Talk:Taiwan (island)/Archive 1
|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.|
I've completed the template, but I need help with the finishing touches. Could someone please add a romanisation for the official name (I assume "Republic of China") below the current Chinese name? Also, could someone verify that Taiwan indeed has no national coat of arms? Thanks. -Scipius 21:44 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)
Actually Taiwan does have a national seal which consists of the white star on blue background.
I NPOV'ed large sections of history. I suspect that the language I used is non-controversial, but I will justify my edits if necessary.
Also. Calling ben-sheng-ren "Taiwanese" was once common but it is *extremely* discouraged now (and I'll go into the historical context if necessary). The term "native Taiwanese" is not a good one because it is confusing whether it is referring to aboriginals or to ben-sheng-ren. I wish there were a common English term for "ben shen ren" but I can't think of one.
The situation on romanization on Taiwan was incorrect. Wades-Giles hasn't been used widespreadly for a while, and if you look at what is used for romanization, it is a mess. There are huge political issues associated with this.
Changed the first paragraph and moved information to History of Taiwan. I was thinking it over during and it suddenly hit me how Han chauvanistic the previous first paragraph was.
- The history, though it provided useful information, was far too long for what is intended in the country template. The history section is supposed to only contain a summary of the most important events in a given country's history. More detailed info is to go in the dedicated history page: History of Taiwan. I have moved and merged the extended text there, please check that it is to everyone's satisfaction. Also, could someone please add a romanisation? Thanks. -Scipius 15:33 Apr 13, 2003 (UTC)
Since Taiwan is technically a province of the Republic of China, the tables and any discussion of politics relating to the ROC government should be put under ther ROC article, not the Taiwan article. What do you all say?
The last edit should be deleted because the Taiwan does not have a provincial flag. The flag they use is the ROC's flag, and I labeled it rightly so.
-Jiang April 21, 2003
Um, my vote is no. -- Zoe
To clarify, "Taiwan's flag" should be changed back to "the ROC's flag". Why not? -Jiang
I think that the flag *should* be labelled as the ROC flag, but that current Taiwanese politics should be listed on this page rather than on the ROC page. Something that should be noted is that formating the Taiwan entry as a country page and listing most of the information here should be uncontroversial because the Hong Kong and Macao pages (both of which are undisputably part of China and the People's Republic of China) are formatted the same way.
I moved the article, flag of Taiwan to flag of ROC. This should be an NPOV, because no one on Taiwan or Mainland China identifies the flag as the flag of Taiwan, and the fact that the flag is identified as the ROC flag rather than the Taiwanese flag is extremely important in Taiwanese politics.
- I moved the tables back to the Taiwan article because as RR also indicates, this is part of the country template and "Taiwan" is where most people would expect to find an entry on the country itself. As for changing the flag to "flag of the ROC", I agree that it's no problem, I originally changed it back to "of Taiwan" solely because the flag article wasn't moved yet and was thus a dead link. I do think that there should be no country table in the Republic of China article though, as the table is more specifically intended for and complementary to the country template article and therefore Taiwan itself (though obviously the flag should stay). The only somewhat similar situation I can think of would be the Vatican: the sovereign entity is the Holy See, but the territorial state is the Vatican City.
- Finally, the table in the ROC article said Taipei was the provisional capital and Nanjing the official one. Is this true? I couldn't find any info on it on the governmental website, but if this is an official position then we can add it to the table as a footnote. -Scipius 19:36 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)
- References to Nanking as the official capital can be found here:[] "The government on Taiwan recognizes the mainland city of Nanjing (spelled Nanking in Taiwan) as its official capital, and designates Taiwan’s largest city of Taipei as its temporary capital. " Please add this back in.
- Why not have the template appear on both articles? Or let's have a template that shows what the ROC officially claims vs. what it controls. Some info (such as the capital of the ROC and date when it was declared) would be useful in the ROC article.
