Talk:Taiwan (island)

Chinese Taipei

Comment: Though I am sure that this has been discussed before it seems to me the deliberate omission of "Chinese Taipei" from this discussion is misleading. This is not to say that it has to be mentioned as a synonym per se but not mentioning that the international community uses this term in many settings seems unjustifiable.

--Mcorazao (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Chinese Taipei is an alternate name for the Republic of China, a political entity, rather than Taiwan, the geographic entity. Chinese Taipei is currently mentioned in Republic_of_China#Names. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I get it. My point is that saying Taiwan is under the government of the ROC without mentioning this alternate name is not entirely NPOV (i.e. since the very legitimacy of the ROC is a subject of international debate). Additionally since Taiwan is the main part of the ROC/Chinese Taipei, some people use Chinese Taipei in a geographic sense as well as a political sense. Again, I am not suggesting stating this as a synonym, but for the sake of clarity and NPOV it seems that mentioning this phrase at least one time is necessary. --Mcorazao (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that Chinese Taipei needs to be mentioned in the Taiwan article. Chinese Taipei is a geopolitical term while the Taiwan article is not (supposed to be) political. The alliance (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The Taiwan article covers the non-political aspects of the country, while the ROC government article covers politics - and Chinese Taipei is definitely a political term. Readin (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You still don't bloody get it. The Taiwan article covers the island and only the island. The ROC covers the political state INCLUDING the island AND politics just like every other state polity articles do. Liu Tao (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The ROC is NOT just like every other political state. It is the only state I know of that started in one place and wound up in another with no significant territorial consistency.

The Taiwan article is not about rocks and dirt surrounded by water. It is about non-political aspects of what people call "Taiwan" (whether they consider it a province, island, country or region). Readin (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A state is a state. It has territory, population, and a sovereign government. That is the definition of a state. A 'state' is either a state or it is not, simple as that. There's no such thing as 'not the same'. It has territory, yes? It has population, yes? It has a government, yes? It is sovereign, yes? It's a bloody state. Territorial consistency, what is it? What is the definition of being 'politically consistent'? The United Kingdoms at one time was composed of 1/4 of the world's territory, now it's nothing but a few islands off the coast Europe, yet its article talks about its culture and its people. Rome started out as a city, then becoming one of the largest empires of its time. It doesn't even exist anymore yet its article talks of its people and culture. The US started out as 13 colonies on the North American East Coast, 200 years becoming the 4th largest nation in the world, yet its article talks of its culture and people.

As for Taiwan, the bloody article itself says that it talks about the island, which is a geographical entity, meaning the article is better titled 'Taiwan Island'. The article talks about the island and only the island. Nothing says you can't talk about culture, the British Isles talks of its culture, the Great Britain article talks of religion. Being a Geographical entity article is no excuse to not talk of the island's culture and people. Being a state that has lost the vast majority of its territory is no excuse not to talk of its people and culture. Heck even the largest state Russia and continent Asia talks of its people, culture, and languages. Nobody said that an island article can't talk about its people and culture. Yes, Taiwan Island is a hunk of rock with dirt surrounded by water, but it's a hunk of rock with people living on it. There are people, you can talk about the people. The people have culture, you can talk about the culture. Liu Tao (talk) 04:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You mention Rome, United Kingdom, and Russia as states for comparison with the ROC.

• Rome began its history at a location on the Tiber River. Rome still occupies that same location. At all times, from the beginning until now, Rome has been on the Tiber River.
• The United Kingdom began its official life as a union or England, Wales and Scotland. It is still a union of England Wales and Scotland. During all of UK history it has always contained England, Wales and Scotland.
• Russia's beginning was centered around Kiev and Moscow. Kiev and Moscow are still the Russian heartland.

The ROC is very different. It started in China. In 1945 it acquired Taiwan from Japan as war booty, and then 4 years later it lost China. Unless you are claiming the Kinmen and Matsu are the ROC heartland, it can't be equated to the other examples. Even America, which started as a country a fraction the size of what it is now, has never lost its original territory. And even if it lost that territory today, the change would not be so dramtic because the basic shape of the country has remained unchanged for over 100 years providing plenty of time for assimilation of the various parts. The change in the ROC from 1945 to 1949, four years, was far more dramatic. The population changed, the land area changed, and with these changed the culture, the economy, the customs, the most common language and pretty much any other non-governmental thing you can think of. This makes the ROC different from other states in the way that matters for what we are discussiong here: identification. When someone says Italy when they really mean Italian Republic, it matters little because the Italian Republic has governed Italy for its entire existence. The concept of "Italy" has many parts: the people, the economy, the land, the culture, and even the government. And those concepts all have a common history and have always remained tied together. But the ROC, which is a government, has no similar relationship with any people, economy, land, or culture.

