Talk:Taiwan/Archive 9

Hanyu pinyin should NOT be in article

The Republic of China (Taiwan) government officially uses only Traditional Chinese and Tongyong pinyin while the Simplified Chinese and Hanyu Pinyin is officially used in the People's Republic of China government. To put hanyu pinyin on the ROC (Taiwan) article is to push pro-PRC propaganda on the ROC (Taiwan). We should maintain NPOV and use the official titles and forms of Chinese as they are used by the respective governments of the PRC and ROC (Taiwan). It is true that the PRC is trying to spread the simplified Chinese and hanyu pinyin throughout the world and attempting to make it the so-called "standard" of Chinese language. But that still does not take away from the fact that the ROC (Taiwan) officially uses ONLY traditional Chinese and Tongyong pinyin. I am not Chinese or Asian, but I know this because in college I studied Chinese and the only version available there was the simplified form. And many universities now have chosen to teach the simplified form instead of the more aesthetic and beautiful ancient Traditional Chinese, which is a shame.

I would disagree with you. By placing both Traditional and Simplified in the article is not POV. and plus, Simplified Chinese is only present in the first sentence and there is no need to remove it or need to worry that it is there. Nat Tang ^{ta | co | em} 07:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I have to disagree with you. By placing Simplified Chinese and Hanyu Pinyin in the Republic of China (Taiwan) article you are trying to press pro-PRC point of view and People's Republic of China propaganda onto the Republic of China (Taiwan) article. It is a fact that the Republic of China (Taiwan) does NOT use the simplified Chinese, they instead chose to use the ancient Traditional Chinese and the Taiwanese developed Tongyong Pinyin romanization system. The ROC article should only use the form of writing that is used by it's government and people. Hence, the Republic of China (Taiwan) article must ONLY use Traditional Chinese and Tongyong Pinyin while the People's Republic of China article must ONLY use Simplified Chinese and Hanyu Pinyin. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should maintain accuracy.

I am not trying to push a pro-PRC pov. Your assumption are inaccurate. What I am trying to do is to maintain NPOV. By removing the Simplified Characters, what you are doing is trying to push a ROC/TC-only pov. By maintaining both scripts in the article, it has in the past satisfied both the PRC povists and the ROC povists. Here at Wikipedia, our policies, our guidelines, and what we do are not based solely on what the Government of a State, or what the people of a nation use or do, we follow sources, and use consensus to determine our course of action. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, but it is also a Community, a Community that works and makes decision through consensus. Accuracy is important and is one of the components that makes an encyclopaedia an encyclopaedia, however, that argument is irrelivent as the usage of Simplified and Traditional is accurate, is NPOV, and the usage of both TC and SC in all the China-related articles is not a violation of any policies or guidelines. nat^tang 16:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to read my comments below, or refer to the original discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_%28China-related_articles%29#Standardisation_of_Traditional.2FSimplified.2C_Mandarin.2FCantonese_Articles

I have to agree with the original poster. Although I personally feel that a simplified chinese/hanyu pinyin movement is being pushed on all chinese/hk/taiwanese/macao articles out of "political correctness" masked as "standardisation" -- or a lack of understanding of the differences in Chinese spoken/written languages throughout these territories on the part of English-speaking wiki users -- neutrally speaking, it would make articles neater, less politicised, and a more accurate reflection of the country or territory's usage of Chinese (written and/or spoken) to not include simplified and traditional chinese in articles where one of them does not apply. Besides, this is the English-language wiki. Readers are probably more focused on the article's content rather than the few Chinese characters and romanisations at the top of the page. As such, two sets of characters and various romanisation methods are just clutter for a lot of readers.

Why don't I add Yale Cantonese pingyam to ROC's article? Because it's not used there. Similarly there's not a need for simplified Chinese in the Taiwan/ROC articles, as it's not used there. As a de facto nation, Taiwan needs simplified Chinese in its article as much as the articles on India or South Africa would need simplified Chinese. Just my thoughts. Would be interested in further discussion, though.