- I don't think that there is anything wrong with putting the template in the ROC article. Also there is a reason why you won't find Taipei listed as provisional capital in any current government document, and I'll bet that you won't find Taipei listed as non-provisional capital either. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party tends toward Taiwan independence, and would very, very, very much like to have Taipei the permanent capital of Taiwan. However, if it were to formally do so, it would find itself opening up a pandora's box as large segments of the Taiwanese population (not to mention the PRC) would strongly object. So the DPP has dealt with the symbols of the ROC largely by not mentioning them. This is why is is very significant that the DPP at least uses the ROC flag and the title ROC on state occasions. It's a symbolic compromise that the DPP at least accepts the existence of the Republic of China. As part of that symbolic compromise, it leaves deliberately ambigious where the boundaries of the ROC are.
- It might seem silly, but the alternative is war and
political instability. One way to think about it is to compare it to those arcane disputes about the nature of the trinity in the third century. -- User:Roadrunner
- Thanks both. That would explain why I couldn't find anything on the site ;). I've added the note, and I also removed the added English name "Republic of China" from the table title. What we still need is a romanisation of the Chinese name, compare e.g. People's Republic of China or Russia, though I wouldn't know if this might also be a thorny problem (Wade-Giles vs. pinyin). I maintain however that the template should stay here at the conventional English name of the country, if only because the two articles would likely become too similar and synchronising them seems quite a task. I'd suggest that the ROC article remains more specifically concerned with the political entity itself (and its history) and keep more common country related info here, where most people would expect to find it. -Scipius 20:12 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)
Deletion of a phrase
- The disparity in the numbers may be due to racism, the understanding in Han families that children belong to the man and the need by later governments to forge greater ethnic ties to China. [emphasis added]
How does patriarchy play a role? Is it implying that Han fathers married aborginal women, whose children they had were claimed by the father and deemed by society to be father's only? This reason is not obvious and whose validity I cannot prove. It requires some elaborate explanations, but then, if so, it'd not fit in the basic intro of Taiwan. Perhaps in better fitted in Census of Taiwan or Demographics of Taiwan. And it requires serious rephrase.
--Menchi 22:20 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Aboriginal population %
An Anon changed the keyword of a statistics (not the #) dramatically:
- Original: Recent studies show approxamately 85% of the population have Mainland Chinese ancestry.
- Altered: Recent studies show approxamately 85% of the population have mixed Chinese/aboriginal ancestry.
It seems like a bit convenient that the two statistical analysis have the exact same # for two opposite populations. The mixed-blooded (ethnicity) and the non-mixed blooded. Second, correct my math if I'm wrong, but this data implies that aboriginals have (or had) been the majority even after the massive migration of the Han Chinese -- ergo, the massive intermarriage between two very massive population caused a massive mix-blooded population.
--Menchi 09:21 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- I'm changing it back. The original was correct, per these article s[] []. Jiang 10:00 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- Note these other articles:http://taiwansecurity.org/News/Newsweek-EscapingThePast.htm, http://freedomhouse.org/research/freeworld/2000/countryratings/taiwan.htm It seems that the 85% was referring to native Taiwanese, with the other 15% being waishengren. The second link has it at 84% benshengren, 14% waishengren, and 2% aboriginal. What numbers should we go with? Jiang 11:04 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Passage in question: The contemporary data used by the R.O.C. government claims 98% of the population is ethnically Han Chinese, leaving 2% aborigines of the Austronesian ethno-linguistic group. The figures claim 11% Hakka and 87% Han immigrants from China. The official figures are manipulated more by a long history of manipulation by succeeding governments and clashing traditions. Recent studies show approxamately 85% of the population have Mainland Chinese ancestry. The disparity in the numbers may be due to racism and the need by later governments to forge greater ethnic ties to China.
