Talk:Taipei Songshan Airport

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

I heard that part of the argument against opening the three direct links is that mainland flights would fly in here instead to CKS, and this would potentially cause a security issue. Is this true? Do the charter flights to the mainland land and takeoff here instead of CKS? --Jiang 03:15, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I don't think they do. The airport's official website says nothing about fights to the mainland.Vancouverguy 03:19, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

It's the most brain-dead argument I've ever heard. It takes at least 1 hr to travel from Taipei City to the CKS International Airport (if without traffic congestion). After 9/11, it may take up to two hrs to check your luggage. An international flight may require you to leave your home 3 to 4 hrs earlier. Not to mention fewer and fewer airliners are providing direct flights from CKS to international cities these days. Air travel from Taiwan to almost anywhere other than LA, NY, and some major Asian cities and a couple of European cities now become quite difficult.
If Songshan Airport handles regional flights (e.g. Shanghai, Beijing, HK, Tokyo and Seoul), a Taipei citizen can take a city bus to the airport and save a little time and a lot of money. If we are allowed to fly to Shanghai and transfer there, it'll be a huge time and money saver. -- Toytoy 11:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan[edit]

I'm making it clear that this airport is located on Taiwan. I think putting Taiwan, ROC is confusing to people who don't know histories of Taiwan and China.--Jerrypp772000 01:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think Taiwan, ROC will be confusing, and wouldn't make sense, because it would not be a administrative division, so ROC wouldn't be needed.--Jerrypp772000 19:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan, ROC is fine. If you think administrative divisions should be respected, why are you purposely removing references to Taiwan, ROC in other articles like Daya, Taichung -Chunghwa Pride 02:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Taiwan, ROC is not a political division. Taiwan Province, ROC is, but Taipei City is not part of Taiwan Province. Since it's not it should either be Taipei City, ROC (Taiwan) (political division) or Taipei, Taiwan (common name+geographical description)--Jerrypp772000 01:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Taipei City, ROC, in northern Taiwan is also fine.--Jerrypp772000 01:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this argument is completely invalid. The Republic of China is a political entity, while Taiwan is a physical entity. You cannot state that a physical location exists within a non-tangible entity unless you explicitly state that the TSA lies within the jurisdiction of the ROC. As thus, "Taipei, Taiwan" is the only acceptable naming. You say "I'm going to Taiwan", not "I'm going to the Republic of China" because of the type of entity those two are.Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Despite the fact that Taiwan is governed by the ROC government, this article isn't about the political status of the location of the airport.--Jerrch 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Why can't we state both? What harm will it do to state the political division where the airport is located? The current statement is not false or made-up. I don't see why we should avoid stating political division. --Will74205 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The question should be "Why? Why state both?" Again, this article is not about the political status of Taiwan. As stated in WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The people reading this page are not looking for information on the government currently governing Taiwan, they want information on the airport itself.--Jerrch 23:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. These articles should be factual and to the point, without any politics getting involved (unless when appropriate, such as stating KMT intentions to use TSA as a cross-strait port and DPP objections). Any political information should be saved for political articles. Furthermore, the TPE article, which probably sees a higher amount of viewer traffic, doesn't need to make the political distinction and stays neutral. Because of this and WP policy, designations should be (district, if applicable), (city), Taiwan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Butterfly0fdoom (talkcontribs) 00:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, if we are to left political information out, should political division such as Songshan District, Taipei City, be left out as well? Again, I believe including both information is political neutral, not excluding one or the other. --Will74205 (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You don't get the point, do you? When you say "Where is Songshan Airport located?", one would respond "It's in Taipei" or "It's in Taiwan". You don't refer to the physical island as ROC. That is one political boundary that shouldn't be used in this instance. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Songshan, Taipei, Republic of China is a string of political jurisdictions. These same people would not know about the existence of Songshan District. And Songshan is not any more physical than Republic of China.--Jiang (talk) 06:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Then we remove Songshan district from the list and just state that the airport exists in Taipei, Taiwan. I don't know why the Songshan reference was needed to begin with, anyway, we could just wikilink Songshan in the airport's name instead. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Why remove useful information? This article is not in danger of becoming too long. Having "Songshan" there helps make the connection between the airport name and its location. Wikilinking in the bolded title is discouraged by the MoS. I don't see the gain.--Jiang (talk) 06:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well you don't bring a valid point against removing the ROC from the "address" of the airport, either. What else do you want me to make of your statement? Having "Republic of China" in the paragraph, the way it's used, is an improper use of the phrase. As thus, it should removed, as it's already wikilinked at the end of that same paragraph in a correct usage way. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The point must be made for changing something that's there (ie removing something) rather than not changing something (ie keeping it as is). The point for keeping it there is that it is relevant and informative. We cannot reference "ROC Air Force" without providing some context. I don't see how the use of the term is "improper" as part of a strong of political jurisdictions. If it's wikilinked a second time in the same paragraph, then the MoS suggests we delink the second instance.
I'm afraid this whole discussion - as is most likely the case when we add and remove the term and move articles to titles with the term and without - is between those who want to sweep "Republic of China" under the rug as if it did not exist and those who want to wave it up high to emphasize its continued existence. There's really no depth to it.--Jiang (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll just make this clear, I believe that the Republic of China is a legitimate political entity that has jurisdiction over the physical entity of Taiwan, Matsu, Kinmen, and the Pescadores. Use of the ROC or Taiwan depends on context, and in the context of the geographic location of an airport, Taiwan is the appropriate term. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The way in which it is used is not solely geographical. I agree that ROC should not be used as a geographic entity. Something like "in northern Republic of China" should not be used in place of "in northern Taiwan", but we are listing Republic of China with other artificial entities: neither Songshan District nor Taipei City are marked by geographic land forms.--Jiang (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Will, our point is that we should keep this article non-political, and putting ROC here is political and unnecessary.--Jerrch 03:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ, as I think leaving the ROC out is "political". The statement "the airport is in Songshan District, Taipei City, Republic of China in northern Taiwan" correctly describes the jurisdiction and government body of where the airport is located, while stating the airport is in northern Taiwan. As I made clear in the previous statements, I advocate the statement stay the same, including both political division and location information. --Will74205 (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The "in" shouldn't be there then, since we only use it when referring to a geographic entity. The only appropriate way to include the ROC is to put something like in Taipei, Taiwan, which is under jurisdiction of the Republic of China. However, that would not be necessary as stated before: even if something is verifiable, it doesn't mean it can be included. The political status of Taiwan has little to do with the airport.--Jerrch 22:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It is "in Songshan District, which is a district of Taipei City, which is a central municipality of the Republic of China". We sort of get the idea. Who said commas had to mean "in" instead of "of"? It is in Songshan, but Songshan is of other things and hence the commas...--Jiang (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia tends to treat the ROC as a political entity rather than a geographic location. Cities on the other hand, can be both political and geographical. Even if the commas meant "of," we still don't need to add the political entity to this article, as it's not really relevant to the airport.--Jerrch 23:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
We are indeed referring to it as a political entity at the same time we imply that it occupies space. The relevance to the airport is contained in the last sentence of the lead paragraph.--Jiang (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
And, therefore, that is sufficient reference to the ROC and ROC is being used properly in that instance of usage. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I still don't see how the first reference is "inappropriate". Who said we could use the term only once?--Jiang (talk) 07:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
I never said we couldn't use it more than once. I'm just saying that using it to describe the geographic location of the airport is an inappropriate usage of the term. The main issue I have is that de jure jurisdiction and boundaries for the ROC don't exist, therefore the two terms cannot be used interchangeably. ROC is treated as political on Wikipedia (cities are geopolitical and also have set boundaries that, in this situation, are accepted by the international community), therefore using it in the place of a geographical term is inappropriate. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Using it as a geographic entity is an inappropriate usage of the term. Using it as a political entity that occupies geographic space is not an inappropriate usage of the term. Whether the ROC=Taiwan or the ROC=China is irrelevant. In either case, the ROC administers Taipei City. Something like "in northern Republic of China" is dependent on knowing set boundaries and cannot be used. Something like "Taipei City, Republic of China" is not dependent on knowing set boundaries; it is only dependent on knowing the existence of Taipei City within these undefined boundaries.--Jiang (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
