| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: |
 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | |  B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | |  | This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | | | B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. | | Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. | | | |
 | This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Sections with no replies in 90 days are automatically moved. |
Please help keep this discussion civil. Assume good faith – for many things, there are perfectly innocent explanations, and there is no need to accuse anyone of lies or deception.
[edit] PRC as successor to ROC
Do we have any documentation/source for saying PRC claims to be successor of ROC? Readin (talk) 13:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I just added the reference to the PRC's Taiwan Affairs Office white paper, which lays out that successor argument.Ngchen (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank you! Readin (talk) 03:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Question
Does wikipedia have an official viewpoint on TW? Because I see references to "the nation state Taiwan" which is implying that Taiwan is independant, which is disputed. Would it not be more correct to state "the disputed territory of Taiwan"? -sAnJi1119 (talk) 04:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I know about the wikipedia policy is that, the state is called "Republic of China" and Taiwan can be used when it is about a place but not as a country. I believe wikipedia also recognises the reality that outside Chinese speaking societies, the ROC is commonly known "Taiwan", so articles can point that out as well.
I note you added "disputed territory" to describe the ROC in the China article. Please don't do that as it is not a neutral point of view. Some would view (not neutrally) that PRC is also a disputed territory as well. Mainland China is claimed by the ROC constitution.--Pyl (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia tries not to take an "official viewpoint" but instead to ensure neutrality among the various viewpoints. To that end we have adopted certain guidelines on how to refer to things.
- See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(Chinese)#Republic_of_China.2C_Taiwan.2C_and_variations_thereof for details.
- Pyl is right that our guideline is to use "Republic of China" for the state and "Taiwan" for the place. I don't agree with him that "Taiwan" can never be used as a "country". It needs to be used very carefully, but Taiwan does meet the conditions for being a country in the sense that Korea is a country or China (in the sense that some people think of China as including more than just the PRC) is a country. It is also a country in the sense that Wales, and Scotland are countries. What remains a topic of dispute is whether Taiwan is a country like France is a country. Taiwan is (from dictionary.com):
- "an indefinite usually extended expanse of land"
- "the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship"
- "any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions, by a distinctive population, etc.: mountainous country; the Amish country of Pennsylvania."
- Saying a "the nation state Taiwan" is over the line unless in a very particular context such as giving the argument of someone who believes Taiwan is a nation state. For examples "A believes Taiwan is a nation state and that international treaties give the nation state of Taiwan the right to...". Other than that, "the nation state Taiwan" is a problem.
- In general, use "Republic of China" when talking politics and "Taiwan" otherwise. It can lead to seaming inconsistencies, like the birthplace of a baseball player being listed as "Taiwan" while the same birthplace of a politician is listed as "Taiwan, ROC" or simply "ROC", but that's ok. NPOV trumps consistency.
- This is covered in the link I included: Most English speaking people know the Republic of China by the name "Taiwan" so in practice we usually clarify the first usage of "Republic of China" in an article by writing "Republic of China (Taiwan)".
- One point of confusion is how to handle islands like Green Island, the Pescadores, Kinmen, Matsu, and Orchid island. They are not part of Taiwan island. Some of them are part of Taiwan province. Depending on who you talk to most or all of them are part of the country referred to as "Taiwan". All of them are part of the state that is formally called "Republic of China" and commonly called Taiwan. In general the articles about Taiwan (like Aborigines of Taiwan) also cover those islands. But at this point there is no standard for it. Readin (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- I don't object to Readin's usage of Taiwan as a country like Scotland, etc, but given the ambiguity and the high political sensitivity of the word, I personally would find other ways to describe what I want to say without using the word in that context to avoid a possible editing war.
-
- I am not sure if a distinction should be made between the birthplace of a baseball player and of a politician: we are talking about birthplaces! Saying Lee Teng-hui was born in Taiwan doesn't by itself say that Taiwan is a country, just like saying Bill Clinton was born in Arkansas doesn't make Arkansas a country (independent of the USA) either.
-
- If, by convention, Wikipedia lists the name of the country next to birthplaces, then I guess the most neutral way will be listing "Taiwan, ROC" for everyone. But I don't believe such convention exists because Bill Clinton's article just says "Hope, Arkansas" as his place of birth.
-
- The real problem I see is putting the ROC flag or other ROC national symbols next to "Taiwan" such as the following:-
-
-
Taiwan; or
-
-
- Birthplace: Taipei, Taiwan
-
- I believe that in obvious violation of the NPOV policy because one very clear interpretation of that act is to say that flag represents a country called Taiwan. When a national flag appears, I consider it an endorsement of nationhood. It is called the *national* flag for a reason. Flags may be incorrectly used for another country and that would still be neutral. In the case of the ROC, however, due to the high political sensitivity, that act would be in violation of the NPOV.
-
- The same applies to PRC and China too:-
-
-
China;
-
- I believe is also in violation of the NPOV policy--pyl (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Dubious info
The following statements in my view are dubious. No footnotes are given but one statement appears to assert that Taiwanese people gaining a national identity is true. One statement says in June 2008 the missiles were 1300+. Who said that? PRC or ROC's relevant authorities? And who are the "some scholoars" who made the third statement?
