty covered. It's POV yes, but it's also historical fact and a political reality.

The ROC has no right to impose any POV on Wikipedia articles. I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. This is exemplified by the fact that we have yet another unsigned post. Very unhelpful. (And not helping your case in the slightest.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You're right that the article, as decided by the admins, is supposed to include the Republic of China. And I agree with you that we should be including pre-1949 ROC history. But we should be clear that the reason for doing so is to serve people coming to the page looking for information about the ROC (by redirect or by common name), not because we think the ROC is an unbiased source of information about the ROC or about Taiwan. Readin (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we make Republic of China a disambiguation page between this page, Republic of China (1912-1949) and China (disambiguation)? Surely that satisfies everyone? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:45, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

That would make sense. Or redirect Republic of China to the 1912 to 1949 page and then have the usual bit at the top to say "if you're looking for the modern state called ROC, please see Taiwan" or something like that. John Smith's (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The ROC is still the ROC. We don't divide the USA before the American Civil War (34 States) and modern America (50 States). We include all of American history in the United States article, albeit in summary. ROC on the Mainland should also be included here; why are we trying to hide that history? It's relevant. It's what has made the ROC what it is today: Chinese speaking, de facto independent vs. a prefecture of Japan, etc.

All I get from that post is another irresistible urge to say - please sign your posts. HiLo48 (talk) 02:48, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop harassing me. This is my third and final request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midcent (talk • contribs) 03:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows for anonymous posts. And you are being overly repetitive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midcent (talk • contribs) 04:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want the highest level of respect from other editors, and want to contribute effectively to the most coherent conversations, you will register, log on and sign. Anything less, and your posts will have considerably less impact. HiLo48 (talk) 04:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not looking for respect. Respect for myself is inconsequential. The truth is what matters and what Wikipedia, as an Encyclopedia, should strive for. The truth comes from facts. This article should present the facts and let the readers decide for themselves what is or what is not important.

Please at least sign your posts. Without that you make it so much harder for others. You should care about that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)