Talk:Taiwan

page

Is it just my computer, or is it that there is this huge gap between the title of the page and the article? can someone like change it please? because although I have an account but it still doesnt let me edit the page. thank you.Vinsonshih (talk) 23:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

separation

I consider a possibilty of seperating the article, the current article (republic of China) would have the history in China from 1912-1949 and a new article which would retain the history from 1949-present which would be called Republic of China (Taiwan). Please discuss

MrJanitor1 1:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea, but let's see what others think first.Utopianfiat (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed to death and there is no consensus to spilt the article. nat.utoronto 18:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't support separation but support child articles when the section(s) of the Republic of China article becomes too long. --Will74205 (talk) 19:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Look, this is not funny. I've argued with many others about this matter to death and finally it stopped. I don't want to go through the horrors of talking about the same stuff again for the, let's see uh, say 5th or 6th time. Besides, if the article is too long, then many other articles are too long too. There are other nation articles that are of comparable or larger size then the RoC article. Liu Tao (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

location

the article containing the Republic of China from 1949-present will be put on an article called Republic of China (Taiwan).

MrJanitor1 12:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

This is unnecessary as Republic of China (Taiwan) redirects to Republic of China. There is also a disambiguation page and a well-formed disclaimer in the case that the user would misunderstand the meaning of the page. Utopianfiat (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Taipei

There has been some edit warring on the the question of how extensively the misleading name "Chinese Taipei" is used. The Chinese Taipei article lists a number of international context in which it is used, but I don't think it establishes that the term is used in "most international organizations" as one version of this article says. Under the policy of removing information that doesn't have references, and without convincing evidence, I think we need to leave out the statement about "Chinese Taipei" being used in more international organization until some supporting references can be found. Readin (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Medical university vandal/edit warrior

I noticed under the history tab that there is someone who keeps edit warring on this page, and I was wondering why the IP has never been blocked for the activity. Why hasn't somebody taken this to the 3RR notice board? Why do people prefer to protect this article rather than block the troublemakers? Wikipedia policy discourages page protection when blocking would be just as effective. GO-PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 04:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding a cross-strait relations section to this article?

I was thinking it might be a good idea to have a section within this article of cross-strait relations between China and Taiwan. I think it would add a great deal of information to the article, and there are tons of current events that could be stated in that section. Any comments? Hihappy21 (talk) 01:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What was that?

Some bizzare Zodiac Killer vandalism was on this page, and theres no sign of it in the history. Did anyone else see it? 205.250.123.43 (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Current President

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the Present section it still says "current President Chen Shui-Bian" but he is no longer the President

 Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

capital

Is the capital of the RoC not officially Nanking? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jftsang (talk • contribs) 15:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. However, since de facto it is not that due to it losing control of the mainland for 58+ years, generally its temporary capital Taipei is considered its capital. The Nanking fact can be included somehow as an aside, but anything beyond that suffers from undue weight. Ngchen (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Invasion, Civil War or Attack?

Currently, the language of the article claims that an attack from PRC is an "invasion". This is not the view from the PRC perspective which calls it a "civil war". There are arguments that support both sides. The West, namely US, would call it invasion. But everyone also agreed that the KMT(ROC) and CPC(PRC) did fight a civil war and the results are inconclusive as neither side agreed to "settle the issue".

Is it better and more neutral to just call it an "attack"? Shaoquan (talk) 03:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Even if it were a civil war, it would still be an invasion. For example, when speaking of the U.S. Civil War it is quite common to say the North invaded the South at a certain time and the South invaded the North at another time.

