User talk:Jiang

Note: Unless you specify that you will be monitoring this page, I will respond to you on your talk page instead of mine. But if you want a speedier response or any response at all, answer on this page since I will probably forget to check yours.

POST A COMMENT

Happy, Happy, Happy!!!! Everybody's Happy!

Archived versions: 18VIII03 | 21X03 | 30XII03 | 21II04 | 17IV04 | 07VI04 | 28VII04 | 2X04 | 5XII04 | 18II05 | 14IV05

Taipei American School

The unknown user has been persistenly trying to get his views back on the Taipei American School article. Every time we edit his stuff out he edits back in. And now he writes that the track and field facilities were built on a former trash dump! Whether or not the track and field facilities were built on a former trash dump sounds irrelevant. What should we do about this? Allentchang 19:06, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think there is a tag team of vandals. At least one of them is at UC Berkeley. Jiang, go kick them in the nutsack or something. Anyways, I put the page itself on the administrators vandalism notice board since the IP being used to vandalize is changing frequently. SchmuckyTheCat 20:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei NOC Flag

Hello. The reason why I replaced the flag image is that I found a cleaner version of the NOC logo and use that instead. I put to the left that the NOC flag consists of the NOC logo centered on a white background. I do apologize for not giving you a head's up on it, but I personally think the small logo looks better than what we have right now. If you still want to use a flag image, I will create a png file for yall to use in the next few days. Zscout370 10:17, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did what you asked and now the old image has been replaced by the new image. Zscout370 17:02, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Urbi et Orbi

Just wanted to remind you that the next time you move an article under a new headline, please also correct links to it in other articles. You can access them via "what links here" in the "toolbox" at the left side of the screen. Thanks for all your efforts. --Eleassar777 10:54, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop Pushing POV

I'm checking your page so you can repsond here. Why do you insist on pushing clear BIASED POV? You can't say it's POV to say that Taiwan is not a part of China. You can only say it's POV if you don't recognize that there are some people that think it is illegitimate that Taiwan is not a part of China. Please spend more time thinking.

By the way, your photo is hilarious. It's hilarious that you would think that someone would purposely try to get shot in order to be elected president. Do you know what sensationalist news means? You have got to be kidding me. I thought Berkeley was a good school, but I guess they do take a lot of people.--160.39.195.88 03:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please post new comments to the bottom.

I am not the Happy, Happy, Happy man. This Mr. Happy, Happy, Happy has been hacking at it for 30 years and I have no idea how he makes a living or who is paying him. His usual hangout is SF Chinatown, but he shows up at other places, like Telegraph Avenue occasionally. No, I don't agree with everything Mr. Happy, Happy, Happy says. In fact, I probably disagree with him most of the time. For example, I don't think Bush is 666 or that A-bian shot himself. I'm glad you agree with me. His picture is here for decorative purposes only.

I don't see how it is not POV to say "Taiwan is not part of China". The statements "Taiwan is not part of China" and ""Taiwan is part of China" are both conflicting POV. If we want to be NPOV, we must write in a way that will satisfy both sides. --Ji ang 03:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You just self-incriminated yourself. Thanks for making the argument for me. Also thanks for having no appreciation of complexity. Taiwan is not a part of China with the context that you're talking about 1) reality and 2) the de facto situation is not POV. If you are talking about de jure should it be, shouldn't it be, then yes, I acknowledge some people because of nationalistic fervor (forgetting that they hate the Jiang Jieshi/KMT and not Taiwan), feel that Taiwan should belong to China.--160.39.195.88 04:56, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The de facto situation can be interpreted either way to mean that Taiwan is or is not part of China. The way you do this is to follow the naming conventions and say that China is not synonymous with the PRC. It is a cultural/geographic entity divided by an unresolved civil war between the PRC and ROC. Under this argument, Taiwan is part of China. A more outdated argument is that the Republic of China is the legitimate China. Under the argument, Taiwan is also part of China. Here are your counterarguments and I can find plenty of people believing the former. The naming conventions explicitly said not to equate China with the PRC. Refer to the China details for the definition used here. --Ji ang 05:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Stop Reverting without providing any Evidence