137.189.4.1 15:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hanyu pinyin is useful, as most non-native speakers of Chinese can read it. All of my Chinese textbooks, including those printed in the Republic of China, use it. For reasons of political correctness, the article also includes the not-so-helpful Tongyong pinyin spelling that is widely unknown. The presence of Hanyu pinyin in this article is a useful service, not a political statement. Kusma (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to clarify my points. Hanyu pinyin is indeed useful for mandarin-speaking areas (China/Singapore/Taiwan), and yes, its presence in applicable articles would definitely help non-native Chinese speakers more than the less widely used Tongyong pinyin (which I was not advocating above). In the case of HK articles, I advocate Cantonese romanisation without Hanyu (which is Mandarin) pinyin to maintain an accurate representation of HK's language situation - with Yale Cantonese romanisation. Similarly, if one day Taiwan's official language (de facto or otherwise) became Taiwanese and not mandarin, only then would I want hanyu pinyin removed from those articles. My statement was more about the simplified/traditional chinese characters issue. 137.189.4.1 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ETA: It's not about HOW the language is romanised, it is about WHICH language is being romanised. Cantonese for HK/Macao, Mandarin for China/Singapore/Taiwan -- these are accurate reflections of the languages spoken in these areas (officially, although "China"'s case is special), regardless of what romanisation system is used. That in itself is a moot point considering we don't use romanisation to write Chinese. 137.189.4.1 16:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

WRONG, ONLY Traditional Chinese and the Taiwanese developed Tongyong Pinyin can be used on the ROC (Taiwan) article! And again I must repeat myself and say that the sovereign independent island country of the Republic of China (Taiwan) has NEVER, does NOT currently, and NEVER will use the simplified hanyu system unless it gets conquered and assimilated by the communist dictatorship known as the People's Republic of China. Wikipedia is about historical and academic accuracy and in order to be accurate we must use the tongyong pinyin and ancient Traditional Chinese that is OFFICIALLY used in the Republic of China (Taiwan). We cannot use the excuse of NPOV as a covert and sneaky way of putting hanyu pinyin and simplified chinese onto the page of an article that has absolutely nothing to do with either the creation or usage of Hanyu Pinyin and Simplified Chinese, that would ONLY apply to the mainland country of the People's Republic of China. NPOV only exists when there is a legitimately based issue that requires NPOV, but in this case, since the ROC (Taiwan) has NEVER used, does NOT currently use, and will NEVER use Hanyu pinyin and simplified chinese, there is NO legit reason to invoke the NPOV rule!

We are in agreement that Taiwan/HK/Macao articles do not need any simplified Chinese, and that as long as the current situation stays the same, Taiwan is its own nation. As the Tongyong pinyin scheme has been adopted by the Taiwanese education ministry for 5 years, I would agree with you that Hanyu Pinyin is not necessary if we are writing wiki articles with respect to each country's system rather than just paying attention to standardisation. I personally think this "standardisation" is misleading to readers because most Taiwanese/HK/Macao people do not use simplified Chinese, and here in HK we don't use hanyu pinyin/Mandarin in an official/daily capacity either.

Encyclopaedia readers would similarly find articles about Taiwan, HK, China, etc. all tailored to that country/territory's system including written language (e.g. a title, "Taiwan"/臺灣 but "China"/中国).

I think the NPOV issue comes from those who add Simplified Chinese and Mandarin (or hanyu pinyin) to EVERY Taiwan/HK/Macao article; Wiki is not a Chinese dictionary, so including pinyin/simplified Chinese as a "guide" to readers is unnecessary, and distorts the truth of the matter in Taiwan, HK, etc. In other words, I am very wary of what I perceive as Mandarinisation (普通話化) of Chinese-related wiki articles. 137.189.4.1 05:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

O RLY? Then you should also be very wary of Tongyong Pinyin, which is a method of transliterating Mandarin Chinese (also known as 國語) into Latin alphabet. Mandarin is the official language on the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau; in other words, in ALL areas currently administerd by the governments of China. Why then, should Mandarin NOT be used on ALL Chinese-related articles? -- Миборовский 05:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please understand my points. I do think Mandarin should be included in mainland Chinese, Taiwanese, and Singaporean articles, as it IS the (or an) official language in these places. However, Hong Kong's official languages are "English and Chinese" according to the basic law. As Cantonese is the ONLY Chinese language used in government and all other official capacities for the HKSAR (and for Macao), it cannot be concluded that Mandarin is the official language for either of these areas. Naturally, mainland and HK officials are not eager to change this status quo as it is a sensitive topic.