"Attack" doesn't carry the full meaning. "Attack" could mean just firing missiles at the country. Even the "missile tests" the Chinese conducted could be called an "attack" because they affected shipping and damaged Taiwan's economy. But "invasion" implies that people actually make the journey from China to Taiwan and land there with hostile intent. In the contexts where I see it used on the page, "invasion" is the right word. Readin (talk) 04:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

add

please add link to main article "healthcare in taiwan" in the public health section of this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okisdwed (talk • contribs) 13:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Questionable Image

Image:ROC_Administrative_and_Claims.jpg appears to be misinformation, no? Is it referring to the People's Republic of China (MAINLAND) or Republic of China (TAIWAN)? Prowikipedians (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the image. It's correct. It refers to the RoC. Read the map carefully and you'll see what it's talking about. Liu Tao (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Another Map

What do you folks think of another ROC map, this one including territorial claims in context with the rest of the world?

• 

Pryaltonian (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it'll be nice, but then it'll be the only one of its kind. Liu Tao (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

45 %"Taiwanese", 45% "Taiwanese" and "Chinese", 4% "Chinese"?

The statistics was shown in the Demonym column of the side table of the article.

I find this quite curious. A survey of a TV station is now fully qualified to tell readers what the people in Taiwan refer to themselves as. The reliable statistics should be official statistics, not those from a television station. The results are not backed up by another survey conducted by the "Global Views" magazine when 59.7% of the people agree that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese while 27.9% of the people do not agree. The numbers are in this link http://www.zonaeuropa.com/200806b.brief.htm#001.

However, I don't have a problem with quoting the surveys in the footnotes, as they have some interesting results. But the fact it is written like the title is indirectly drawing an identity division when it is simply about Demonyn. I don't think that was what the surveys intended to do.

Also, a statement like "some...... others....." is not a statement of speculation. It is a statement saying a certain percentage of people think one way but the rest of the people think the other way, without stating what the percentage is (so no speculation). On the other hand, terms like "likely" are certainly terms of speculation.

I will revert the edit back to "Chinese" or "Taiwanese" while keeping the footnote.--pyl (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I find this quite curious. A survey of a TV station is now fully qualified to tell readers what the people in Taiwan refer to themselves as.

If you have a more reliable source please provide it.

59.7% of the people agree that the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are Chinese while 27.9% of the people do not agree.

The question is what the people call themselves, not what they think the two sides of the straight are. Readin (talk) 13:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I did. Global View magazine in your cite source. Read before being personal please. If people agree that they are Chinese, then that's how they think themselves are. Plus, this is part of the reasons why the figures shouldn't be cited on the table. You have missed the rest of the reasons.--pyl (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't provide any reliable source for what the people call themselves. You provided a source for what they call the two sides of the strait. Readin (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Do we need to seek arbitration on this one? You seem to be quite unreasonable. You ignored all my arguments and just keep repeating without advancing new arguments. You need to calm down.--pyl (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You misquoted your source. Had you quoted it correctly this would have been less difficult. I'll discuss later. Readin (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't respond to the rest of my reasons why we shouldn't quote the statistics on the table. One of them is that these are figures from a TV station, not official figured. It is not reliable source at first place. I said it should be kept in the footnotes because the figures are interesting to readers, but I didn't say they are reliable enough to be on pair with figures such as "population" "area" "GDP" "HDI" etc. They are official figures.

Also, by calling both sides of the strait as Chinese, it means the people in Taiwan also call themselves Chinese. The people who disagree with that statement would not call themselves Chinese. I don't think there is anything misquoting about the results.--pyl (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You undid everything. More than just this issue. You need to understand what you are doing. There are issues other than just demonym. We need to discuss issue by issue. For example Taipei is the de facto capital. There is nothing wrong with it as there is no law that says ROC's capital is in Taipei.

The language bit is also undisputed. The only official language is Mandarin. There is a footnote for it.

"Relocated to Taiwan" is not the correct term to described the ROC situation. But "jurisdiction limited to Taiwan" is undisputed.

As I said you need to calm down and see what you have reverted. This edit war is not necessary.--pyl (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Substance of Challenge

I propose to remove this:-

"Taiwan occupied[dubious – discuss] following World War II 1945"

As Readin's well aware, this POV is disputed, per legal status of Taiwan and political status of Taiwan.

