Talk:Geography of Taiwan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Quemoy, Matsu were removed since they do not constitute the common knowledge of Taiwan islands, which includes the Formosa and the Pescadores. These two islands are the Fujian islands administrated by ROC.Mababa 06:27, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

However this article serves as the main article of the geography section of the article Republic of China. (All "Geography of.." articles are in the "Geography of [name of country]" format.) I would prefer moving the details about Quemoy, Wuch'iu (Wuciou) and Matsu back, and rename the article "Geography of the Republic of China". — Instantnood 02:41 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

Disagreed. I am hundred percent sure that you must know the difference between Taiwan and ROC. The political entity currently governing Taiwan. Taiwan, as a geogrphically entity, deserves a separate article as China does. Quemoy, Wuch'iu (Wuciou) and Matsu can be mentioned when the Geogrphy of ROC was introduced with the external link of Geography of Taiwan.Mababa 05:43, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

True. And that's exactly why I suggested to add the islands back and to rename at the same time. This article currently should serve as the main article of a geography section at the article Republic of China, which is currently absent. Alternatively, a new article titled "Geography of the Republic of China" could be created, but will largely overlap with this article. — Instantnood 05:55 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

I do not see any reason why a new article to be impossible. Mababa 06:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am open on this issue. There is, however, no such precedence. All "Geography of.." articles are about political entities.
If a new geography article is created for the political entity Republic of China, contents about territorial water claims will have to removed from this article. A geographical entity does not make any claim. — Instantnood 06:46 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

Check on Geography of China. China here is a geographical entity.Mababa 06:52, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's why I have put up a notice on the top of the page, and proposed to rename or to clean up. Many of the contents refer only to the PRC or mainland. — Instantnood 07:04 Feb 23 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. Regime comes and go. Taiwan stays forever. Taiwan as a geographic entity should have a geographical article for her. ROC can creat a new article for herself if needed.Mababa 07:20, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

There was a request at WP:RM to move this page to Geography of the Republic of China, or a clean up and to split this article into two, following the lines of Geography of Ireland and Geography of the Republic of Ireland. The discussion is now over with no consensus, and is archived at Talk:List of Taiwan-related topics (by category)#Page move. — Instantnood 13:53 Mar 5 2005 (UTC)

Add info about national parks[edit]

I have a suggestion, How about adding some of the information of Taiwan's national park to this page? If you can, please add it. Beast

  I add the terrain info of 7 national parks, and wonder if national parks should under its own title

Information in Taiwan that should go into this article[edit]

I've added a "main" link to this article in the section on "Geography" in the Taiwan article. Would an editor more interested in the subject than me (I've just wandered in here because of a content dispute that I may or may not actually be helping with) please (a) move a lot of the information in the "Geography" section of that article to this (while there is some overlap, there isn't that much); and (b) then sharply reduce the amount of text in that article pertaining to geography - the section in that article should become just a summary of what's in the main article about Taiwan's geography. Thanks! John Broughton | Talk 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


Is it volcanic? Information about how this island came to be (and when) would be good to add. Badagnani (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


The info box used to have the country listed as "Taiwan" and now has it listed as "Republic of China". The label is "country", not "state". In general "Taiwan" is used rather than "Republic of China" is used in non-political settings, and "Geography of Taiwan" is an article having nothing to do with politics. Readin (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's an artificial limit on the interpretation of the word 'Taiwan'. The item in the table is called 'Country', and the national flag of the ROC is there as well. Any ordinary person would form the view that that spot is for the name of a nation.
We can change it to ROC (Taiwan) but merely Taiwan is unacceptable as it is about the name of a nation. I understand that you have difficulties changing it to ROC (Taiwan) because the template is unavailable. But I think I have a suitable compromise.
Let me change the opening paragraph to this:-
"Taiwan is a medium-sized archipelago in East Asia, located at 23°30N, 121°00E and running through the middle of the Tropic of Cancer (23°5N). It makes up the majority of the territories effectively under the control of the Republic of China (commonly known as "Taiwan" since the 1970s)."
This way even if we leave the country as Republic of China in the table, there is no likelihood of confusion that this article is talking about the PRC.--pyl (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved sections[edit]