I have provided plenty of evidence and citations and argumentation for my changes. Your strategy has been a ridiculous avoidance of many points, responding to one which basically just states that you disagree or you pull some POV card, citing no evidence and reverting. You need to think harder instead of clicking revert harder.--160.39.195.88 05:19, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

see no. 2 at Wikipedia:What_wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox. I told you that I'm not interested in participating in a political debate with you. As long as some people will disagree with the text, then it is not acceptable. It doesn't matter if we both agree with the text as long as some people disagree. I fail to see that Taiwan's status as a nation is not disputed at all, so showing me "evidence and citations" on how Taiwan is a nation, as long as some people claim otherwise, does little good. --Ji ang 06:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're the one pushing POV and if anything, you're pushing a minority POV. You still won't read the argument and you still won't respond to any of the facts about Taiwanese culture and traditions. And really dumb is you STILL think nation=ethnic group. Why the hell do you sitll think that? Please read nation because you sound like you have no clue.--160.39.195.88 13:03, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jiang, I feel so sad for you. I know you have the appartus of intelligence, yet I see that your opinions are still merely a product of your historical and cultural trace. Do you honestly think if you were Anglo-American you would feel the same way? It makes me so sad that no matter how smart people are, they are still subject to propaganda, to biases--slaves to their own backgrounds. You willingly give up your own rationality for the cause of your ideology. Really remarkable, yet so sad. I don't know what to say. I wish you could be saved, but I know that you'll read this and go on being the way you are.--160.39.195.88 06:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nanjing Massacre

Hi Jiang, due to an ongoing dispute in this article, I've attempted a rewrite of the intro, which you can find in Talk:Nanjing Massacre#Rewrite. Could you come over and take a look? I have nagging fears that by trying to ensure NPOV I'm appeasing the massacre deniers a bit too much. -- ran (talk) 00:47, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Um... what about the bot???

Er... I haven't really heard anything about the bot for awhile... -- AllyUnion (talk) 06:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My adminship: thanks!

Hi Jiang. Thanks very much for your vote for my RfA. I promise to be prudent, wise, sagacious and totally unilateral in all my admin affairs. I should say that I am very pleased at the number of people who supported me – it's very nice to know I'm making a positive impact. Cheers again, Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moving page

If you would like the page moved, please gain consenus first. That's what we have to say to you. I worked on restoring the original condition. Feigenbaum 04:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Of course, [Liancourt Rocks/temp] is a temp. page. And "I am not trying to get the page move." Nice. Then let put things back to the origianl situation by moving back the article to Liancourt Rocks and start discussion. Feigenbaum 04:16, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"There is no consensus either way." So let put things back to the origianl situation by moving back the article to Liancourt Rocks (after the page is unprotected)　and start discussion. Feigenbaum 04:20, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Republic of China

Hi, please don't edit protected pages in which you're involved as an editor.

The reason I favored one version was that it appeared that one person was repeatedly reverting to his own version against two or more others. An administrator is permitted to use his discretion in choosing which version to keep in such circumstances:

Additionally, when protection is due to a revert war, the protecting sysop may choose to protect the version preferred by those more closely complying with the guideline on repeated reverts. See wikipedia talk:revert#The protection option for the discussion on this.

In the event I compromised by using the "twoversions" template. I prefer this approach to waiting around until an editor reverts four times. Blocking doesn't really solve an edit dispute. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As well as 203.218.222.112 and 222.145.8.12., I also took into account User:Winhunter's edit: 15:37, 24 Apr 2005. So it appears to me to be one chap repeatedly reverting against two. Of course I'm only human and working with limited information, so if it should turn out that Winhunter is the same as 203.218.222.112, I've made a bad call. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anyhow I cheerfully agree that I may have made errors of judgement on who said what--if I knew exactly what was going on I'd be too involved. I thought, and still think, that a period of protection would be better than letting the slug it out forever. I'm trying to nudge things along because I think the problem was mainly on the use of a scary warning rather than real differences of opinion over fact or emphasis. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:24, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you interested in being a Bureaucrat?