Again, romanisation METHODS are not something I really care about. I'll let others debate Tongyong and Hanyu pinyin's merits. I am just trying to point out that for HK and Macao, Cantonese is the official language spoken in government or otherwise, and simplified characters are not used in HK/Macao/Taiwan in official capacities either.

Also, HK and Macao are SARs which are administered mostly by themselves and not by China (except for military and international representation, etc.) and Taiwan is administered by the ROC (despite the mainland's claims otherwise). 137.189.4.1 11:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

ETA: From the basic law full text: "香港特別行政區的行政機關、立法機關和司法機關，除使用中文外，還可使用英文，英文也是正式語文。" / "In addition to the Chinese language, English may also be used as an official language by the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region." "中文", while vague, must refer to Cantonese as the de facto official language since Mandarin is not officially used in any of those three areas.137.189.4.1 11:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"中文" translates to "Chinese", not "Cantonese". Don't you think you're jumping too hastily to conclude that "中文" here means Cantonese? -- Миборовский 18:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as I mentioned, 中文 is vague because we cannot determine exactly what SPOKEN variety of Chinese it refers to. Despite the fact that Cantonese and Mandarin are different languages (on a spoken level), they do share 中文. The official 文 is "Chinese", but no mention of a spoken variety 語 is stated. For now, I assume Cantonese because that's what we're using in HK so far, rather than Mandarin. 兩文三語 is a step towards including Mandarin as an official language, but so far Cantonese remains dominant in HK. 137.189.4.1 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the person who says that Tongyong Pinyin is "useless" and that "Hanyu Pinyin" should be on the Republic of China (Taiwan) article. The reality is that Tongyong Pinyin is much more readable and logical to the non-chinese foreigner from Western countries. Tongyong Pinyin uses only letters like "J" to accurately pronounce the mandaring chinese words correctly. Where in contrast, the clumsy hanyu pinyin system uses the letters "Z" and "X" which makes a Westerner think "how in the world am I supposed to correctly pronounce the words with Z or X". The Tongyong Pinyin system used in the ROC (Taiwan) is actually at least 80% similar to Hanyu Pinyin except that it does NOT use the misleading and confusing letters "Z" or "X". For example, in Hanyu Pinyin, the Republic of China would be spelled "Zhong Hua Min Guo" which is confusing because virtually all Westerners, like myself included, had difficulty understanding how to pronounce it. We had to waste extra time learning the correct pronounciation. But using the logical and efficient Tongyong Pinyin, the Republic of China would be spelled "Jhong Hua Min Guo" using the letter "J" which accurately reflects the correct mandarin chinese pronounciation of Republic of China. Let's use ONLY Tongyong Pinyin and the Ancient Traditional Chinese on the Republic of China (Taiwan) article and keep the Hanyu Pinyin and communist-developed Simplified Chinese on ONLY the People's Republic of China (PRC) article. This is the only way to maintain absolute academic, historical, and scientific accuracy for this online encyclopedia and create a good repository of correct information, untainted by stupid political propaganda, for the benefit of all scholars throughout out our world!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.186.223 (talk • contribs)