I've moved the sections: climate, geology, flora and fauna, natural resources, energy resources, and environmental issues to the article on Taiwan Island because this article should be addressing the geography of Taiwan, not other topics as well. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Those are aspects of geography, and normally covered in similar articles, e.g. Geography of Madagascar and Geography of Sri Lanka. You've created a content fork. Kanguole 22:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
First off, what is the topic of this article? If it is about the state of Taiwan/ROC, then this article fails to adequately address the other islands other than the main island of Taiwan. The way it is written now, this article doesn't quite describe the geography of the state of Taiwan/ROC, nor does it describe only the island of Taiwan. This article should be describing all of the islands, not only focusing on the island of Taiwan, and should be written in the same format as Geography of New Zealand. Similar to North Island or Geography of Tasmania, the info about the main island of Taiwan should have an article of its own.
You're calling this a content fork, so is North Island or South Island a content fork of Geography of New Zealand then? Penghu is an article about that island, and my intent was to create a similar article for Taiwan Island on its geography and physical information (size, location etc) for other references to that island specifically. Because the article on Taiwan is now an article on the state, links that intend to link to the island itself aren't serving that purpose very well. For example, the sentence on the Penghu article links to Taiwan by stating that it lies of the west of Taiwan, but that article's topic is on the state of Taiwan/ROC including all of the islands that make up Taiwan/ROC, not the main island of Taiwan.
Just because I started to create Taiwan Island doesn't mean it's a content fork; the article was just created, so it'll take some time for it to get re-organized without including redundant info. If you would, you can try helping to create the Taiwan Island article instead of speedy reverting an initial split. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
The move of the ROC article to Taiwan is relatively recent, and the implications for other articles are still being worked out.
The case of Taiwan is clearly very different from New Zealand, as here the island comprises almost all of the country of the same name. In this situation, separate articles about the country and the island would inevitably be hugely redundant. That is why we have a single article covering the country and the eponymous main island in similar cases such as Iceland, Cuba, Madagascar and Sri Lanka, as well as subdivisions such as Crete, Sardinia, Prince Edward Island and Tasmania. Indeed the lead of the Flinders Island article has a similar ambiguity regarding Tasmania (state or island) to the one you mention in Penghu. Actually I think it's clear in both cases that the island is meant, but if clarification were necessary it should be in the wording, not the links. Kanguole 12:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This article is following the naming convention of the main article, so this should not mention only the Taiwan Island. Taiwan/ROC still has other islands even if Taiwan comprises the majority. All of them have articles of adequate length and information, so there's no question whether they can be included or not. For references from other articles, it is still useful and necessary to link to the specific island in question. That's the job of the Taiwan Island article. Even if the wording can prevent ambiguity, linking to the state is not the same as the geographical island itself. It won't be redundant if more about the other islands are mentioned and most of the content, the details, on the Taiwan island is moved to the article talking specifically about that island. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Please consider the examples of similar cases I gave above. Kanguole 18:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Those states don't have additional islands. - M0rphzone (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, they do, and so do each of the four examples of sub-national divisions. Kanguole 19:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Alright, since editors won't take the effort to make distinctions, and this is a bit hard to accomplish, we'll just leave the redirect then. You and the other reverters are wasting my time. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Copy of Prehistory section of the History article[edit]