Hi, I am considering nominating you to become a Bureaucrat. The role would involve giving administrator or bureaucrat access to other users following consensus on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Although there are currently 18 bureaucrats, it may be helpful to have a few more. If you would accept a nomination, please let me know. Kingturtle 04:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Liancourt Rocks vote

Hey, there's a vote going on at Talk:Liancourt Rocks. I thought you might wish to participate. --Xiaopo ℑ 08:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

bureaucratship

please accept my nomination for you at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Jiang. Kingturtle 06:14, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am horrified at how people have responded. Please accept my apologies for putting you through this process. I had no idea people were like that. Kingturtle 03:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Imposter

User:Adam Bishop has just informed me that someone is impersonating you on Wikipedia. The vandals name was Jianq. He had reverted a few flag pages you and I watch, but all should have been reverted back. Zscout370 (talk) 00:39, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On a related topic, you may want to have a look at WP:ANI#User:Amerinese, User:DINGBAT et al.. --MarkSweep 22:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

category move... Category:Asian-American-related topics --> Category:Asian American-related topics

I proposed this category move on cfd. I feel that it is improper to use "Asian-American" instead of "Asian American" when describing people. However, there are some people opposing this move, saying that my claim is improper grammar. I would like your support; please post a comment here. — J3ff 02:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nanyang

Hello Jiang. Would you be interested to join the discussions at talk:Nanyang (geographical region)#Common usage and user talk:Huaiwei#Nanyang, and perhaps to mediate? Thanks in advance. :-D — Insta ntnood 16:21, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Cut and paste move

Hello again. Would you mind help telling Huaiwei why cut and paste move should not be done? (at User talk:Huaiwei#Nanyang (disambiguation)) Thanks. — Insta ntnood 21:55, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attack

Look at User:160.39.195.88's user page. There was an edit by 50Stars, claiming that you were hired by the PRC Government, effectively calling you a Communist. To me, saying that an Eagle Scout Brother of mine is a Communist while enforcing Wikipolicy is a personal attack. I hope you look into this more and see if any action can be done. Zscout370 (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost vandalism on Jawaharlal Nehru

On April 21, the article Nehruvian-Stalinism was deleted due to its being a nearly unused neologism, used only by a certain commentator on http://www.rediff.com. Here's the delete log: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/2005 April 21#Nehruvian-Stalinism. Notice the suspiciously large number of new users.

Since then, 66.127.58.169 has been adding the article back as a section in Jawaharlal Nehru. Their edit descriptions have included calling everybody who opposes them "White Supremacists" or "Communists", and attributing them to "Typical American Stupidity". It would be great if you could look into this. Thanks! --Xiaopo ℑ 01:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chinese_Taipei_Sports_Disabled.JPG

Hey, it is me again. I redrew this flag, and the image is now located at Image:Chinese_Taipei_Paralympic_Flag.png. I replaced the image you made with the one that I have made, making your image an orphan. If you have no problems with this, I wish for you to put the speedy delete tag, {{delete}}, on the image page so we do not have to go through the IFD process. Zscout370 (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:FreedomFighter228

I didn't realize that (s)he was a vandal; maybe just a different point of view on China and Taiwan. But vandalizing your user page was bad. utcursch | talk 05:31, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Image:CTflag.jpg

I replaced this image with Image:Chinese_Taipei_Olympic_Flag.png, and replaced the links accordingly. If you want to go ahead and delete that image, or talk about it, just let me know. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jack straw.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jack straw.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the [[Wikipedia:Files for discussion/{{subst:#time:Y F j|-0 days}}#File:Jack straw.jpg|discussion]] to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Thuresson 08:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Mainland China"

There are two Chinese states, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China, usually called Taiwan. Those are the only names that can be legitimately used in an article of this kind. Adam 09:55, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jguk's container pages

Hey Jiang - Jguk is using a bizarre scheme whereby 'articles' (template container pages, really) are built using transclusion (not unlike the FAC page). What's worse is he is using the wikipedia:namespace from WikiProject subpages to hold article prose and then linking directly to that from the headings on the container page. For an example see: 2005 English cricket season (8-30 April) (a page he is putting through peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/2005 English cricket season (8-30 April) with the intent of finishing it up before FAC). Please add your input on this practice at Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#transcluding prose. --mav 21:43, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for re-adding Vietnam (Yuenan)!