- I believe Hakka are a subgroup of Han immigrants. This paragraph needs some serious revising. Jiang
Revised to: The aboriginal population of Taiwan, divided into ten main tribes, now numbers only 2%. The remainder consists of Han Chinese, who themselves consist of early Han immigrants who are referred to as "Ben-sheng-ren" (84%) and later immigrants which are referred to as "Wai-sheng-ren" or "Mainlanders" (14%) that came with the ROC government in 1949. The Ben sheng ren on their part consist chiefly of Southern Fujianese, as well as the Hakka, who are concentrated in several counties throughout Taiwan. However, some claim that these official figures are inaccurate, since children with Han fathers and aboriginal mothers passed themselves off as Han.
- I changed it back to the old version, with a modifying final sentence. It was the same anon who added it in the first place: http://www.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Taiwan&diff=1025613&oldid=1025594. The other parts of the edit makes his crediblity problematic. Jiang 11:29 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)
- However, some claim that these official figures are inaccurate, since children with Han fathers and aboriginal mothers passed themselves off as Han.
This statement assumes that there is such a thing as objectively being Han and that someone with a Han father and an aboriginal mother is somehow "not really Han". All racial and ethnic categories are subjective.
If you take any Chinese person and trace their lineage back a few hundred years, you will no doubt find lots of "non-Han" people. Ultimately, we all are African.
- Yes, Zhuyin has been official in TW for a long time, but no, it is not official, ever, like a Romanization like pinyin. It isn't a Romanization in any sense. So, I don't even know why Zhuyin symbols are on this article. I mean, the symbols do have their own article: Zhuyin. That's where they belong. Elsewhere, we use English or at least "Englishoid alphabet" supplemented by Chinese characters with article-less proper nouns.
- So, Romanization to be used here: Wade-Giles or Tongyong? I would say W-G, because TY isn't gaining any momentum. And if it's not growing, it's probably dying. It's been three eventful years, and yet, Google reveals less than 20 "Jhong-hua" (or "Jhonghua"), but a thousand "Chung-hua Min-kuo". --Menchi 23:21 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Ok, W-G then...but do tone marks go on top? --Jiang 23:28 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I meant that W-G tone marks are "top" as in "numerical superscripts". Wade-Giles never used Zhuyin tone marks, like Romanized Zhuyin did and pinyin does. --Menchi 23:51 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Is Wade-Giles then to be the romanization system for this article? "Jhongsing" appears to be Tongyong Pinyin, while "Taichung" is the usual bastardized W-G used on the island.
- Whatever the romanization system used is, it must be used correctly and consistently. To do otherwise is a disservice to the user. -- Jiawen 19:33, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Organizing ROC-Taiwan articles
It is misleading to suggest that the Republic of China and Taiwan are the same thing. If you are assuming ROC=Taiwan, you are making a particular political group in Taiwan very very happy. The two are not synonymous. This is my suggestion:
- Any aspect of the Taiwan/ROC entity that only exists because of the existence of a state should be placed in the ROC article. Any aspect that would still exist if the government did not exist would be placed in the Taiwan article.
- The table, which exists only because the ROC does (flag, president, capital, etc.) should be moved to the ROC article. The area and population (given by the CIA factbook) also includes Kinmen and Matsu, so it is not describing Taiwan, but rather the entire jurisdiction of the ROC. Taipei is not the provincial capital of Taiwan, but the ROC. This will clear the confusion. Now people may think that 中華民國=Taiwan, as "Taiwan" is the bolded word in the first paragraph (and there is no english to point out otherwise). It is almost always the case that the official name of the country is bolded in the article, but this is impossible since a ROC article exists.
- The section on politics should be moved to the ROC article, since it is describing the ROC central government, not the Taiwan provincial government.
- The sections on geography, demographics, economy, and culture should remain in Taiwan since they pertain to the people and land and not the government.
- The section on political divisions should also remain since it describes the counties of Taiwan Province, and not the provinces of the ROC
- Both articles should have a section on the economy, with the bulk being kept in Taiwan. The ROC section should explain the participation in APEC and other governmental organizations and government policies.
- In the section on history anything pertaining to Taiwan should be kept. History pertaining to the ROC before moving to Taiwan should not.
- To make room for the moves, a new article entitled History of the Republic of China should be made, parallelling the History of the People's Republic of China, as most of History of Taiwan has nothing to do with the ROC and ROC history is now separated in different articles, making it confusing.