M0rphzone has copied History of Taiwan#Prehistoric settlement into this article as a Prehistory section. It's my view that duplication of this sort is unhelpful and that it's more useful to have distinct and focussed History and Geography articles. Any other views? Kanguole 19:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You've been reverting without comments from others. I've told you that the topic covered in that section is part of geography. There's no reason to remove it if it doesn't hinder the article in any way. So stop edit warring and editing tendentiously. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
It would be great to get more input, but the onus is on you, as the one wishing to add the material, to justify its inclusion instead of just re-inserting it.
That section is not geography but history; it is after all a section of History of Taiwan. That piece of prose was written to fit within that article, and is out of place here. Duplicating it adds no information to Wikipedia and means it must be maintained twice. Kanguole 09:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Would it not make sense to have small summary paragraph with a link to the main article just as is done with the Population section that links to Demographics of Taiwan? Actually, to me Geography of Taiwan as something that excludes human populations so neither the Population section nor the Prehistory section (as currently written with its focus on early human populations) belongs. But if we're going to have one I think it makes sense to have the other. Readin (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
A minority of geography articles have Human geography sections (e.g. Croatia, Israel, China, UK); none have a Prehistory section. I added a Population section in an unsuccessful attempt to meet a demand for human geography. I tend to agree that neither section fits here. Kanguole 23:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I've had a go at making the Population section more geographical and renamed it "Human geography". It contains a brief summary of population history. Kanguole 12:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I think that's an improvement. I made a couple slight re-wordings. The 1.3 million Chinese didn't "join" the immigrants from the 17th century. The 17th century immigrants were dead by then. The Kuomintang migration joined their descendants.
For that same reason I had a problem with the statement that the 1.3 million KMT immigrants and the 17th century immigrants together comprise 95% of the population. Most of said immigrants died long ago. I checked the source to be sure that whatever correction I provided would be accurate. The KMT's yearbook isn't something I would consider a great source for things that touch on national identity since the KMT clearly tries to promote a Chinese identify for Taiwan. Unfortunately I don't have a better source at the moment. However I do question the statement given that 95% of the population is "of Han Chinese ancestry". I suppose it is technically true, but it heavily implies that 95% have ancestors that were Han Chinese in China that moved to Taiwan. However other more reliable sources I remember reading say that many people in Taiwan became Han Chinese by assimilation rather than by ancestry. I.e. large numbers of plains aborigines recognized that the Han Chinese were the prestige ethnicity and so changed their lifestyles to assimilate and make more money (rice, whatever). For that reason I'm not completely happy with saying "Today over 95% of the population has Han Chinese ancestry." However it that reflects very closely what the somewhat reliable source says. Readin (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Fair points about the loose language. Assimilation should also be mentioned. Certainly a significant fraction of the ancestry of pre-1949 Chinese must be aboriginal, though I imagine it will be hard to find a source giving a figure. How about "ethnicity" instead of "ancestry"?
That was my original plan, but the source explicitly talked about ancestry. Readin (talk) 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

From what I gathered, this section that I took from the "prehistory" article deals with geography; more specifically, the changes in geography which also caused changes in population/distribution of inhabitants/resources/etc. Geography is a combination of history and geology with maybe a bit of sociology, and I think this type of content should help make this article more comprehensive. Just because some other articles don't focus on these topics doesn't mean including some analysis and content on this won't contribute to the article. My intention for adding this duplication is to address some of this aspect, but it can be rewritten and not be pasted word-for-word. I'm not particularly good at creating original content, so hopefully other editors can help rewrite it a bit to fit more with the rest of the article, and I can take a look at it. Any comments? - M0rphzone (talk) 09:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

To be precise, the text is from History of Taiwan#Prehistoric settlement and the illustration from Prehistory of Taiwan#Neolithic. And now you've pasted (without attribution) a paragraph from Prehistory of Taiwan#Geographical context into the introduction to this article. You can't create a coherent article just by pasting in copies of stuff written for other contexts and tweaking. Please stop.
As for the definition of geography, it is not simply the sum of those things, but how they interrelate. That requires creating original text. Kanguole 10:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you create original text? If you do, you could help fix the issues. Right now, I'm only rewriting some parts. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes I do (including most of the text you're pushing to copy into this article). But instead of asking others to fix the issues you're creating, how about not creating them? Kanguole 12:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any issues with including this content. It is not a complete duplication of content, nor is this type of content specifically categorized as historical content. Like I said, the content I added is supposed to provide more information in the article as it is part of geography. I looked at the parts you removed and they were not duplications, so what is your issue with the content? How do you think more information of this sort should be added then? We can work out a rewritten sentence instead of revert warring. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
The issue is that copying text written for one context and pasting it into another makes the article incoherent. First there was the Prehistory section copied here from History of Taiwan. It doesn't belong here; the brief summary in the Human geography section is enough history for a Geography article, and it links to the History article for more detail. In the middle of that discussion, you went on to paste text from Prehistory of Taiwan into the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article – that can't be done by pasting text from elsewhere and tweaking it.
An incidental issue is that your diffs are bloated with needless changes, including adjustments to spacing around section headings and between sentences that have no effect on the rendered text. Kanguole 02:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not blindly reverting as you suggested, but you need to stop assuming ownership of the article. I'm checking the edit changes and fixing any issues that's occurring, but the way you're organizing the content is not helpful. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
What are the problems with the way I'm organizing the content? Do you have a different organization in mind? Kanguole 00:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the original topic: I intend to remove the copied section. The history is briefly summarized in the Human geography section, with a link to History of Taiwan, where readers will find this text. Kanguole 14:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Fine, but the geology section needs expansion. Also, what happened to the See also section? - M0rphzone (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Each of the See also links is now attached to the section it specifically relates to. Kanguole 07:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

indiginous aborigines came from where?[edit]