Thanks, Jiang: for intelligently re-adding Vietnam back to the East Asia section, as the Vietnamese people are definitely NOT part of "Southeast Asia", and regard such a label as an insult!

 Sincerely, fellow East Asian:

 Le Anh-Huy (Vietnamese)
 Li Yinghui (Northern Mandarin)
 Lai Ingfai (Cantonese)

Transliteration

Are you able to transliterate the Chinese names of the Hong Kong political parties. Electionworld 09:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the Deep Throat talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt. PedanticallySpeaking 15:45, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Macedonians vs. Macedonian Slavs

Dear Jiang, at the moment there is a poll taking place on the Macedonian Slavs talk page to which you could make a significant contribution. Thank you in advance for your participation. Ivica83 13:18, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "East Sea" issue, again

Dear Jiang,

Since you've been involved in past discussions of this issue, I wanted to let you know that another push for a Sea of Japan naming convention (in Korea-related articles) has begun. Please drop by Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Korean)#Disputed names, unless you are as sick of the whole issue as I am.

Haven't seen you in the Korea-related articles for a while... feel free to visit the new message board. Pretty quiet over there right now, but maybe it will get livelier. -- Visviva 14:03, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Royal Consorts

Just a heads up as you made a comment about Royal Consorts on the talk page of Wikipedia:Naming_conventions (names and titles). The title Royal Consort is under discussion on Talk:Marie_Antoinette#Requested move as well as the "Naming conventions (names and titles)". Philip Baird Shearer 20:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Taiwan Affairs Office and an ArbCom case

User:SchmuckyTheCat listed my edit to the article on Taiwan Affairs Office as an evidence to the ArbCom case that I'm involved, citing it as an example of my POV edit, and marking edit as minor without edit summary. In fact I did not change the meaning of the content of the article. I noticed that after User:Alassius reverted my edit, User:Yuje and you restored my edit ([1] [2]), similarly without edit summary and marked as minor. What would you suggest, in your opinion, we should do about what Schmucky has done? Thanks in advance. — Insta ntnood July 3, 2005 16:06 (UTC)

The case has been opened. :-) [3] — Insta ntnood July 8, 2005 16:14 (UTC)

Sun Yat-sen FAC

As one of the main contribtors of this article, can I ask where you obtained your sources? I'm planning to push this through FAC. Borisblue 4 July 2005 06:12 (UTC)

Chinese language

Did you delete my contribution? If not, do you know who did Kevin McCready

Where's Xiong?

Dear Jiang, I had an earlier correspondence with Xiong, just as he was exiting. It has led me to do a lot of thinking and I would like him to see this. Please, if you are able, send it to him.

A letter

Dear Xiong, I miss you! I have written this letter to you but will post it more widely:

As you know, I have recently been following your work. I am new to Wikipedia, enormously impressed and at the same time disturbed. I don’t suppose I am raising anything new for you but would appreciate your comments.

After reading around and noticing the way that Wikipedia is structured and what is happening in the hierarchy and all the changes since May 04, [when a major new software infrastructure was introduced] it seems to me likely that Wikipedia is being used by western ‘intelligence’ not only to provide a way of keeping under surveillance those who might be troublesome but also of ensuring that in the most important fields of human knowledge and endeavour not only does Wikipedia provide a simple way of staying in touch with developments but, even more insidiously, a way of ensuring that these developments may even, to an extent, be ‘managed’ in a way that is as compatible as possible with western values and interests. NPOV seems as close to a definition of this as anyone is likely to be able to imagine.

I accept that I have no evidence whatsoever for this surmise. At the very least, however, it would be a dereliction of duty were CIA, Homeland Security, MI6 and whoever else, not to infiltrate as far as possible and set up whatever mechanisms were possible to be able to track people, groups and movements over 200 languages and involved in discussions on every possible topic of human interest.