I propose to remove the footnote in its entirety (including the TVBS survey) as well as the claim of "Taiwanese, and less commonly Chinese"

Using one telephone survey from a commercial television station is not sufficient to say more "Taiwanese" and less "Chinese". It is inappropriate to put an interpretive claim of the TVBS figures on the same level as "population" "area" "GDP" "HDI" etc, as these are official figures. I challenge the source of the footnote as well as the claim made on the ground of reliability, verifiability as well as the reasons I cited above (including conflicting figures with the Global Views magazine figures).

The policy relating to reliable sources says:-

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

"Primary sources are sources very close to the origin of a particular topic or event...[including]...tabulated results of surveys or questionnaires"

"Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should:

• only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and
• make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."

The policy relating to verifiability says:-

"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.[4] Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require high-quality sources."

I, therefore, challenge that:-

1. TVBS is not "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand";

2. The TVBS survey is primary source and therefore no interpretive claims should be made;

3. the TVBS source does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in this matter;

4. the TVBS source is not appropriate for the claims to be made; and

5. the claim made is an exceptional claim, and the TVBS source is not of "high-quality"

The policy further states that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". I will therefore await a reply on this subject to satisfy the burden of evidence. I propose to remove the assertion, and I will seek administrative attention, if necessary. I will proceed to remove the challenged materials if a valid response is not given addressing the challenges by 8 October 2008 (UTC).

When I remove the challenged materials, I will leave the Demonym as "Chinese or Taiwanese" with a note saying "Due to the controversial political status of Taiwan, some people may refer to themselves as "Chinese" in addition to or in place of "Taiwanese", while others may refer to themselves as "Taiwanese" only". There is no speculation association with this statement. It just explains there are two groups of people in Taiwan identifying themselves differently without giving speculative figures or claims.

TVBS's survey cited that the survey was conducted in the "Taiwan Area". I don't understand why Readin removed it as no reasons were given. I propose to put the wording back, if the survey is retained at all (and I don't think it should).--pyl (talk) 06:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Relocated to Taiwan" is not the correct term to described the ROC situation. But "jurisdiction limited to Taiwan" is undisputed. The words the ROC government uses to describe what happened is that the "Relocated the capital to Taipei". Taipei is in Taiwan and the government is in the capital so there should be no problem saying they relocated the government to Taiwan. Saying they relocated "government organizations" works too.

The PRC for one disputes the ROC's jurisdiction over Taiwan. What the PRC does not dispute is that the ROC is currently governing Taiwan and that the ROC currently controls Taiwan.

"Occupied" accurately and concisely describes what happened. If you know a better word feel free to use it. "Sent soldiers to control the population, killed or imprisoned anyone who publicly complained, and kept government power out of the hands of the Taiwanese and in the hands of mainland Chinese" is accurate but too wordy. Readin (talk) 06:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The PRC for one disputes the ROC's jurisdiction over Taiwan. What the PRC does not dispute is that the ROC is currently governing Taiwan and that the ROC currently controls Taiwan. I think if you read my increasingly repetitive statements properly in Talk: mainland China, you will note that the PRC doesn't dispute the ROC having the jurisdiction. They dispute the sovereignty. They also dispute "govern". They consider the ROC as the "Taiwan authority", not the "Taiwan government" (as government can mean having both 'sovereignty' and 'jurisdiction'). I think the US also commonly refer to the ROC as the "Taiwan authority" too. That's not a mistake. It is about sovereignty.