Taiwanese independence supporters may argue that both groups [mainlanders and taiwanese] have begun to lean more towards independence due to growing military threats from China[dubious – discuss], who in 1996 fired missiles into the Taiwan Strait in an attempt to disrupt the presidential elections, and who currently (June 2008) has 1300+ missiles pointed at Taiwan.
Conversely to China's intention, some scholars have posited that China's threat of war has actually caused ideas of a distinct Taiwanese nationality and solidarity to grow stronger.[dubious – discuss]
If, by 9 September 2008, the assertions are not supported by footnotes, I propose to remove the statements as they are in obvious violation of the Wikipedia policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyl (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Given that no one responded to my comments inviting for citation/reasons for the above assertions of facts which I consider as dubious, I will proceed to remove those assertions.--pyl (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "By Government purchased" passport cover
By Government purchased
Cover of Republic of China's passport.
This image has been the subject of a recent edit battle. What exactly is this a picture of? Is it a picture of the passport, or is it a picture of a plastic outer covering that the passport can be placed inside to protect it from dirt and water?
Assuming it is a plastic cover, then where did it come from? The phrase "By Government purchased" is not very clear. Readin (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have no idea. That's why I removed it. As far as I know, this is not an official cover. A suspected bogus passport cover serves very little value in this article when that "State of Taiwan" shopping bag is already there.--pyl (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is a cover you can put on your passport and it's made by ROC government. The surplus is just like the file about the shopping bag writing 台灣國. Kuaile Long 16:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- When did the ROC government make that? Would you be able to find a newspaper article saying it please? Chinese is OK. I am quite curious about this.--pyl (talk) 06:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I just got it myself. A friend of mine bought it. This is my pic. Even if it would be sold private, then the meaning is the same one as with that shoppingg bag. 快樂龍 134.61.41.204 (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is not the same as the shopping bag because the shopping bag is obviously, on first glance, produced by a private entity. The passport cover appears to be the actual passport, and as such it appears to be something issued by the state. If the passport cover was produced by a private entity, then it would be confusing to have it pictured in the article.
- If the passport cover was indeed issued by the state, then we need more information about it. We need context. Which ministry issued it? When? Was it standard item that was given out with all passports? Was it something that had to be bought separately?
- Although Pyl's request for a newspaper article is overkill, we do need enough information for verification. I say Pyl's request is overkill because we don't have newspaper articles accompanying the photos of the compatriot pass and the Taiwan passport.
- On the other hand, we know which government agency produces the passports and passes and enough people have copies of the real items that they can easily be identified as fakes if that is what they are.
- The information that provides context is going to go a long way toward providing verification. Readin (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- OK, I will start doing that. 快樂龍 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly, that is just one hurdle. After we learn more about the image, we'll need to decide whether it is from a notable source. Expect Pyl to argue that it is not. Readin (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Still I want to give it a shot. Imagine it was a misunderstanding and this was or is sold by private persons. How enthusiastic do they have to be to make a cover by themselves, which just has the size of a real passport and are successful by selling it? And then there are enough Taiwanese using this. I never heard about anything else like this in Europe or the States. 快樂龍 04:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- The covers are common. Making them to be exactly the same size and having success selling them isn't a result of enthusiasm. It is a practical matter of keeping your passport in good condition. You put your passport inside the plastic cover and it is protected from rain, rips, dirt, etc.. I have a passport cover (it has a different appearance than the one in the photo) from a travel agency that I've never heard of. I like it because it keeps my passport safe. I certainly don't have any enthusiasm for the travel agency. See My Tattered Passport for a story similar to my own experience. Here are some pictures of similar passport covers. Readin (talk) 05:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- If the passport covers are privately made, and they're common, how notable are they? I will argue not notable at all, since anyone can make a passport cover that says pretty much anything. Ngchen (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that if the passport covers were privately made, they are not very notable and certainly not notable enough to overcome the problem that many readers will mistakenly think the privately issued cover is actually the government-issued passport. Readin (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think my comment asking for a newspaper article is an overkill. 快樂龍 would have understood that if this cover was indeed issued by the government, it would have been a big deal in Taiwan and it would therefore be reported. If Readin has issues with me asking for that, then she does not understand the Taiwanese mentality sufficiently. Regarding the personal allegations of bias which Readin left on my discussion page, they have been replied to.
Readin said:-
- Expect Pyl to argue that it is not.
Leave these smart arse comments to yourself, as they are not appreciated nor taken to be humourous. Trying to gather support by drawing an "enemy line" is unnecessary when consensus is required in editing Wikipedia articles. Yes, you also need support from your "enemies".
快樂龍 said:-
- ....I never heard about anything else like this in Europe or the States.
They are common in areas where independence or sovereignty theory is advocated. Embassies are set up. Passports are also produced. See Australian Aboriginal Sovereignty and Principality of Sealand.--pyl (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