But I suggest that it is very unlikely that their involvement is limited in that way. It is more likely that they are supporting the development of Wikipedia and its community in order to be able to keep track of people and developments and foster what they consider to be positive change.

I would be very interested in your comments. I am sending this also to a few others (essjay, Angela, Antheme, Ed Poor, Jimbo, etc. whom I think would have something to add.

Jeffrey Newman 8 July 2005 11:51 (UTC)

Template:Expansion

Could you please take a look at the above template, it is currently the subject of a revert war where both sides are at the 3RR limit. ~~~~ 13:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Qing Nobility

I welcome your opinions on the naming convention of Qing Dynasty nobility atWikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Qing_Nobility. Colipon+(T) 06:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WTF PINKO

WTF TEH PINKO?

Cinemas of Hong Kong, Taiwan, (mainland) China

I noticed you were involved in the discussion for splitting the cinema of China article into they are now like. I'd like to draw your attention to recent attempts by User:Huaiwei to categorised category:cinema of Hong Kong and cinema of Taiwan under category:cinema of China, and her/his assertion that cinemas of Hong Kong and Taiwan are part of cinema of China in his edit to list of film-related topics. I have started the discussion at talk:cinema of China#List of film-related topics. Thank you. — Insta ntnood 16:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Country shortname alias Hong Kong: edits by User:Huaiwei

Hello again. Mind help mediate what's happening to template:country shortname alias Hong Kong [4]? I don't want it to be ending up in trouble again. :-) Thanks in advance. — Insta ntnood 16:59, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much. — Insta ntnood 17:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I guess it would be necessary to keep an eye on the recent edits by Huaiwei, for instance, response to the 2005 London bombings, template:HKG, list of national airlines, Reporters Without Borders, list of indices of freedom, Wikipedia:country referencing templates. — Insta ntnood 18:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Adminship

I've nominated you for adminship at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MarkSweep. Please go there to accept. --Ji ang 07:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've accepted the nomination. I was a bit reluctant: on the one hand, I can see how reverting vandalism etc. would be easier; on the other hand, I'm currently involved in an arbitration case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI), which generates animosity. Let's see how it goes. --MarkSweep 14:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have seen, the nomination was successful. Thanks again for nominating me and for your support. First order of business for me: put and end to the persistent vandalism to some China/Taiwan-related articles. Cheers, --MarkSweep 01:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries and 3RR

I was reported by User:SchmuckyTheCat [5] because of a fix to your edit to list of countries [6] [7]. Please kindly take some time to look at the list and the 3RR notice board. Thanks. :-) — Insta ntnood 23:12, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks so much. :-) — Insta ntnood 08:08, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Yu Shyi-kun.jpg

Image deletion warning

Image:Yu Shyi-kun.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Re: ROC on Taiwan? or is it Taiwan?

I saw your comment at SchmcukyTheCat's talk page. In my opinion, if we put aside who are using them and just look into their meanings, "ROC (Taiwan)" provides additional information for disambiguation purposes and to avoid confusions, whereas "ROC on Taiwan" describes its present situation. They serves different needs under different circumstances. — Insta ntnood 10:49, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I took it from a recent press release but the edit summary was just kind of flippant. I'm not that into Taiwan stuff enough to know the politicians by name, but I'm learning. I just wanted to make it read more like natural english. 'nood is right here. "Taiwan (ROC)", "ROC (Taiwan)", when ROC or Taiwan is more right, the parenthetical dab just gives the reader some clue. Just adding the word "on" was just a readability edit. SchmuckyTheCat 14:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan intelligence agency

(in reply to question in edit summary) The principal intelligence agency in Taiwan is the National Security Bureau. (I didn't know this until just now. see List of intelligence agencies)

By the way the edit summary didn't reflect the whole of the changes that you made (They look like good changes though). Please try to use the edit summary to summarize your edits rather than ask questions. Questions go on the talk page. Thanks.Zeimusu | (Talk page) 05:22, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Jiang, I just wanted to thank you for nominating me for adminship. I am deeply humbled by the honor and appreciate your vote of confidence. I've learned a lot since starting a little over a year ago and have had quite a bit of fun working here. Thanks again, and I look forward to working with you in the future to help make Wikipedia even better. -Loren 07:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i need help