"Occupied" accurately and concisely describes what happened. If you know a better word feel free to use it. "Sent soldiers to control the population, killed or imprisoned anyone who publicly complained, and kept government power out of the hands of the Taiwanese and in the hands of mainland Chinese" is accurate but too wordy. I propose to remove both the statement as well as the date (so that entry no longer exists). The onus of proof is on you to justify that it is worth keeping (please see above) and saying "[occupation] accurately and concisely describes what happened" doesn't do. In order to address the issue, your "occupied" claim will have to be substantially undisputed. That's not the case in the legal status of Taiwan and political status of Taiwan articles. Please provide a valid argument by by 8 October 2008 (UTC).--pyl (talk) 08:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, contrary to your obvious intention, my sympathy for your claim decreases dramatically when you constantly use dramatic language to describe these events around the 1950's. I never saw you speak for the Taiwanese indigenous peoples in a similar manner when you are well aware that they were likewise mistreated by the Hoklos and Hakkas. They were even deprived of their land. Your so-called "native Taiwanese" (Hoklos and Hakkas) aren't the only victims here. Please be fair and neutral. If you want to talk about Taiwan being "occupied", please try the time when the real native Taiwanese, the indigenous peoples, were dispossessed of the land. Thank you.--pyl (talk) 13:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Ply, you're getting off track with that last criticism towards Reading. You have to remember that Reading is a supporter of the DPP. His views sometimes are going to be different from the conservative views of the KMT and in some terms, the Taiwan Natives too. We're talking about occupation when Taiwan was transfered back to the RoC in 1945, not talking about Chinese from the mainland immigrating to Taiwan during the Early Ming dynasty and later Qing dynasty. What I don't like is the usage of "Chinese" and "Taiwanese". In my mind, all Taiwanese are Chinese. Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China, therefore Taiwanese is the demonym for the Taiwan Province, and Chinese is used for the demonym of the Republic of China. Because Taiwan is part of the RoC, technically all Taiwanese are Chinese. Liu Tao (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose removing that entire phrase. Whether Taiwan was "occupied" or not is highly controversial. I will remind everyone that "occupied" carries a strongly negative connotation, of a "foreign" regime illegitimately taking over a place. One cannot "occupy" territory one is sovereign over, and the ROC considers itself sovereign over Taiwan. Also, FWIW, the PRC considers itself sovereign over Taiwan. Only (the more radical) supporters of Taiwan independence consider Taiwan to be "occupied." So, in order to avoid wading into that POV mess in the label, I suggest removing the phrase completely. Ngchen (talk) 22:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, but as always, there's always going to be someone who's going to complain about this. If you remove "occupied", then what would happen is that people are going to say that the article is too biased in the KMT's favour and that Taiwan was really "occupied". The Pan-Green and Pan-Blue are still arguing whether or not Taiwan was ever part of the RoC. The Pan-Green says that Taiwan was never formally ceded to the RoC, and the KMT just occupied it from the Japanese, and other stuff like that. The Pan-Blue are stating otherwise saying that Taiwan was surrendered and given to the RoC by Japan etc. etc. This fight is going to be never ending, with apparently no middle ground for anyone, which is why I don't like to express my views, because I get criticised even though I provide all of these explanations, sources, and logic. Liu Tao (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback guys. I know Readin is a DPP supporter, s/he said that already. I wasn't critising Readin. I was just pointing out that one must pay attention to all aspects of issues, rather than just from a personal political perspective. The fact that dramatic languages are used doesn't make it more compelling, as it just appears to me that Readin was just making a personal point while ignoring others (such as the aborigines) with a similar issue.

The fact that this is still disputed means it cannot be neutrally asserted on the table: Wikipedia is not saying the "occupation" didn't happen just because the assertion doesn't appear on the table, but if the assertion appears there, it means Wikipedia says the "occupation" definitely did happen. I know Readin is aware of this rule. So I will be removing the entire entry unless this assertion is no longer disputed by 8 October 2008 (UTC).--pyl (talk) 03:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

GDP

this can't be right. It says the GDP in the fact file is 300,000 (ish) BILLION. BILLION? you mean three hundred billion. change that now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.54.106 (talk) 19:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's probably in terms of Taiwanese dollar, but you're probably right. Somebody ought to look into it and clarify it before any changes are made. Liu Tao (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

regional languages

I accept that there is no official legally recognised regional languages in Taiwan. But I am not sure if that spot on the table is for official ones or just for any major regional languages. The table didn't say "official". Do we have any consensus on that please?--pyl (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You could make 2 listings for the language section. You could state

Official Language: Standard Mandarin

Recognised regional languages: Taiwanese, Hakka, Aborginal languages, etc.