- Just like in the PRC article, new sections on foreign relations and the military can and should be made in the ROC article, given Taiwan's special situation.
- The precedent: China to parallel Taiwan, People's Republic of China to parallel Republic of China.
Since many people are expecting to find a description of the "country" in the Taiwan article, a statement should be added directing them there, but having the article itself there deceiving and promotes the pro-separatist motion that Taiwan=ROC, which is opposed by a significant number of unificationists.
--Jiang 01:25 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- This makes sense to me. Probably one of the first things in both articles should be at least a brief explanation of the terminology and controversy, for those people unfamiliar with it who would otherwise be confused. After that, putting state stuff in ROC and island stuff in Taiwan sounds like a reasonable way to do it, with links to each other (note in the ROC article that the ROC currently only controls Taiwan, and note in the Taiwan article that it is currently the only province ruled by the ROC). --Delirium 01:35 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- They weren't and aren't the same thing with freely alternating names. So, yes, some shuffling of material is needed, especially that very misleading county-stats table. --Menchi 01:48 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
No objections? Let us get started then. --Jiang 08:43 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Please go ahead. I think nobody except extremists and their sympatheziers want the way those articles are now -- confusing, that is. And makes no sense whatsover. --Menchi 21:13 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Now what about the subarticles Economy of Taiwan, Politics of Taiwan, Geography of Taiwan, etc. The politics section definately should be moved, but what about the others? Are we to say that Kinmen and Lienchiang are too insignificant and people would be looking for the article under "Taiwan" anyways, or are to we to say that it is technically incorrect (and somewhat confusing; note made in geography article) to name the articles as such? --Jiang 01:08 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- For some "TW" subarticles, they really are 99.99% about Taiwan. The politics? Well, it can't really be said of the ROC as a whole, because that subarticle starts talking about the politics after the ROC moved to Taiwan. And it gives no mentioning whatsoever to the Fujianese counties. So yeah, I'd say that that poli subarticle is really about Taiwanese politics. And those Fujianese ROC politics? Maybe redirect them to those county-articles until there's enough to be an article (maybe 2? I think Quemoy has more than that already.) --Menchi 19:08 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Maybe if we think that "Taiwan"=short form for "ROC" then it is okay. I think it's too much of a hassle. --Jiang
The info under the subheadings may contain some vestiges of TW=ROC writing earlier, I mv'ed "Political division" and left two sentences behind. Maybe it could be elaborated. --Menchi 19:08 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- The map needs to be modified. The note "Quemoy and Matsu are not shown" and the star over Taipei should be removed. People will mistake Taipei as the provincial capital. It is also necessary to note in this article that Taipei and Kaohsiung are on Taiwan island, but are not part of Taiwan province. I removed the listings for both in the Taiwan Province article.
- A physical map in the section would be nice too.
- --Jiang 19:18 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Suggestion. I think we should format the Taiwan article according to the Wikipedia Countries project format, which also happens to be the same as the Wikipedia SAR format. This should avoid some flame wars.