I saw you made a comment about the New Taiwan Dollar. I came across a 1 yuan at work and I was wondering if you could tell me what is said on it and whose picture that is on it. I would be greatful. Thanks

List of countries by system of government

If you look in every political science book, there are only three forms of government. The same mistake I found in the article Form of government: monarchy, theocracy and so on are forms of state, not forms of government. And democracy or dictatorship are political regimes. People are making confusions. --Arado 11:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing edits regarding ROC/Taiwan

===>Respond here or on my Talk page I don't understand why when text reads "[[Republic of China]] ([[Taiwan]]) you take out the link to "Taiwan" and explain "rm link to Taiwan because flag is of the ROC and not Taiwan; readers going to Taiwan will be confused; the situation is better explained at Republic of China" How will people be confused if both articles are linked? Do you have any evidence that people are refusing to read the former article, read the latter, and just never understand that the Chinese Civil War was left unresolved? It is common practice to link any relevant information, for instance, if mentioning dates or geographic entities in an article, I would always put a link (i.e. "In 1970, Led Zeppelin played their first tour of the United States"). Please explain. Justin (koavf) 23:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

sorry for going around and reverting you without attempting to discuss this.

in the context of referring to the flag of the Republic of China, the link to Republic of China is more relevant than the link to Taiwan. when one link is more relevant than the other, then I think we should not give readers a choice and provide only the more relevant link. This is in line with the policy of making only links relevant to the context.

The Taiwan article is currently on the "island" of Taiwan. The image of the flag of the Republic of China was purposely kept off that page. The note at the top and the second sentence of the article direct readers interested in the "state" to the Republic of China article. The flag of the Republic of China and not Taiwan (the conventional short form for the ROC, but the ROC is not what we mean in the article) so there is no need to lead readers to Taiwan only to redirect them again to Republic of China. If this is confusing, then I suggest that we use the form [[Republic of China|Republic of China (Taiwan)]] with a single link. If people want to read about the island of Taiwan, they can go there after vising the Republic of China page. --Ji ang 01:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fuchien or Fukien?

Hello Jiang. Fuchien and Fukien, which is actually the official spelling? On some older full ROC maps it's marked Fukien. A Google test by searching for .gov.tw pages gives more hits for Fukien than Fuchien. Would Fuchien be based on Wades Giles, and Fukien Postal Pinyin? Many thanks. :-) — Insta ntnood 19:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I see. Seems like it's not standardised even within the government domain. Fujian and Fukien gives roughly the same number of hits (around 800), but Fuchien is 300 fewer. :-| — Insta ntnood 07:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

ROC

Taiwan (Republic of China) is hardly NPOV. You're taking sides. Taiwan (ROC/PRC) is true NPOV. —Cantus…☎ 07:47, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Wha'?? "Taiwan (ROC/PRC)" is completely unworkable, as it would get both sides equally riled up. The best solution IMHO is to just be as specific as possible. There are usually two alternatives: Either you're talking about the de facto independent country, then call it ROC, because whatever it is that's at issue will presumably also apply to the other territories the ROC controls; if you want to refer to the modern ROC (post 1947) "ROC on Taiwan" may be even better, because it's more specific. Or you're talking about Taiwan island, in which case call it "Taiwan island", or perhaps just "Taiwan". While we have a duty to discuss all relevant sides of an issue, we also have a duty to point out which ones are grounded in fact, as opposed to fiction. "Taiwan (ROC/PRC)" is at best wishful thinking. --MarkSweep ✍ 08:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Yat-sen

How could you find out that the materials are copyrighted so easily? D e ryc k C. 09:24:27, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

Do you think, then, this article will succeed if I put it up onto FAC? D e ryc k C. 10:38:44, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

NPOV dispute on Political status of Taiwan

Hi, there's a dispute going on regarding some of the wording used in the Political status of Taiwan article, as well as whether or not the ROC should be characterized as a de facto state. Your comments and suggestions would be greatly appreceated. -Loren 15:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]