It's what is done for the United Kingdom.Liu Tao (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

That's what was done originally. But Jiang removed it. Please check history.--pyl (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

These languages are not "recognized" as they are in the United Kingdom. They carry no legal status.--Jiang (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Each country is different. Taiwan is obviously structured differently from the UK. That Taiwanese and Hakka are not "recognized" does not make them less important. This should work:

• Official Language: Standard Mandarin
• Regional languages: Taiwanese, Hakka, Aborginal languages, etc.

Readin (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It does not seem to be the convention on Wikipedia to list languages that are neither official nor recognized, except in cases where an official language does not exist. So I dont see the justification here for listing these other languages.--Jiang (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Mandarin is the Official and National language of the RoC. Read Languages of Taiwan. On the other hand, even if regional languages are not officially recognised, you can list them down as "de facto". The US does that, same with the UK and Australia. They don't have an official federal language, which is mentioned, and English is their "de facto" National language, not "de jure". It's all listed on their pages, go check. Meaning we can indeed list your "not recognised" languages. I checked the language page I mentioned earlier and the pages of the Taiwanese, Hakka, and Formosan languages, they are definitely "de facto" at most. Formosan languages are dying out, with only 2% of the population speaking it. Plus, of the 26 Formosan languages, atleast 10 are extinct, 4-5 are moribund, and several others are considered endangered, based on the facts provided by the Formosan language page, which means the "de facto" stance for the Formosan languages is indeed debatable. But unless you want to get into a large debate about whether or not Formosan languages can be deemed "de facto", we'll have to include it into "Regional Languages" if we are to list them. We don't have to list all 26 languages, just "Formosan languages" along with a link. I think Readin would agree with me on this too. So, what you say? Will we go along with Readin's method or not?

Also, just in case if you say that no other nations have "Regional languages" stated on their pages, you're wrong, since there are many that do. Liu Tao (talk) 03:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Demonym

In order to be clear on the subject, I first looked up the word "Demonym". It wasn't in the usual sources, but I found this at Reference.com"

A demonym or gentilic is a word that denotes the members of a people or the inhabitants of a place. In English, a demonym is often the same as the name of the people's native language: e.g., the "French" (people from France). The word comes from the Greek word for 'populace' (δῆμος demos) plus the suffix -onym and was popularized in 1997 by Merriam-Webster editor Paul Dickson in his book Labels for Locals. The term is not widely employed or known outside geographical circles and does not appear in mainstream dictionaries.

First, notice that the word is not a political term. It is used for a term that denotes "members of a people or the inhabitants of a place", not "the citizens of a state". Second, the best guidance given for how the term is selected in English is based on the "native language". The native language of most people in the ROC is the language normally referred to as "Taiwanese" (Chinese is learned at school and is not the first language for most people). Working straight from the definition, "Taiwanese" is the better term for the majority of the people. Working from the survey, which is the best reliable source we have, "Taiwanese" is the more commonly preferred term. "Taiwanese" or less commonly "Chinese" is how the text should read after the "Demonym" label. Readin (talk) 05:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The native language of most people in the ROC is the language normally referred to as "Taiwanese" (Chinese is learned at school and is not the first language for most people).

Actually, the native language of most people in the ROC is Mandarin. The whole "Taiwanese is the first language and Mandarin is the academic language" myth is incorrect. If you insist on proceeding with this line of argument, please provide reliable sources.

Please don't play politics over the "Taiwanese" language. It is a type of Chinese too. "Taiwanese" is called by the DPP government as "Taiwanese Min Nan". "Fujian Min Nam" is a type of Chinese, so is "Taiwanese Nin Nam". Even the "Taiwanese" article says Taiwanese is a type of Chinese. Similarly, US, British, Australian etc English are different types of English.

