From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Taiwan was one of the Geography and places good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Taiwan:
  • Improve article based on feature article review
  • Add a short section about the culture and the geography of the ROC territories (with links to the main articles)
  • Review alt text of images
  • Should the role and influence of Sun Yat-sen be introduced in the History section?
Stock post message.svg Taiwan Article Guidelines

The following guidelines have been established by consensus and convention:

  1. Simplified Chinese shall remain in the linguistics infobox per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (use of Chinese language)#Simplified and Traditional
  2. Please do not add Simplified characters and tongyong pinyin to the country infobox.
  3. Please refrain from adding "(Taiwan)" all over the article as this article includes substantial information about the Republic of China prior to the Taiwan post-war era.

Shortening lead section[edit]

The current lead section is way too long. I propose shortening it as so: User:Szqecs/sandbox Szqecs (talk) 04:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is currently too long.
For one thing, the recently-added second paragraph, about ancient and dynastic China, is point-making, and should be simply deleted, as suggested by User:TheBlueCanoe.
The other principal cause of bloat is the substantial overlap between the fourth paragraph (except its final sentence) and the sixth paragraph, and the over-emphasis on formal markers such as APEC membership and Vatican recognition. They should be combined into a single paragraph about Taiwan's status. I agree that it should get much less space than now, but it needs to be more specific than the last two sentences of your proposed revision. In particular, it should mention the PRC's claim and threat of force.
The last sentence of the fourth paragraph should be combined with the fifth paragraph in a single paragraph about the economic and political transformation of Taiwan in the late 20th century, and its current state.
So I would suggest the following paragraphs:
  1. introduction (as now)
  2. history to 1949 (current third paragraph)
  3. economic and political transformation
  4. international status
Kanguole 15:23, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The article is talking about polity Republic of China, and Republic of China regards itself as China. Therefore the second paragraph is simply fine. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
If the second paragraph is to be kept it should detail how and when the island first was part of the territory of a mainland dynasty. (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The article is talking about polity Republic of China, not geographical entity island of Taiwan. For how and when the island of Taiwan first was part of the territory of a mainland dynasty, please detail it in article history of Taiwan. --Matt Smith (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The second paragraph (the one that begins with the dangling modifier "being one of the cradles of civilization") doesn't belong in the lead because it covers information that doesn't fit anywhere else in the body of the article. The history section clearly states, "See the History of China article for historical information in the Chinese Mainland before 1949." Repeating information on the history of China in this Taiwan/ROC article only serves to make a political point. Phlar (talk) 21:47, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
"Taiwan" is not the formal abbreviation of Republic of China and is misleading. Since the article talks about Republic of China, repeating information on the history of China in this Republic of China article is fine. And the article says Republic of China represented China at the United Nations before 1971 and after that it still regards itself as China. --Matt Smith (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Reading this article, I found the topic is Republic of China (not Taiwan island), but I found the third paragraph and the "History" section are about Taiwan itself (geographical entity) rather than ROC (polity) or geographical China (not PRC). Republic of China (1912–49) is another article about ROC. However, readers can't find it directly. That's not good... So here is an important question: Which topic is this article, everything on Taiwan island, or the country named ROC (but it's commonly called Taiwan)? The talk page says "Taiwan is ...... in Geography." Confusing. --逆襲的天邪鬼 (talk) 04:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Judging from the template {{Infobox country}} used at the right side of the article, this is a political article talking about polity Republic of China. So the other contents talks about geographical entity island of Taiwan is indeed confusing.
If the article also wants to talk about island of Taiwan, it needs to also use template {{Infobox islands}} as used in article island of Taiwan. However, that is inappropriate because that changes the nature of this article. I suggest that contents which talks about island of Taiwan be removed from the article in order to avoid confusions. --Matt Smith (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. We're talking about a country (although it's with limited recognition some people from mainland China even consider it totally gone), not just the island where the state is now. Texts that say about Taiwan island but not related to ROC (events before 1945 - controlled by Japan or 1895 - no ROC here) should be moved to Taiwan island (and Geography of Taiwan should be renamed to Taiwan island), I think. The categories of this article should be changed, too.
I'm new in enwp. Let me tell what things are in zhwp: "China" refers to historical and cultural China, not PRC or ROC (of course not). "Taiwan" (en: Geography of Taiwan) is Taiwan island. And ROC is called its own name - "Republic of China" and "Republic of China (1912-1949)". Other words are the same.
In ROC article of zhwp, "History" section is saying about ROC not Taiwan island. Because there is another article introducing ROC before 1949, the rest sections focus on things after 1949.
--逆襲的天邪鬼 (talk) 07:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The arrangement on enwp was also the one you describe, until about 5 years ago – this was the article at "China" before it was moved to Chinese civilization and stripped down to a disambiguation page. The change was made to place the articles under their common names, where people would expect to find them. It also matches the arrangement in other encyclopedias, such as Britannica.[1][2] Kanguole 15:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Since there is so much to cover, I think the earlier history can be removed from lead and left only in the history section: User:Szqecs/sandbox. Szqecs (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I think all of these should depend on what this article is focusing on (as discussed above). In fact, there have been so many wiki pages on the Taiwan Area--both politically and geometrically, I was thinking to propose to call this article as "ROC in Taiwan" as it seems focus more on the Taiwan area as a part of ROC and not much related to PRC. However, if counting on the pre-Qing sections, it seems referring to the geological area as called Taiwan province. So, I would remove the seemingly biased polical statement on the first part and focus on the geological area and leave the history and other parts as they are. See also discussions on this talk page[3] for the usage of similar names in official places. I2000s (talk) 16:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