And, unless someone were looking for articles pertaining to politics in relation to the island of Taiwan or the ROC, which do you think would be more known, Taiwan or ROC? Taipei City, Republic of China is dependent on knowing of its existence and, given that in modern history textbooks it's not something that's treated as substantial, ROC should only be referred to when politics are explicitly being referred to. Once again, WP:NOT. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
So again, I don't see including "Republic of China" is "wrong" or "inappropriate". It is a relevant information on what country, city, and district the airport is located. A Wikipedia article doesn't have to be "apolitical", especially on relevant information. --Will74205 (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) Given the political sensitivities that surround anything has bears any political relation to the ROC, being as apolitical as possible is important as past flareups have demonstrated. (2) ROC is relevant, just not when describing the location of an airport. When describing the usage, such as ROC Air Force, it's appropriate. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 06:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
About the "flareup", since when Wikipedia is about satisfying one group of people's political point of view? Like I said before, there is nothing false about the original statement. About relevant to this article, the jurisdiction of the airport is certainly important enough to be included, not "hinted" like the statement that says it is used by "ROC President". --Will74205 (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Then state jurisdiction instead of treating ROC like a location. Here's an idea: "Taipei Songshan Airport (etc) is a midsize airport in Songshan District, Taipei City, Taiwan. It handles domestic flights to cities within the Republic of China." Proper usage of both words within the first two sentences. At the same time, though, we may as well decide on what do with every ROC airport article, as there is no universal consensus. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 08:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
"Songshan District, Taipei City, Republic of China" already states the political division of which the airport is located. In the official government structure, there is no "Taipei City, Taiwan", the "in northern Taiwan" part of the original statement is something extra that says the geo-location of the airport. But the point is, there is nothing in the original statement that didn't say what your statement says, so why change it. --Will74205 (talk) 08:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
(1) Because, like I've already stated, it's an improper use of ROC (which cannot be used interchangeably with Taiwan for reasons already stated). (2) There is no consistency in this usage for the articles for airports under ROC jurisdiction. We need to decide on something for consistency, and this is a good time to do so. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 08:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Politics should not be added to this article unless relevant. The official jurisdiction of the location of this airport is irrelevant to this article. People come to this article to find information on this airport itself, not the political status of its location.--Jerrch 14:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
We are going nowhere with this argument. What you think is irrelevant or inappropriate I would otherwise. I would think the government of which the airport is located is an important information about the airport, but obviously you don't think so. As for standardizing the location usage, I would certainly favor the format of "City/County Name, Taiwan, Republic of China" for airports that are outside of Taipei City and Kaohsiung City. I don't think the fact Taiwan is governed by the ROC should be "hidden" just because some group of people don't like it. --Will74205 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you stopped assuming that I'm operating under some sort of political agenda. My point is that you need to use the words in the correct context. I don't think ROC should be hidden, I just don't think using Taiwan and ROC interchangeably is correct because one is an island governed by the ROC and the other is a government that governs Taiwan, Kinmen, Matsu, and the Pescadores. The distinction needs to be made clear. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you are operating under some political agenda, but I do think you are trying to appease some group of people just because sometimes they are more active in Taiwan related articles. I don't think "Taiwan" and "Republic of China" are interchangeable either, that is why the original statement "Songshan District, Taipei City, Republic of China in northern Taiwan" states the airport is under the ROC jurisdiction and geographically located in northern Taiwan. So I continue to think no change is needed to the original statement. --Will74205 (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not hidden. There's a whole article on it. And, of course, there are also Republic of China and other political articles that state the fact. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.--Jerrch 19:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