With your argument, we shouldn't have "Taiwanese" at all as demonym, and we should have "Spanish" for all Spanish speaking countries and "English" for all English speaking ones. A country with multiples languages would not be able to have any demonyms. The argument is illogical.

I deny that the TVBS survey is "the best reliable source we have". It is not a reliable source at all, as you have not responded to any of my challenges with valid arguments yet.

As I said above, if no valid arguments are provided by 8 October 2008 (UTC), I will proceed to do what I proposed to do. If you wish to restore the claim or the footnote, you can provide reliable sources afterwards, per the Wikipeida policy I cited above.--pyl (talk) 08:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

While I rather dislike the Taiwanization politics, I have to say that "Taiwanese" really is more appropriate here. This has nothing to do with the dubious arguments Readin cited, however. Demonym isn't a language issue; it's simply the name that's used to refered to the population. Taiwanese people both at home and abroad rarely refer to themselves as Chinese, regardless of their stance on the political and cultural situation. Similarly, news and other publications always refer to Taiwanese persons, companies, etc. as "Taiwanese". And of course, in all the dicussions here everyone use "Taiwanese" to refer to the people in Taiwan. o (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what you write is true for supporters of the pan-green coalition. But if you look at their arch-rivals, the pan-blue coalition and their supporters, you'll find many more people who consider themselves either Chinese only, or Taiwanese and Chinese. The cite that was pulled up a few days ago indicated that the ratio (based on self-identity) of Taiwanese only/Taiwanese+Chinese/Chinese only was something like 45%-45%-10%. The latter two are significant viewpoints, and should not be omitted. Ngchen (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if an editor writes Chinese in a statement to describe the people in Taiwan, this statement is likely to be removed or modified. Using "Taiwanese" to describe the people in Taiwan is unambiguous in a general statement. But when it comes to demonym, we can't decide through personal experience: we have to leave it to the people. The fact is, there are three choices: Taiwanese, Chinese or both, but we don't know what the real percentage is. And I am saying having a footnote for a telephone survey by a television company is insufficient and improper to tell us the real percentage because Wikipedia's policy says so.

We can only tell the readers the 3 choices and we are not in the position to tell them what the percentage is.--pyl (talk) 14:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A U.S. State Department regulation for its personnel states, "We refer to Taiwan simply as Taiwan and to its governing officials as 'the Taiwan authorities.' Not all current residents of Taiwan are known as 'Taiwanese'; it is best to use the term 'people on Taiwan.' The proper noun and adjective to refer to the island, the entity, and its authorities are 'Taiwan.'" The regulations further state that "Taiwanese" as an adjective may only be used to refer to "descendants of pre-1949 inhabitants of Taiwan." If you read the literature coming out of the U.S. government, you should see that this is fairly consistent.

Indeed, the use of "Taiwanese" to refer to Mainlanders (waishengren) has only been mainstream in the past 8 years or so, with the very concept being introduced only in 1994 when Lee Teng-hui invented the term "new Taiwanese" (which, with the incorporation of mainlanders into the label Taiwanese in the past 8 years has fallen into disuse) to refer to mainlanders like James Soong and Ma Ying-jeou who had embraced the localization movement.