@Kanguole: Can we removed pre-Qing sentences from the lead as well? It's too distant and can be left for the History section. Szqecs (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article. If the aim is to make the lead shorter, I'd focus on combining and condensing the material on status in the third and fifth paragraphs. Kanguole 15:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2016[edit]

This article refers to Taiwan as a "state", which is defined by H.J. De Blij in Human Geography (An AP class taught to American high school students) as "A politically organized territory that is administered by sovereign government and is recognized by a significant portion of the international community. A state has a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and is recognized by other states."

Taiwan fits all parts of the definition of a state, however it is not recognized by a significant portion of the international community, as your own Wikipedia page on Taiwan's political status indicates. "On 25 October 1971, Resolution 2758 was passed by the UN General Assembly, which "decides to restore all its rights to the People's Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations, and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it." It should be noted that the Resolution 2758 merely dealt with the issue of Chinese representative in UN without any reference to the legal status of Taiwan. Multiple attempts by the Republic of China to rejoin the UN, no longer to represent all of China but just the people of the territories it governs, have not made it past committee, largely due to diplomatic maneuvering by the PRC, which claims Resolution 2758 has settled the matter. (See China and the United Nations.)" - Wikipedia, "Political Status of Taiwan" page.

Thus it cannot be classified as "Taiwan (Listeni/ˌtaɪˈwɑːn/), officially the Republic of China (ROC), is a state in East Asia.[12] Neighbors include the People's Republic of China (PRC, commonly known as "China") to the west, Japan to the northeast, and the Philippines to the south. Taiwan is the most populous non-UN state and the largest economy outside the UN."

I urge you to change this phrase, albeit small, to nation as quickly as possible, to spark less controversy in the on-going debates. Taiwan is it's own nation, however it doesn't fit the definition of a state because it has no international recognition.

Thanks Richardtigerlai (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done Have you used the search box at the top of this page to view the previous "sovereign state" and "state" discussions on archived talk pages? There are many many hits over the past eight years +. It's been argued from many angles. Lot's of definitions of "state" exist. Changing it to "state" from "sovereign state" was as far as we could go. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
The reference provided for the first sentence does not support the characterization of Taiwan/ROC as a "state." Chondrite (talk) 23:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Capital of the ROC Question[edit]