If Taiwan and the Republic of China are truly not interchangeable (a point that I would avoid arguing), then we can only use Republic of China and not Taiwan because the PLACE COMMA PLACE format is usually reserved solely for political and administrative entities. You will see "Tokyo, Japan" but not "Tokyo, Honshu". For example, in "Cupertino, California" neither Cupertino nor California refer to geographic land forms but artificially carved political and geographic entity. As Taipei is not part of any political or administrative entity named Taiwan (unless you use Taiwan as the conventional short form of the ROC, which you can't do if you want to claim the two are not interchangeable), "Taiwan, Taiwan" cannot be used. (Note: This is not necessarily a point I want to make, but it is one that follows from the assumptions being made here.)

Just because people might not know about "the Republic of China" does not mean we should avoid using the term until the last sentence of the paragraph. The term will appear either way. The best way to solve this problem is to link to it earlier, rather than later. However, I believe the proposed wording "It handles domestic flights to cities within the Republic of China." is inappropriate usage of the term because it implies that the Republic of China = Taiwan Area. Do we count Hong Kong/Macau/Mainland as "within the Republic of China" as the laws restricting flights to the latter do? This is political controversy we should not touch, and an instance were "Taiwan" (or more commonly in Chinese, "Taiwan Area") would be more appropriate than "Republic of China".--Jiang (talk) 07:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually "It handles domestic flights to cities within the Republic of China" is more appropriate, as Kinmen, Matsu, and the Pescadores have airports and are under juristiction but aren't on the island of Taiwan. As for your arguments, I see your point, but your last sentence is confusing as to the point it's making.