Well like it or not, Hanyu Pinyin is by far the most prevalent and widespread transliteration method used by Chinese and non-Chinese alike. If a non-Chinese person knows Chinese, then chances are he knows Hanyu Pinyin. He *might* know other transliteration methods, but with the exception of Wade-Giles they are so obscure and seldom-used that even Chinese people may not know them. IIRC not even Taiwanese people use Tongyong Pinyin regularly. Tongyong Pinyin might be a lot better than Hanyu Pinyin, but the fact is, nobody uses it. That makes it counterproductive to use exclusively Tongyong Pinyin on ROC-related pages. You can holler about propaganda all you want. The placement of transliterations of terms on Wikipedia articles is NOT to push a specific agenda, belief or theory (such as Hanyu Pinyin/Simplifed Chinese being a communist invention, blahblahblah) but to make pronunciation of Chinese terms accessible for non-Chinese readers. In that regard, Hanyu Pinyin works best. -- Миборовский 23:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you...That was exactly what I was trying to say... nat^tang 00:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a real opinion on Tongyong vs. Hanyu. However, Simplified Chinese IS a mainland invention. Whether it's "bad" or "good" to any one person is not important; Having only traditional Chinese in Taiwan/HK/Macao articles and having only simplified Chinese in Mainland China articles should be our policy because it accurately reflects the language situation in these areas. If foreign readers depend on the most basic (hanyu) romanisation to read the terms, chances are they can't read the Chinese characters. If they can, it's already less cluttered and more accurate to include only one character set (wiki is not a Chinese dictionary).

For example, if we MUST include simplified chinese (essentially a "foreign script" to Taiwan) in the Taipei article, why don't I also include Japanese kana/kanji to make it easier for Japanese readers to pronounce/read? Japan has a history with Taiwan, as does mainland China. It is because we respect the boundaries of Taiwan as a controversial country/province (until this 兩岸 issue is solved, either way).

Doesn't the following sample of Taipei's article look to push a simplified chinese/"please everybody" agenda? --> Traditional Chinese: 臺北市 or 台北市; Simplified Chinese: 台北市 . These articles are cluttered, and NPOV shouldn't mean "let's please everyone by not making a decision about this, and including every last script and romanisation method", it should be "hanyu or tongyong pinyin ONLY" and "traditional or simplified chinese ONLY" for TW/China articles. Would be interested in further discussion. 137.189.4.1 03:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

ETA before there is a misunderstanding, i meant "traditional or simplified chinese ONLY" for Taiwan articles, and "traditional or simplified chinese ONLY" for China articles; they don't need to be the same for TW/China, but ideally EACH of the two would have ONE of their own standards for wiki articles. 137.189.4.1 07:39, 24 August 2007

Everyone should realize that for these pro-PRC communists to put Hanyu Pinyin and their Simplified Chinese on this article is just another strategy they employ to try and downgrade the sovereign status of the already independent island country of the Republic of China (Taiwan) and make it look like some "renegade province" or so-called "Special Administrative Region" like Hong Kong or Macao. While it is true that Tongyong pinyin is not as widely used as Hanyu pinyin, we must use ONLY those systems that are used in their respective countries of either the People's Republic of China (Simplified, hanyu chinese) and the Republic of China (Taiwan), Traditional, tongyong chinese. Otherwise, what is the point of having an encyclopedia, if the articles are not written with academic accuracy! We have to avoid turning Wikipedia into a propaganda tool for the People's Republic of China, but rather, we need to focus on academic and historical accuracy! Which means we MUST use ONLY the systems of writing that is used by the country itself and NOT what some outside country wants to put on it. In short, the mainland communist country of the People's Republic of China MUST only use Hanyu pinyin and Simplified Chinese while the democratic island country of the Republic of China (Taiwan) MUST only use Tongyong pinyin and Traditional Chinese. Because those writing systems are what is officially and currently used by these two countries, and it does not matter whether one system is more widely used than the other. If we are to make that argument, then we can say that American English is more widely used than British English so we might as well put American English words like "color" on the British articles instead of using the more culturally and academically accurate "colour" which is the correct spelling for British English. So whether you like it or not, we MUST eliminiate Hanyu pinyin and simplified Chinese from the Republic of China (Taiwan) article and put it where it belongs, only on the article of the People's Republic of China and maybe some of their SARS or PRC-controlled territories. As is visually evident, the overwhelming consensus is in full support of removing Hanyu pinyin and Simplified Chinese from the Republic of China (Taiwan) article, as it constitutes pro-PRC point of view, a violation of NPOV, and most importantly it detracts from the academic and scholarly accuracy that is required of a respectable encyclopedia. Wikipedia is NOT the place for personal or pro-PRC (CHINA) nationalistic propaganda, it should be a repository of correct and accurate information for the general public, regardless of personal or nationalistic opinions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.186.223 (talk) 18:25, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