- Is Taiwan Island (Taiwan Dao) administratively anything? If not, there probably isn't statistics for the island alone, and no leader of the island (Dao Wang!). --Menchi 19:56 25 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- See Republic of China - the template has been moved there. There is no need to repeat the same template twice. --Jiang
For the reasons I stated above, the map needs some tweaking. I think it should be left out for the time being. --Jiang
- So, rm Quemoy-Mastu note & the star. Anything else useful to add/del? I might as well do some more while I'm at it. --Menchi 01:25, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
Maybe we should just leave this map alone and find a physical map. --Jiang
- I was thinking the CIA Factbook PDF file of Image:Map of China (physical) (small).jpg. It looks only slightly pixelated after 1600%, but the blue thin borders became enormously thick, like a lifebelt. How metaphorical. Moreover, it has no placename other than Taipei. --Menchi 01:50, Aug 1, 2003 (UTC)
I've modified the introduction section. The territory claims should contain geographic references (i.e. "islands"), and the political references (i.e. "provinces") should belong in the "Political divisions" section. I hope this can reduce some of confusion that have been raised by some readers. I've also NPOVed the political status paragraph so it contains equal empahsis on the claims made by all sides. --Luminus69
- Yes. The territory data should also be added to the Republic of China and Political divisions of Taiwan articles. --Jiang 07:43, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thank you all for typo corrections. :P --Luminus69
Language spoken in Taiwan
I recently wrote a newspaper article in which I said, on the basis of the information in this article, that the version of Chinese spoken in Taiwan was called Min-nan. The subeditors changed this to Hoklo. Could someone explain to me the difference? Does this article need correction? Adam 04:03, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- Hoklo is the version of Min-nan spoken in Taiwan. (It's more specific, i.e., a dialect of Min-nan.) Proponents of Taiwan independence won't call their language "Min-nan" because they want to avoid the linkage with Chinese, and some also want to stress non-sino-Tibetan language family influcences to claim that their language isn't really Chinese. For quite the opposite reason, the commies will use the term "min-nan" more often than "Taiwanese" and never Holo/Hoklo. Min-nan also includes other dialects spoken on the mainland, such as Chaozhou hua, so the two aren't synonymous.--Jiang 04:37, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
- The statement that "Hoklo is the version of Min-nan spoken in Taiwan" is highly incorrect. First of all, Hoklo is officially used in Hong-Kong and Macau to refer to a specific resident group in those places. Also, documented English usage of this term can be traced back to 19th century in an article about Christianity in Hong-Kong (October 16, 1845 in Scientific American, vol. I, number 8, page 3). Notice that 1845 happened long before the Sino-Japanese War in Qing dynasty and the ceding of Taiwan to the Japanese Empire, hence the usage of this term cannot possibly have anything to do with current Taiwanese issues. Hoklo is also the term used by Chinese linguists like Lo Ch'ang P'ei already in 1930, long before World War II and long before any Chinese/Taiwanese political strife came into existence. If one follows Lo's definition, Hoklo certainly includes Chaozhou/Teochew. Here is what Lo wrote (Monograph A, No. 4 of the National Research Institute of History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Peiping, 1930): "The Dialect of Amoy is one of the most important among Chinese dialect groups. Taken in a wider sense, it may be considered to cover the region from Sounthern Fukien, to Ch'ao Chou and Swatow, Hainan, Formosa, the Philippine Islands, Singapore, and other parts of the South Seas, in so far as Chinese is spoken there. The population speaking it is estimated at about twelf (sic) to fifteen million. It goes without saying that in such a vast linguistic area as this, some variations are become (sic) to exist among the different parts of this region. But the speech of Amoy and Kulangsu may be taken as the comparatively most prevailing variety, and the scope of the present study will be confined for the time being to the Amoy Dialect in this narrower sense. For the sake of brevity, we shall simply call this the Amoy Dialect, while the whole dialect group in the wider sense will be known as the Hoklo speech." Therefore, Hoklo is a historical English term used to refer to a widely spread group of people and their language, no matter whether they lived in Fujian, Taiwan, Guangdong/Hong-Kong, Hainan, or any part of Southeast Asia. More importantly, Hoklo is the term that these people called themselves and were called in the 19th century and earlier.