"Their ancestors arrived in Taiwan by sea from the mainland"

This is a glib and poorly sourced sentence that essentially claims to know the origins of all polynesian/austronesian peoples, which, while perhaps the position of ROC, would be contested by many, including the Wiki article on these same aborigines. This remains very much a subject of debate. Wikibearwithme (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the said sentence is questionable. I had added template {{clarify}} to ask for the exact text from the reference. If no one provides the text to prove it after several days, we may remove the sentence. --Matt Smith (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
The sentence is certainly not poorly sourced. It is cited to a 4-page survey of recent work on the issue in a directly relevant scholarly work, and it is an accurate summary of the consensus in the field represented in that survey. (It also says nothing about Polynesians, and Wiki articles are not reliable sources.) One could, perhaps, qualify it a bit: Most scholars believe their ancestors arrived in Taiwan by sea between 4000 and 3000 BC, probably from the mainland. Kanguole 16:02, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
It is not poorly sourced, but is poorly written. According to what you explained at here, there is no decisive evidence to prove that their ancestors came from the mainland, and it is just a survey concludes that perhaps their ancestors came from the mainland. In my opinion, the wording of the current sentence is very inappropriate because it misleads readers into believing what it says is a truth. The sentence needs to be rewrite or be removed. Wikipedia is not a place to publish uncertain and indefinite things. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
I have suggested a revised wording. Wikipedia is the place to report the scholarly consensus, and scientific statements often have a greater of lesser degree of uncertainty. Kanguole 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Could you please provide an intact quote (by using the quote parameter) in the reference? --Matt Smith (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
The sentence is an faithful summary of a 4-page literature survey. I don't propose to quote it all. Kanguole 10:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 11 December 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Discussion closed and merged into Talk:Taiwan#Requested move 11 December 2016 to avoid discussion fragmentation. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Geography of TaiwanTaiwan – I'm proposing the idea to rename this article Taiwan to allow the main article to be renamed as the "Republic of China" which controls this island. Wrestlingring (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support. This geographical entity is the actual Taiwan. However, "Taiwan" being used as the informal nickname of political entity the Republic of China has been causing confusions between it and the actual Taiwan for a long time. The confusion needs to go away. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Provided that content is split from Taiwan so that this article is not just about the geography. Taiwan is not a political entity, no, I do not recognize the PRC's claims, but the Republic of China is the state, "Taiwan" is a neutral name that is acceptable from both sides of the strait. Thus calling "Taiwan" a state is not NPOV for the PRC sees it as a sign of splitting its, no, I repeat, I do not support the PRC at all, but I also respect Wikipedia policies. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support, but prefer Taiwan Island, so as to differentiate clearly between the state entity commonly called "Taiwan" and the geographical entity. The RoC and Taiwan are not the same thing. The present situation is horribly confusing. RGloucester 05:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a proposal for redirect of Taiwan to Republic of China. So this article's title can simply be "Taiwan". --Matt Smith (talk) 06:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose if a person types "Taiwan" they most likely want to learn about politics, people and culture, and not mountains, fauna, and rivers which this article covers. Timmyshin (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, ditto: if a person types "Taiwan" they most likely want to learn about politics, people and culture In ictu oculi (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The search term Formosa should remain as the title. Taiwan or ROC are political entities recently created in the long history of Formosa. (talk) 11:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. As a country article, Taiwan needs a Geography of Taiwan sub-article to summarize in its Geography section (cf WP:COUNTRIES), and this is approximately it. In other cases where almost all of the territory of a state is an island of the same name, e.g. Iceland, Madagascar, Cuba, Jamaica, we don't have separate articles for the state and the island, presumably because that would lead to too much duplication. All we need to do is tweak the description in the first paragraph, to include the other 1% of the state. Kanguole 11:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • oppose. Taiwan is the common name of the country. It is also the name for the geographical entity, but the country is overwhelmingly what it is used for.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Procedural oppose These RMs are badly formatted because they had not been combined and risk contradictory outcomes. Timrollpickering 12:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current article at Taiwan is the primary topic, not this. Nohomersryan (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 20:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Taiwan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Geography 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)