We choose whatever system is most useful for our purposes, no matter what is officially declared. We are an encyclopedia, not a propaganda tool, so we must not eliminate Hanyu pinyin, which is the default method of transliterating Chinese used everywhere in the world, including Taipei. We also use Tongyong because it is official, just as people previously used apostropheless Wade-Giles. Kusma (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, I disagree with Kusma! Simplified Chinese and its' associated hanyu pinyin has been widely promoted by the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) as part of their attempt to eliminiate the Ancient Traditional Chinese and make Simplified Chinese the so-called de-facto "standard of Chinese." As of now, Simplified Chinese and Hanyu Pinyin is still NOT the "default" method or "standard" of Chinese. Just take a look at all of the "Chinatowns" around the world, whether in the USA, United Kingdom, Africa, Latin America, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the PRC-controlled SARS of Hong Kong and Macao STILL CONTINUE TO USE the Ancient Traditional Chinese! And then you add to this list, the democratic island country of the Republic of China (Taiwan) which officially sanctions and uses the more beautiful Ancient Traditional Chinese and it's associated Tongyong pinyin. And you are correct, this IS an encyclopedia that must be based on academic, scientific and historical accuracy, which give us complete legitimate justification to eliminate Simplified Chinese and Hanyu pinyin from the Republic of China (Taiwan) article and put it in its' rightful place where it belongs: the article of the communist country of the People's Republic of China(PRC). Only by eliminating Simplified Chinese and hanyu pinyin from this article can we achieve the original purpose of Wikipedia, which was to create an online encyclopedia with CORRECT and ACCURATE information to the readers of the general public! Sooner or later, the disrespectful communist Chinese invention of Simplified Chinese and its' clumsy, illogical system of romanization of Hanyu pinyin will be removed as the majority consensus dictates, there is no contest! And why is Simplified Chinese disrespectful, you ask, because the communist Chinese disrespects alot of Ancient Chinese culture and only created this system as a way to disguish their country from Chiang-Kai Shek controlled Taiwan, using the politically correct excuse of "improving literacy." This excuse is lame, as the Taiwanese citizens were originally quite illiterate, but nonetheless, as education and the economoy improved, the literacy rates are now over 90% in the country of Taiwan now, and the Taiwanese citizens use ONLY the Ancient Traditional Chinese!!

Simplified Chinese is not standard among Chinese worldwide, and nobody has said it is. Hanyu pinyin is among learners of Chinese. The clumsiness of Hanyu pinyin and Tongyong pinyin are pretty much the same. For the record, I hate simplified characters. Kusma (talk) 16:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Traditional or Simplified Chinese?

I've moved this to a new section because it has become difficult to continue two topics in the same section. I would like to discuss what should be done about the issue of Traditional and Simplified Chinese in TW related articles (without discussing romanisation methods). My aim is just to get a consensus (either way), and not simply to push my ideas on wiki. I have tried posting similar topics in the HK page as well as the manual of style, but it seems hard to have an active discussion let alone get any real consensus.

Why are we still including both sets in these articles?

Naturally I support removing simplified Chinese from TW related articles. It is just as misleading to include traditional chinese in the PRC article as it is to include simplified chinese in the ROC article. I am not talking about matters of race or cultural identity, but about de facto usage. Users in the pinyin section have argued (quite well) that hanyu pinyin should be included in ROC articles because it is used de facto, even in TW. So why then can't we eliminate simplified chinese from the TW related articles as TW's de facto standard is traditional chinese only? Wiki is not a chinese dictionary, so is there any reason to include TW and PRC's writing systems in the articles of the other? This doesn't have anything to do with anyone's personal views on "one china" or "two chinas", but rather is an issue of reflecting the language situation in both areas and cleaning up articles. Open for more discussion.137.189.4.1 05:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and give full support to removing simplified Chinese from TW and ROC articles. Simplified Chinese should only be used on PRC-related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.186.223 (talk) 15:44, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Oppose firstly, it was through consensus that TC be used in the PRC article due to the fact that indisputable parts of the PRC use TC in both everyday interactions and official documents. secondly, what ever is discussed here will not apply to the PRC article. thirdly, many editors have made it very clear that Hanyu Pinyin and SC should be included in the ROC/Taiwan related articles along with Tongyong and TC. nat^tang 18:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But why? You have given an understandable reason why traditional chinese is to be included in PRC articles, but I am curious as to why you/other editors think that Taiwan articles should have 1.Traditional Chinese, 2.Simplified Chinese, 3.Tongyong Pinyin, and 4.Hanyu Pinyin. I don't mean to challenge your views, rather I want to understand them better. Doesn't this make articles messy? What is the point of including both sets of characters? Thanks for any reply you can give.137.189.4.1 04:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply I don't see it cluttering the article because all 4 scripts are only used in the first sentence of the article, with the exception of the last section called Calendar where only TC and a non-specific pinyin are in the text. nat^tang 16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. But I am still curious why we need both sets of characters in TW articles. Is there any other reason except for concern about NPOV? 137.189.4.1 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