TAIWAN IS PART OF CHINA
ok, i agree with everything EXCEPT for one thing: the fact that Taiwan is still under the control of the PRC. yes they are asking for independence, but they are NOT YET a nation of it's own, and it will not be in the near future because the PRC just wont allow it. Period. Whoever wrote this article please correct the mistakes. the reason i am not correcting them is because im not that good with words, and if i did i would be forced to rewrite entire paragraphs which i do not have time to do...--Primexx 04:08, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)
- please read political status of Taiwan and possibly history of China and then come back to tell us what "mistakes" there are. I don't see any. --Jiang 05:52, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Taiwan is not in fact "asking for independence." It is still the official position of the ROC that Taiwan is part of China. Chen Shui-bian said in his inaugural address that his proposed constitutional revisions will not change that. Adam 07:09, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Taiwan has never been under the control of the PRC. The article does not say it is under the control of the PRC. Chen's position is that a declaration of independence is not necessary: "Taiwan has already been an independent sovereign country. Currently, Taiwan is already a country, an independent sovereign country. There is of course no question of declaring independence, because it is already a country."  --Jiang 08:36, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
There is no country called Taiwan, so Chen's statements above are no more than campaign rhetoric. There is a country called the Republic of China, which has existed since 1911 and which currently administers the island / province of Taiwan. Every country recognises that Taiwan is a province of China. Although some countries continue to recognise the government in Taipei as the government of China, no country recognises a country called Taiwan. Taiwan will not be "an independent sovereign country" until it asserts that it is one, by changing its constitution to (a) call itself Taiwan (b) define its national territory as the island of Taiwan and associated islands and (c) designate Taipei as its capital. If and when it has the courage to do that, it will be entitled to claim recognition as a sovereign state and to seek protection from Chinese aggression against it. So long as it lacks the courage to do so, it will have to be content with its present shadow existence as a non-state. Adam 09:12, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It is true that Taiwan != Republic of China in the technical sense, that is, unless they change the name or abolish the provincial governments completely. But the news media and most everyone else substitute "Taiwan" for "Republic of China". It's "Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian" instead of "Republic of China President Chen Shui-bian". Now under Chen, the government's caught on too. Most people don't know what the "Republic of China" is. Doesn't something that's untrue become true when almost everyone makes it out to be true? Chen is playing word games in the above in saying Taiwan=Republic of China, but that's really official endorsement of established and very common ignorance. --Jiang 10:33, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"Doesn't something that's untrue become true when almost everyone makes it out to be true?" I see you didn't pay attention during Philosophy 101. There was a time when everyone thought that the sun revolved around the earth. Did it? Adam 10:59, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I never took philosophy 101 so I don't know that. Actually, the sun does revolve around the earth. Physics 101 says there is no preferred frame of reference. I refuse to allow my planet to submit to the tyranny of its sun! --Jiang 11:29, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I am aware that, in a sense, the sun does revolve around the earth. However in the pre-Copernican world everyone thought that the earth was stationary and everything else revolved around it, which isn't the same thing. And my point was that the fact that everyone believed Ptolemaic cosmology to be true didn't make it so. Likewise, believing that there is a country called Taiwan doesn't make it so. Adam 04:41, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
"TAIWAN IS PART OF CHINA" ONLY WHEN MONGOLIA IS PART OF CHINA according to the constitution of ROC. If it's right that PRC says Taiwan is part of it because it is the successor of all those past dynasty in history ,I don't know what's wrong when the fascist Mussolini said as the successor of roman empire his regime had the right to rule over those lost territory.let alone it is always anachronistic to say "Qing dynasty" and "yuan dynasty" synonymous with "China" because they were actually manchu empire and mongol empire.It is ridiculos that they call themself as the successor of these two empire and asking for succession of their territory because never forget "outer manchuria" is now part of russia and mongolia is an independent country!
Oh yea right, you are dreaming that Taiwan is part of PRC theres no PRC army there,there is a ROC army there. Dudtz 7/30/05 6:46 PM EST
Until the problem of Taiwan is really settled. The island of Taiwan is the island of Taiwan is the island of Taiwan. -wshun 01:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK,let's get it straight. both Republic of Mongolia and PRC were new countries that were Independent from ROC in late 1940's. THAT IS A HISTORIC FACT NO ONE CAN DENIES.so it is OK if ROC abandons its constitution and gives recognition to Republic of Mongolia ,PRC,and republic of taiwan.Why not? These three countries can be all considered as the successors of ROC. Republic of Mongolia and PRC have no right to stop ROC from giving recognition to republic of taiwan because they were both Independent from ROC.LET ALONE the Treaty of San Francisco signed in 1951 Japan gave up the ruling right over Taiwan ,but Japan didn't give it to any other country. Therefore Taiwan does no belong to any other country. the only reason that PRC don't accept this is due to their greed for land and wealth of Taiwan.that's why PRC don't want to give up attacking taiwan by forces because they know they won't get the land and wealth without military annexation. As for their propaganda one China policy, the presupposition is that the controversy must be solved peacefully, but they ignored this on purpose. If PRC don't publcly give up attacking taiwan by forces, why should taiwan accept it?