According to the BBC Article here, it clearly states that Taipei, is never the permanent capital of the Republic of China, but a temporary provisional capital. Nanjing is actually the official capital of China (ROC) per the Ministry of Education of the ROC even though the PRC occupied it. Discussions are welcome. Wrestlingring (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That is not a BBC article, and it does not say that Taipei is a temporary provisional capital. It does say, regarding the MOE letter: "Taiwan's interior minister was latter forced to reaffirm to the legislature that 'since Taipei is the seat of our central government, it is our nation's capital.'" Kanguole 22:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Contemporaneous reporting of the minister's statement (and apology from MOE):
Kanguole 11:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Taipei is the capital, as discussed (and agreed?) three months ago. See Archive 24. Phlar (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
I just sent an email to the ROC Foreign Affairs Ministry the other day, who will be forwarding it to the ROC Ministry of Interior when I receive it to clarify the capital of the ROC at the moment. Wrestlingring (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

But still, even in accordance to the article 4 of the constitution of the Republic of China: "The territory of the Republic of China within its existing national boundaries shall not be altered except by a resolution of the National Assembly." So this refers to another question, which meant in the article 4 stipulated that the ROC still claims the territories of the PRC-controlled Mainland China and Hainan, apart from the territories of Taiwan, small portions of Fujian Province, Matsu, Penghu, Kinmen and some areas near the South China Sea. (talk) 12:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The "fact" that Nanjing is the official ("de jure") capital of the Taiwan/RoC is widespread on Wikipedia, often supported by a claim that this is "according to the constitution". As an example, see List of national capitals in alphabetical order. But neither Nanjing nor the word "capital" is mentioned in the English version of the constitution, as can be seen here. My question then is: Is there anything at all to support the claim of Nanjing as an "official" capital? If not, we have some clean-up to do! --T*U (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
The story that the constitution names Nanjing as the capital appears to have originated with a circular to schools on 2 December 2013. Shortly afterwards the interior minister confirmed that the constitution does not name the capital, and that the capital is Taipei; an MoE official apologized for the circular. The news articles linked above have the story. So yes, there is some cleanup to do. Kanguole 23:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

More fragmented discussions[edit]

In addition to the Requested move discussion(s) above (Taiwan → Republic of China, Geography of Taiwan → Taiwan) and the long row of other connected, but separately listed China/Taiwan-related Requested move-suggestions from the same proposer (China → People's Republic of China, China (disambiguation) → China, Politics of China → Politics of the People's Republic of China, Flag of China → Flag of the People's Republic of China; I may have missed some...) there is also a merge suggestion that went under my radar for some time. The suggested merger is from Republic of China (1912–49) to Taiwan. The normal procedure would be to have the discussion here at Talk:Taiwan, and if you click on "discuss" in the merge banner template on either page, you are taken here. But the merge discussion is instead located at Talk:Republic of China (1912–49)#Merger Discussion. In addition, the merge suggestion has also been added to the Wikipedia:Proposed mergers#MERGE REQUESTS, so there are actually two discussions, but not in the place you would expect... --T*U (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit to Prehistory section[edit]

Regarding this revert,

  1. The present-day speakers of Austronesian languages have a complex and diverse genetic history. To label these settlers from six millennia ago as Austronesians is anachronistic. Moreover, although the idea that Austronesian originated on Taiwan is the majority view, it is not universal. What is universally accepted is that they were agriculturalists, i.e. farmers.
  2. Some qualification like "probably" or "most likely" is necessary to accurately convey the views in the field – again, most scholars consider southeast China the most likely source of the migration, but not all.
  3. I don't believe I removed sourced information. I changed "More than 8,000 years ago" to "Around 6,000 years ago", because that is what the sources say. I replaced a phrase directly quoted from a source with a paraphrase. I did remove two citations of papers on genetics, because they provide only passing mentions of this archaeological topic, and replaced with them with a reference to Jiao (2007), an archaeologist surveying the current state of work in this field.

Kanguole 00:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The two genetics papers (Hill et al and Bird et al) focus on the dispersal across island southeast Asia and Oceania – their discussion of Taiwan is peripheral, so a source that adresses the subject directly (like Jiao) is to be preferred. Still, both of them contradict "More than 8,000 years ago". Kanguole 18:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)