Giving it more thought, in order to accomondate those airports outside of the island of Taiwan, "(city), (island), ROC" would be a better implementation. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The "neutral" term used to group Kinmen and Matsu with Taiwan is "Taiwan Area" (zh:臺灣地區). "It handles domestic flights to cities within the Taiwan Area." would be preferable to "It handles domestic flights to cities within the Republic of China." because it does not imply that the Republic of China has set boundaries.--Jiang (talk) 07:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
How about addressing my proposed solution that would eliminate the need to say "it handles domestic flights to cities within (whatever)", a statement I proposed as a means of getting both Taiwan and ROC in the introductory paragraph. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I think airports outside of the Taiwan Island should be described as "CITY, ROC (Taiwan)," even for the ones in Kinmen and Matsu.--Jerrch 19:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that it implies that Taiwan IS the ROC, which it isn't. Even Taiwan Area makes more sense than Taiwan for the outlying islands. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Taiwan Area is fine by me too. At least it could be a geographical term, unlike ROC.--Jerrch 20:44, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Then <city (if on Taiwan), province (if outlying island, as that's what's currently being used uniformly)>, <island>, ROC <in the Taiwan Area (if an outlying island)> works? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 21:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe there's only two airports not on the Taiwan Island. We can talk about this problem on the talkpages of these articles. However, this article should not include ROC as its location.--Jerrch 21:50, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's how I felt until I saw that all of the PRC airport articles went by <city>, People's Republic of China. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, PRC isn't as political as ROC. The fact that the ROC claims all of mainland China but only administrates the Free Area makes it a non-geographic term. PRC, on the other hand, administrates mainland China.--Jerrch 23:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
They've actually stopped making that claim for a while (if they were still making those claims, the mainland visits wouldn't have been possible, same for cross-strait charters). PRC still claims jurisdiction over the Taiwan area, however, and this claim is what is internationally recognized. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The constitution still does.--Jerrch 00:05, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
The constitution has a lot of clauses that aren't currently in effect, too. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it, ROC is more like the Palestinian National Authority. The ROC de facto administrates Taiwan just as the PA de facto administrates the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Even the cities under PA rule does not mention the authority anywhere in the articles but in the history or government section. You wouldn't say, The Gaza City is located in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian National Authority, the article would probably mention the PA when referring to its official jurisdiction. Now, airports are totally different from cities. airports are architectural structures that are located somewhere but would never be considered an administrative district, at least in this case it wouldn't.--Jerrch 16:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Then how will you PHRASE it? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
For this article, it would simply be ...District, Taipei City, Taiwan. For the airports in Kinmen or Lienchiang, ...CITY, COUNTY, Taiwan (Republic of China) would be fine. This follows WP:NC-ZH, too.--Jerrch 17:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
If there is a WP guideline, then it shall be implemented as thus. The dispute ends here. For airports on the island, use Taiwan. For airports not on the island, Taiwan (Republic of China) or republic of China (Taiwan). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see in the WP:NC-ZH that "prohibit" the use of "Republic of China" when describing a political division. I think you are missing the point here: the first part indicate the "political division" of which the airport is located, and the second part indicate the geographic location, which I don't see any conflict with the WP:NC. Therefore, I'll revert back to original version in 24hr. --Will74205 (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
"When identifying a geographic location on the island of Taiwan" is listed under "Taiwan". Given the examples listed, Taiwan is the appropriate use. Therefore, if you revert, I will undo your reversion. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 03:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any example in the WP:NC that fits this article specifically, so the original statement is also a "proper usage". Your change doesn't make this article "better", as you have failed to convince me why the change is necessary. --Will74205 (talk) 04:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said, WP:NC-ZH explicitly states to use Taiwan when describing geographic locations on the island. Because WP policy says so and because the policy is derived from pre-established community consensus, we will follow that policy. The article as it is violated WP:NC-ZH, therefore the article will be modified to conform to a pre-established consensus. I don't need to convince you why the change I am implementing is necessary. Rather, you need to convince those that created the policy why your way is better (I myself not being one of those people, as I wasn't even aware such a policy existed). Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
We need to find someone neutral to determine if the original statement violates WP:NC-ZH, I don't think I can take your word for it. --Will74205 (talk) 09:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Why not? Butterfly0fdoom already explained how there was already a pre-established consensus. If you want, you can always start a new discussion at WP:NC-ZH.--Jerrch 14:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think his application of the policy is in question. Also, the original statement was a compromise we reached in February and I find it far more acceptable from the current version, as the original version states the correct official administrative hierarchy AND location in Taiwan. --Will74205 (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, a newer consensus was reached after the old version. I do not recall your participation in the discussion. And as I have said in the last comment, you can always bring up a discussion at WP:NC-ZH.--Jerrch 17:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
That was because I think Jiang can cite Wikipedia policy better than I can. Anyways, I already put in a request for editor assistance. We'll see what happens. --Will74205 (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the neutral editor thinks Butterfly0fdoom is right.--Jerrch 21:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
It technically makes you right. I just follow WP when presented with it. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

International Potential[edit]

This section lacks a clear context. It needs to make some reference to government policy or plans specifically related to the Songshan Airport. In its current form it is just a general paragraph saying that some cities in Asia have airports in the city area. Davidreid (talk) 07:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Shongshan airport has no international potential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.168.30.185 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Buildings at the end of the runway?[edit]

I had a stopover in Taiwan on my way to Manilla in 1978. I don't recall which airport in Taiwan, but it may have been this one. I remember the landing approach was very low over some buildings, and soon as the wheels touched, the pilot had the brakes and thrust reversers on for all they could do all the way down the runway and through a big u-turn to get the plane stopped. Flight originated in San Francisco, 9 hour layover due to China Airlines not taking off until every seat was filled and the cargo hold full. Had an emergency stop in Hawaii due to a nervous first time passenger eating a whole bag of dried banana chips. She had the equivalent of a full bunch of bananas pumped out of her stomach! In-flight movie was some Chinese western with subtitles. Two weeks later on the return flight they had the same movie! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talkcontribs) 07:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taipei Songshan Airport. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)