SUPPORT Yo, whassup guys? I agree and give full support to the previous dude who stated that we must eliminate simplified Chinese and hanyu pinyin romanization from the Taiwan related articles because it is simply not a reflection of reality to put them there. It is quite common knowledge that the Republic of China, Taiwan, or Republic of China (Taiwan) whatever the heck you guys want to call it is indeed an independent separate country that doesn't deserve the totally insane disrepect of putting the PRC invention of simplified Chinese and hanyu pinyin on their national articles, it's basically BS!! Let's ditch these COMMUNIST LOSERS!!!! PEACE MAN, I GOT YOUR BACK! signed user: 70.144.23.77 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.23.77 (talk) 21:47, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Oppose Content on Wikipedia should not be based on nationalistic and political agenda, but by utility. -- Миборовский 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My only agenda is linguistic; simplified chinese is extra and clutters the articles. Simplified chinese adds no utility to these articles. Wiki is not a Chinese dictionary.137.189.4.1 13:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In your line of reasoning, traditional Chinese adds no utility either and need to be removed. -- Миборовский 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese shows the name of Taiwan/ROC as it is written in Taiwan. That alone adds enough utility to merit space in the article for those few characters. Simplified Chinese is an alternate script not used in Taiwan, similar to Korean or Thai, which are not used in Taiwan. The article does not need to show how "Taiwan" would be written in China, Korea, or Thailand. Traditional Chinese adds utility. What utility does Simplified Chinese add? Nobody here can seem to give any reason for its inclusion. 137.189.4.1 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Using the correct romanization systems that are OFFICIALLY used by their respective countries of the PRC or ROC (Taiwan) has absolutely nothing to do with "nationalistic and political agenda." It has everything to do with academic, scholarly, and historical ACCURACY!!! The only people trying to create a "nationalistic and political agenda" are those pro-PRC supporters who say that the ROC (Taiwan) is a part of their PRC territory, like a Hong Kong and Macao and do every little sneaky trick in the book of media warfare, and psychological warfare to trick people into believing their illusion! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.186.223 (talk) 17:30, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this discussion is about Traditional and Simplified Chinese. Feel free to post your support in the appropriate discussion.137.189.4.1 17:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Support I believe that if we are to use Chinese Simplified, we might as well push it elsewhere to other nations that use Traditional as well, such as South Korea for its legal systems, or Singapore. Since Taiwan officially and only teaches and uses Chinese Traditional, we should have only Chinese Traditional in those articles. Just like how most Chinese articles on China do not have Chinese Traditional in them, we should not have Chinese Simplified here. Those that argue that just because Chinese Simplified is a very common language (one of the most common spoken in the world) have a big fallacy in logic. If that is the case why isn't Wikipedia entirely in Mandarin? After all, if 1.3 billion+++ Chinese speak it, then its only "logical" that we use the most popular language for "user convenience". Obviously, the only people pushing it have an agenda. Just like how we don't push Chinese Traditional on South Korean legal articles when almost all their original laws are in Chinese Traditional), we shouldn't push Chinese Simplified on Taiwan articles for the convenience of others. Accuracy is MORE IMPORTANT THAN CONVENIENCE FOR PRC NATIONALS OR READERS THAT ONLY LEARNED ONE LANGUAGE THAT IS SIMILAR. Where will this end if we step over the line? All articles about Portugal to be made in Spanish as well? Justify it by sayin it'll be a convenience to the majority of Spanish readers? There is only one logical choice... Support Chinese Traditional only for Taiwan Articles so we don't look like hypocrites when there is only Chinese Simplified for PRC related articles. --ShrimpCrackers 02:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply Yes - Those with (1) a "one china" nationalistic agenda and/or (2) a lack of training in and understanding of linguistic issues are the ones adding simplified chinese to all of the TW articles*. I wanted to assume that this is not the case, but until this point, nobody has been able to justify including simplified chinese in TW articles with a NPOV reason (while accusing people who wish to remove simplified with having a political or nationalistic agenda at the same time).