If you really think the ROC is like any other state, then you should support the notion of merging Taiwan and ROC articles just as other government articles are merged with the country they government - under the name commonly used to refer to them - in this case "Taiwan". Do you support such a merger where the "Republic of China" article would redirect to "Taiwan" just as the French Republic link redirects to France? Readin (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not doing comparisons, I am making examples, and you are missing my points with them. I'm not even comparing them to the RoC. Point I am making is that the ROC no matter how small still has people, if it has people, then it has culture, if it has culture, you can talk about it. I was using the UK and Roman articles as a point. Rome doesn't even exist anymnore (I'm talking about the bloody state, don't get smart with me about the City) yet its culture is still being described. If even a dead nation has culture, then why does the ROC not? What, is the ROC below Rome? Does the ROC not have culture? Does it have so little culture that it's less than that of a dead nation's?

As for geographical articles, the point is that you keep on BSing about 'geographical articles being just a hunk of rock', it's 'just a hunk of rock' because you MADE it a hunk of rock. The Ireland and Great Britain articles are all geographical Island articles, yet they still talk of culture and people. Only YOU make the claim that geographical articles can't talk about culture and people.

Culture is culture, if it has people, then the people have culture. The ROC has people, the ROC has culture. Nobody told you to ******* write about 'culture on mainland', just culture in general. Even if you don't want to talk about the culture of the ROC whilst it was on mainland, you can still write of the culture of the current territories it administers. Unless the territories don't have culture, there's nothing you can't write about.

And you still don't get it. The ROC is a bloody state, a state by definition has a government territory and people. If it doesn't have any one of those, then it is not a state. It is common sense. The ROC HAS a government, it is NOT a government. It HAS territory AND population. How difficult is it for you to understand the concept of a political state? There is a bloody definition out there yet you refuse to adhere to it. A state is a political entity that is composed of a sovereign government, territory, and population. If the ROC has no territory or population, then it is not a state, simple as that. Government is a political organisation designed for running a state. If the ROC is the government, then what is the state? Don't say Taiwan because it is not. The only entities going by the name of Taiwan is the Island and the province, that is it, nothing else. The RoC has a government, known as the ROC government 中華民國政府, it has territory composed of Taiwan Penghu Kinmen Matsu 臺澎金馬, the ROC has population 24 million of them 兩千四百萬人口. If the ROC is just a government, then so is with every other political state out there.

As for France, told you not to bloody get smart with me. France is a state, its formal name being the 5th French Republic. There is no geographical entity known as 'France'. As for the ROC redirected to Taiwan, you are even more stupid. Taiwan is the island, ROC is the state. One is a geographical entity, the other is a political one. If you cannot tell the difference between an island and a state, then you really have issues. You want the Republic of China redirected to Taiwan? Then you change the name of the bloody article to Taiwan, not mixing it together with an entirely different entity. There is a political state and a island, do not get the 2 mixed up. I am sick and tired of you constantly trying to bend my words. Read EVERYTHING that I type, if you don't, you shouldn't even be editing on wikipedia if you're not going to read everything people painstakinly spent hours writing and typing. I don't care if I typed a 20-page response, I type it, you read it and read it all. If you want to argue, argue against the whole thing, don't go picking out the little nooks and crannies. That is the reason why I have to repeat everything I say because you constantly refuse to meet my points. Liu Tao (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The term "Chinese Taipei" is a supposed "politically neutral" term foisted upon the ROC for use in the Olympic Games, and should not be used outside an Olympic context. The term is considered quite demeaning by vast numbers of people in Taiwan. Bubbha (talk) 04:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not really politically neutral, it's just the less offensive term the Taiwanese government was allowed to use for the Olympic games. But it is offensive anyway because it asserts the PRC's claim over Taiwan. The ROC government is only trying to save face when they say they choose the term because they also represent China. Laurent (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Disputes on whether PRC flag should be included in infobox

There's recently been a bit of edit warring on whether the PRC should be included with a flag icon in the infobox under "Country" or as a footnote/reference. Before the edit war, only the ROC was listed with a footnote/reference explaining the situation. Should the PRC be included or not (with the subtext "Claims but does not control")?