Since I've already received some flak about it, I must clarify — listing Taiwan in Category:Disputed territories does not take a side. It acknowledges the multilateral political situation that exists. The PRC claims Taiwan as a "renegade province", and RoC exerts self-determination over its own future and foreign affairs, whether that means as the sovereign Republic of China or as an independent Taiwan. Each side disagrees, to the point of threatening war. As the status of the sovereignity over Taiwan is so disputed, it is disputed territory. The categorical inclusion makes no pro-Beijing statements nor pro-Taipei statements, and no pro-pan-blue nor pro-pan-green statements. It is simply a diplomatic fact. Until Beijing and Taipei can agree on sovereignity, this will remain fact. To be truthful, I was only filling out Category:Disputed territories to add territorial conflicts I know about, and while adding Black Hills and Sabah, I remembered Taiwan. - Gilgamesh 05:16, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
After the Pacific war ,in the Treaty of San Francisco signed in 1951 Japan gave up the ruling right over Taiwan ,but Japan didn't give it to any other country. Therefore Taiwan does no belong to any other country and preserve the right to hold a referendum to decide the future status of its own.
People's republic of China, the last main communist country, knows that there is no way Taiwan would want to become part of it if this referendum were hold. And therefore it won't allow this referendum to be hold because It is very likely that Taiwan people will get rid of those things which the Chiang Kai-shek imposed upon Taiwan. SO this is really ironic because in the past these communists wanted to eliminate Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang.Of course they don't want thoese things to be changed before they are ready to annex Taiwan(althogh It was doubted if they have the ability in the past).
On the other hand, unfortunately there are much more disputed territories for people's republic of China. For example, Diayutoi islands,just now part of Japan, is considered as its territory by People's republic of China. Besides almost all the islands in South China Sea ,ranging from straits of Malacca to the Strait of Taiwan, are also considered as its territory as well.There are also some problems along the border of its manchuria. In fact, their final goal is to control the sea-lane of east Asia and dominate east Asia ,controlling Japan by cutting its oil suply line and threatening USA by using Taiwan as a military base. The history has told us their goal very clearly if anyone remember the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979. After the war People's republic of China claimed that it invaded Vietnam because of Vietnamese Invasion of Cambodia. However, their claim is in vain because their true intention is to prevent another powerful country showing up in Southeast Asia, which could disserve their future plan to dominate East Asia.The Army of People's republic of China quickly withdraw from Vietnam simply because they knew they were not strong enough and Soviet Union just would not allow it. Without Soviet Union no doubt they would like to take over the whole Vietnam as what they had done in Tibet if they were strong enough. I bet the tendency of realizing this goal is getting more and more urgent because these communists continuously play the card of nationalism to justify their regime. these communists know they would not be at charge without the card.
No one will feel at ease when a badman points at you with guns, especially you don’t know when this bastard will pull the trigger.What's worse,the dictator still tries to threaten the peace by buying more guns from many other countries. I think the current situation of Taiwan is really similar to the situation of Czechoslovakia in 1938. If the world still adopt appeasement like Munich Agreement ,it is very likely that these communists will try futher as Hitler tried to built up his Riech after Munich Agreement.
Aware of the existence of Taiwan
Records from ancient China indicate that the Chinese were aware of the existence of Taiwan since at least the Three Kingdoms period (third century A.D.)