• And actually, the contents of many TW and PRC articles only include their own script (with the exception of the first sentence, which everybody seems to want to add both character sets to). Because the majority of the articles (and their contents) only include the applicable script for TW or PRC, it seems consensus has been given in terms of de facto editing style, both in terms of ease and encyclopaedic accuracy. When can the Simplified Chinese be deleted, then? 137.189.4.1 05:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Support If a transliteration system is to be used (which I would dispute - as for the English speaking person there is the English name), then the one that is directly relevant to the subject of the article should be used. Also, is there not simply an IPA that could take care of this? I also agree that the Simplified Chinese should not be present unless this is a system that a very significant part of the population would use. If somebody can direct me to sources that would indicate the latter, I will change my vote.--70.53.22.158 13:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Support I definitely agree with removing Simplified Chinese from all Taiwan or ROC related articles. There is now majority consensus, shouldn't we be removing Simplified Chinese from the article by now? 212.191.71.173 15:47, 13 September 2007

Consensus is not based on voting or majorities but by the general agreement of all editors therefore, we have not reached consensus. nat^tang 16:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

But haven't we? Although there is more support than opposition in this discussion, I mean that in most TW articles, simplified Chinese is not used past the initial sentence (and vice versa for Mainland-related articles). Surely no one person edits ALL Taiwan articles, so isn't consensus then given based on how all of those editors have edited the TW articles (i.e. without adding simplified chinese to them) even before this discussion began?

And how can we count on the support of "all editors" when a demonstrated few have non-NPOV reasons for including simplified Chinese in TW articles? 137.189.238.29 02:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't even care to respond to these obvious POV comments posted by IP users. --Will74205 05:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I will register, then. I have not used English wikipedia as extensively as I have used the Cantonese wiki. But in the meantime, can you contribute to the discussion? IP users or not, it is a legitimate issue. 137.189.236.215 15:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing PRC Flag

A similar discussion is been held on Talk:People's Republic of China#Flag and Talk:China#Flag

Since the flag icon is removed on this page per WP:FLAG, shouldn't we do the same on People's Republic of China and China for the sake of consistency. Chris! _{my talk} 03:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree per WP:FLAG. nat^tang 03:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree and done, flags are distracting and not needed in the header. shoeofdeath 14:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