In my opinion, although this is regarding a "disputed" territory, having it mentioned in the lead section and having a flag icon in the infobox are two different things. The infobox is meant to be a straightforward, neutral information source, while the rest of the article is open to differing viewpoints. Yes, the PRC claims the island, but just because a country claims a territory does not mean it deserves listing under "Country" in the infobox. "Country" should be reserved for whatever political entity administers the island; in this case, it has been the ROC (the PRC has never had any direct control). Saying all POVs should be included in an infobox isn't all that great of an argument either. Let's look at it another way: the ROC has not renounced its claim over mainland China; therefore, in order to include all POVs, an infobox for "Mainland China" should include the ROC as a country which "claims but does not control" it. (Of course, this is absurd.) This should not be based on different POVs; it should be based on the political reality. Taiwan hasn't been actively disputed in quite some time. All the PRC has done is point missiles and call Taiwan a "renegade province" in international rhetoric. The truth of the matter is, the relationship between both sides has been warming up, and to have both the ROC and PRC flags inserted would give the false impression that an active dispute (military, combat, etc.) is going on. A reference is a far better representation of the situation. -Multivariable (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, I think there is an infobox for disputed islands. The infobox is used for the Spratley and Parcel Islands and like Taiwan, no military conflict over the islands has happened within the past few decades that I can think of. We can change the article's Island infobox to a disputed island infobox. ROC will be listed under 'Administered by' and the PRC be listed under 'claimed by'. Liu Tao (talk) 16:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There should not be a PRC flag, nor is there any use for an alternative infobox. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, I'm not saying to make an entirely new infobox, I'm saying to use one that is already made and in use, and it won't be that difficult to change it either, only need to change the infobox flag and add a property. After all, Taiwan is a disputed island, it's not unreasonable to use the disputed island infobox. Liu Tao (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just not the right kind of dispute for that infobox. And like the OP says, if we do that, then every PRC province or city needs to, which is ridiculous. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

How be it not the right kind of dispute? Actually, how is the dispute different from the Spratly and the Parcel Islands? And no, this is different from the PRC provinces and cities; those are administrative regions, they only exist within the PRC. The RoC provinces are different, that's why there are separate articles for the Taiwan and Fukien Provinces than for the PRC Provinces. Taiwan Island is a geographical region, there's only 1 Taiwan Island. Liu Tao (talk) 03:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

If you look at a list of islands/territories that use that template (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_disputed_islands), it's clear that it's being used for islands with little to no real population (e.g. Paracel Islands: 14, Spratly Islands: 0). I would describe it as "real" disputes, since it's essentially claiming pieces of rock in the ocean (with little to no people). I think a better comparison would be something like the Falkland Islands between the UK and Argentina (e.g. Argentina claims it even though the UK has sovereignty, "significant" population of 3100, etc.). I would argue that the disputed islands template doesn't go there either, since in this case there is a clear "sovereignty" being established that doesn't just depend on countries claiming pieces of rock in the sea. -Multivariable (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

What's 'little' or not is entirely an opinion, some think 14 is a lot, some doesn't. And the infobox description doesn't say anything about population, it says specifically that it's for a disputed island or archipelago. As for the case with the Falkland Islands, it uses a country infobox because the article describes/represents an UK overseas territory, which is an administrative division. That is not the case with the Taiwan Island, which is specifically about a geological region, not an administrative region. Liu Tao (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan is not an administrative region? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I would think that administrative divisions are defined somewhat by geographic boundaries, especially if we're talking about islands. Otherwise, there's no way to "claim" a piece of land. And I would say 14 is negligible; it's not enough to have an economy, culture, educational system, establish sovereignty, etc. For all practical purposes, it's a chunk of rock. -Multivariable (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat-Taiwan Island (this article) is not an administrative region, it's just a geographical island. The only 'Taiwan' Administrative region would be the Taiwan Province.

Multivariable-Administrative divisions are not necessarily defined by geographic boundaries. In other words, geographic boundaries certainly comes into play when it comes to administrative divisions, but they don't make the administrative divisions directly. It's those running the region who makes the divisions. I'll use the Taiwan Province's boundaries themselves, they don't conform exactly with the entire island. The Province does not include only the Taiwan Island (eg. Penghu), nor does it include the entire island (Taipei and Khaosiung Municipalities).