I would not bother to make an argument if there is any clear evidence that the ancient Chinese were aware of Taiwan's existence. The fact is that there is not a single proof to support this statement.  I would like to suggest we remove this unsupported description in accordance to the NPOV policy. Or, we can also put statements that this statement was not supported in order to balance the POV.Mababa 06:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would claim that if we were to mention Chinese recognizance of the island (it *was* known before the Dutch, according to another text I've read but cannot remember), we need to also mention the failed Japanese settlement there before the Dutch. Really, while the island has been a relatively discoverable position in relation to the cultures at the time, I think to mention other people's awareness is akin to putting that particular culture above the others in terms of importance.
We do also fail to mention here (and this is something I'd want to look up again in order to have references for) that the Dutch actually encouraged intermarriage between the Dutch, the Chinese settlers, and the native population of Taiwan in order to foster racial harmony.
Note: at least in Tainan, one of the first Settlements of the Dutch is a museum stating interracial marriages to be common... Behemoth04:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Up until the Dutch, however, none of the populations of people who have attempted to settle on Taiwan succeeded, and while it's true there wasn't any official Chinese government settlement, the island has seen it's share of attempted settlers. It's more complex than the writing here, and I fear very very difficult to put in language that is truly NPOV if you mention China and not Japan and others...
I've removed it again, pending more discussion (and unless someone else wants to cite sources, I'm going to try to look up the information).
Buoren 08:03, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The point is, is the sentence "Records from ancient China indicate that the Chinese were aware of the existence of Taiwan since at least the Three Kingdoms period (third century A.D.)" true? Without doubt, it is. Is it POV because it doesn't mention other countries' awareness of Taiwan? Perhaps. If you think so, then add the other countries. I have no objection to you changing the sentence so that it recognizes that Japan also knew of the island from very early times. —Lowellian (talk)[] 22:09, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
And let me state for the record that I was not the person who originally wrote that sentence. I am just trying to keep it in because it is factually accurate. —Lowellian (talk)[] 22:12, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
I apologize for mistaking you as the person puting the line. I am sorry about that. This aside, the text is NOT accurate at all. You are suggesting a possiblity, not an evidence supported fact.
Through out centuries, Chinese dynasties have noted islands out side the coast, and they were given different names. None of these names can be matched to a same single island. They could be a single one island, or can be multiple different islands. Some of them could even have been Tahiti, Japan or Hawaii. No one knows if any one of them was Taiwan, or perhaps you can provide some references to convince people otherwise. I highly suggest that we take away the line or note this is merely a hypothesis. Again I feel bad to have you dragged into this discussion since you were not the one put the description into the article. :) If you do not feel like to participate the discussion and do not have strong position on this topic, please simply ignore my messages. Thank you. Mababa 23:33, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- The above statement, "Records from ancient China indicate that the Chinese were aware of the existence of Taiwan since at least the Three Kingdoms period (third century A.D.)," is not confirmed by the academic research. Basically, this is the discussion about whether Yizhou (夷洲) mentioned by Chen Shou (陳壽) in the third century A.D. is Taiwan. There have existed many academic papers regarding the issue already. Unfortunately, most of them are written in Chinese. However, one important English paper regarding the "pre-history" of Taiwan by Wen-hsiung Hsu in 1981 has the following conclusion about the matter:
- Of the twelve names, I-chou (wdshu's note: Yizhou) and Liu-chiu are the most commonly encountered in the historical records. I-chou was the island where expedition troops of the Wu ruler Sun Ch'uan (reign A.D. 222-252) came onshore in the spring of 230. After 80 to 90 percent of his soldiers had died of unknown diseases, those who survived managed to bring "several thousand" natives back to China. The island may or may not have been Taiwan. (Hsu 1980 5; wdshu's emphasis)
- As a matter of fact, there is no clear evidence about the actual location of Yizhou, judging from the academic perspective, at all.
- Hsu, Wen-hsiung. 1980. From Aboriginal Island to Chinese Frontier: The Development of Taiwan before 1683. In China's Island Frontier: Studies in the Historical Geography of Taiwan, edited by Ronald G. Knapp, 3-29. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.--Wdshu 03:54, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)