STRONGLY DISAGREE PRC FLAG MUST REMAIN ON ROC (TAIWAN) ARTICLE! The flag has been here for several months now due to majority consensus. It is not a distraction, but rather it serves to helps new readers and the international public avoid confusing the democratic island country of the Republic of China (Taiwan) with the communist mainland country of the People's Republic of China (PRC). It is an indisputable fact that these two countries have different national flags and this FACT needs to be known as this an encyclopedia and not tool to be used as pro-PRC propaganda. It is quite common for the PRC to try and prevent the ROC (Taiwan) national flag from being displayed side by side with the PRC national flag and they go great extents to this. So if the ROC (Taiwan) joins an organization like the World Scouts Association, they avoid joining it, hence creating the political illusion that there is only "one China" when in FACT there are TWO CHINAS, two sovereign independent Chinese countries, one communist and one democratic, on each side of the Taiwan strait, and this is indisputable! Putting the PRC flag here is a great benefit to the world and all internationl Wikipedia users and will prevent the general public from confusing the ROC (Taiwan) with the PRC. Besides, why would you even want to support the communist country of the People's Republic of China (PRC)! Their human rights record is notoriously bad, with their concentration labor camps and regular executions of people who were arrested on ludicris charges. The PRC may be an emerging military and economic superpower but they actively persecute and destroy Christians, Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists and other religious groups. There is NO religious freedom in the PRC, but on the democratic island country of the Republic of China (Taiwan), there is full complete religious freedom and respect for human rights based on democratic judiciary law and NOT on some corrupt order from a corrupt communist official or dictator! IF YOU STAND FOR RESPECTING HUMAN RIGHTS, RESPECTING RELIGIOUS FREEDOM FOR CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS, TIBETAN BUDDHISTS, AND OTHERS, THEN YOU MUST SUPPORT THE Republic of China (Taiwan) AND FIGHT THE HYPOCRISY AND INJUSTICE CREATED BY THE People's Republic of China (PRC), IT IS TIME TO UNITE AGAINST THE COMMUNIST PRC FORCES OF EVIL!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.183.186.223 (talk • contribs)

Please stay on topic, next time you place an off-topic, non-relevent comment on this page, it will be removed. nat^tang 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree per WP:FLAG. --Folic Acid 15:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Placing the flag here helps nothing in disambiguation, but brings more distraction. --supernorton 10:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

VOTE IS INVALID: According to user Nat Tang: "Consensus is not based on voting or majorities but by the general agreement of all editors therefore, we have not reached consensus. nattang 16:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.171.130.74 (talk • contribs)

Firstly this is not a vote, it is a discussion. It may look like a vote, smell like a vote, and feel like a vote, but it is not a vote. Secondly, This discussion took place two-three weeks ago and it is the general understanding that we had reached a consensus on the flag issue, thereby removing all flagicons from the dablinks of this article as well as the other mentioned articles. Thirdly, all the flags do is add additional political polarizing effects/results on the article, which we do not need. nat^tang 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination quick-failed

I have reviewed this article according to the GA criteria and have quick-failed it at this time. The article has ten "citation needed" tags that all need to be addressed before nominating again. The rest of the article would also benefit from more sourcing as some sections do not have any citations at all. The rest of the article does have a good start on sourcing, is broad in coverage, and has plenty of images. Once you have addressed the sourcing issues and have looked over the rest of the GA criteria, consider renominating the article again. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 19:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

May I also suggest that you submit this article to peer review before renomination, and try to ask fellow experienced editors to help out. The last peer review was a joke. Good luck! -- Reaper X 21:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversial line

There is a line here that makes it sound like the current administration still insists that it runs mainland China when in fact it is due to the inability to change the constitution. In fact Taiwan's constitution still lists Nanjing as the current capital. This is largely due to the Legislative Yuan's unwillingness to let the constitution be changed.

So is there a way we could rephrase it so it could reflect that the claim is hardwired into the constitution and that its hard to change the constitution right now without causing all sorts of controversy from China and the US.

The problem line is here:

"Although the administration of pro-independence President Chen Shui-bian does not actively claim jurisdiction over all of China, the national boundaries of the ROC have not been redrawn and its outstanding territorial claims from the late 1940s have not been revised.[citation needed] Thus, the claimed area of the ROC continue to include Mainland China, several off-shore islands, Taiwan, Outer Mongolia, northern Myanmar, and Tuva (now Russian territory).

--ShrimpCrackers 02:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Demonym

Why is not "Chinese" written on the "Demonym" row in the country infobox? Of course, the term "Taiwanese" is more used practically, but I think "Chinese" is still remained as the only official (or co-official) demonym of the nation because the official state name is the "Republic of China". ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑 筆跡 다지모) 07:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, because the way infobox was coded, it auto links what ever we put there. For example, putting "Taiwanese" will link to the Taiwanese article but putting "Taiwanese and Chinese" will create no link. I tried to add "Chinese" but found it too much trouble to change infobox. --Will74205 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Taiwan/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is below GA level per the failed GA review, but not bad. It just needs a bit more depth and referencing. --Danaman5 17:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC). Substituted at 22:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)