As for population, as I've said, it's all based on opinion. If there is people, there is economy, or the people wouldn't be able to survive and live. If there is people, there is culture, it's the people who defines the culture. If there is people, there's an educational system, if not how do the people learn? As for sovereignty, look at the multiple micronations; plus nobody said anything about making them 'sovereign'. As for practical purposes, nothing is just a 'chunk of rock'. An island can be a very important military outpost, or if there are natural resources (eg. oil), the resources can be salvaged and used. Nothing is just a 'chunk of rock', everything has its value. Liu Tao (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Island of Republic of China revert issue

(Discussion from Liu Tao's revert of Mistakefinder's changes) Taiwan being part of ROC and being ruled by ROC is a fact, not POV. Are you not from Taiwan? Unless you got ROC mistaken with PRC. Please revert my changes back.--Mistakefinder (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, that's a fact, but it wasn't what you said. You said it belonged to the RoC. Whom Taiwan 'belongs' to itself is an opinion and in turn POV. It's best not to get politics involved and keep this article as geologically based as possible. Besides, in the second sentence we're saying that it makes up 99% of the RoC's territory, as well as saying that it is being administered by the ROC in the hapnote. There is no need to put in anymore statements. Liu Tao (talk) 15:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about when I revised to "island of the Republic of China" and that was POV? And is it POV because of the claim from PR China only, or also because the Taiwanese Independence movement people (the argument about the US/Allies improper handover to ROC)? Since it is ruled by ROC I didn't think it would be a problem and would be straight forward for any reader who would naturally want to know what country it belongs to. If the concern is due to Taiwan independence argument (or even PRC's, even though I dont't think is legitamate), then we can insert a statement with the political status of Taiwan entry, and refer to the related section below. What do you think?

As I've said, 'whom' Taiwan belongs to is a disputed issue. Them greens views that it is independant, the blues view that it belongs to the ROC, and the reds views that it belongs to the PRC. You can say who currently administered the island, but you can't say who 'owns' it or who it 'belongs' to. The said link you offered is already linked further down in paragraph 3 where appropriate. There is no need to add the link into intro 1. To do so would be pushing to describe the political situation, which is NOT what this article is about. Liu Tao (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Island vs. State

Several times in the past few days, there have been a number of insertions by IPs, notably to the introduction, where the word "nation" was appended after "island". On one occasion, this LIAR claimed that he was restoring to a "previously accepted revision". One, there are no pending changes to this page, though there is a case to apply them here. Two, it's clearly against common sense; ROC is not only one island. Therefore I believe all such reversions of the word "nation" have legitimate rollback application. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy is a sock of the Blocked user User:ProfessorJane, always adding flags and POV stuff about PRC and ROC being two countries. T-1000 (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

"In 1945 Taiwan was freed from Japan as a result of World War II."

Can't we have something a little more purely factual and neutral in tone? The existing statement implies that Taiwan during the period 1895-1945 was somehow a captive, imprisoned or otherwise illegitimately a possession of Japan...as it stands, the implication is that Taiwan being given to Chian Kai-shek and the ROC was some sort of act of liberation. A lot of the people here in Taiwan would vehemently disagree...! I would suggest something like, "As a result of World War II, dominion over the island of Taiwan was transferred to the Republic of China." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.224.135.198 (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This sentence, indeed, does sound very bias towards Japan. If that sentence is to be included, then the article should also mention something about the Chinese invading Taiwan afterwards with the permission of the U.S. authorities. Don't forget about the massive massacre of the Taiwanese by the Chinese. It should be given a proper title or term to it like the Taiwanese Holocaust of 228.

Shorten Intro section and remove history/economy coverage

Since this entry is supposed to be just geographical, I suggest removing any history/politics/economy discussion and moving/merging them into the ROC article but leave a brief mention of the disputed handover and link to political status of Taiwan and History of Taiwan. I think most English speakers looking for info on Taiwan are looking for info on the country, not the geographic entity (island). However it's important to point out the "ownership" of the island (along with Penghu) is disputed from the Japanese handover. In the opening section of ROC article, toward the end, this should be pointed out too. On a different note, since Penghu and Taiwan are historically one unit (1895-1945) and even now as Taiwan Province, how about combining Penghu into this article? --Mistakefinder (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)