So it is not as simple as you put it, and Taiwanese people, depending on political persuasion, do commonly refer to themselves as Chinese, though Taiwanese is even more common these days.--Jiang (talk) 16:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Far be it for me to decide what the demonym is on my own, I nevertheless believe "Taiwanese" is more appropriate. The US State Dept. is certainly no more authoritative than a TV survey; their policy only matters to themselves. Now, I think there might be two issues that people tend to mix here: the ethno-cultural identity of people in Taiwan and the specific term people use to identify themselves. The earlier is a clearly a complicated issue, and no one is disputing that. The latter, however, is much simpler. As I stated before, Taiwanese people use the term "Taiwanese" to refer to themselves, and that is a fact. They may identify with Chinese ethnicity and culture, but I challenge you to find any reference in the media that calls a Taiwanese person/company/organization "Chinese". Again, regardless of their background and political affiliation. Taiwanese people, at home and abroad, take it for granted that the term "Chinese" means mainland China outside of linguistic, historical and cultural context. In business, scitech, academia, pop culture, and most media where political sensitivity does not reign, Taiwanese are always called "Taiwanese", never Chinese. The only context "Chinese" (or "ROC") would be used is in political and historical-cultural topics, where the different terms become loaded. I am not trying to simplify an issue to suit my political view, indeed I have rarely agreed with Readin in the past. But "Demonym" is simply the name a people call themselves, and the reality should be reflected over people's bias on these terms; political sensitivity shouldn't be allowed to dominate over every aspect of the article. o (talk) 01:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've stated before, from what I think is reasonable, is that the demonym is "Chinese", not Taiwanese. Taiwan_Province is a Province of the Republic of China, and it still is widely accepted by many. Actually, there still is a Provincial government with a Council and Chairman, that is a fact. So technically speaking, Taiwanese is the demonym of the Taiwan Province. On the other hand, the demonym of the RoC is "Chinese". "Chinese" is the demonym for both the RoC and PRC. It's the same thing with North-South Korea, both of their demonyms are "Koreans". That is their official demonym. They don't call themselves "North Korean" or "South Korean", just "Korean". Actually, "Chinese" is the official demonym of the RoC, go read the article at the "Cultural problems" section.

Another thing I have to bring up is about those who live in Kinmen and Matsu. The problem with these areas is that they are not part of Taiwan, they are part of Fujian. This is also a fact, and is agreed upon by both sides. You are saying that people from the Fujian Province should use the demonym of the Taiwan Province. That makes no apparent sense, the demonym for Fujian is Fujianese. Yes, Taiwanese is a demonym, but only limiting to the Taiwan Province. You cannot force it upon areas outside the Province. It does not matter what is the majority or not, it matters what is officially the case, and here, the official case is that the demonym of the Republic of China is "Chinese", not Taiwanese. Taiwan is not a nation, it is a province with its own provincial government. Even the constitution is titled "Constitution of the Republic of China", along with the government, military, and other organisasions. Liu Tao (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(out dent for easier reading) O not said:-

"But "Demonym" is simply the name a people call themselves, and the reality should be reflected over people's bias on these terms;"

So I don't think we need to go into how the media call the people in Taiwan, as you said, that is not what demonym is about.

Given that there are no reliable sources at the moment, we will just leave the demonym as "Chinese or Taiwanese". Please let me clarify, I am not proposing to delete either Chinese or Taiwanese so we don't need to argue if Chinese or Taiwanese is better. They will both stay.

The main point is really the lack of reliable sources. The fact there are arguments over which one is better reflects the reality that there is neither consensus nor reliable source to say whether Chinese or Taiwanese is more appropriate.--pyl (talk) 02:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was a bit mistaken there. "Demonym" is simply "the name of the people"; not necessarily what they call themselves (that's "endonym"). Still, doesn't the media simply reflect the reality of how this people is named? If both the local and international media overwhelmingly call Taiwanese "Taiwanese", who are we to say that the demonym really should be "Chinese"?

But anyway I can live with the status quo, if only to compromise. However I cannot agree with the notion that there's "neither consensus nor reliable source". There is no consensus in this discussion, but the consensus in the reality is quite clear. There is no "reliable source" because the people and the media at large already take the term "Taiwanese" for granted and no one bothers to investigate how Taiwanese people call themselves (again do not confuse appellation with identity). The editors who disagree only argue based on political and ethno-cultural grounds. The fact is there are people in the UK who would object to being called British, and people in Sweden who don't consider themselves Swedish, but the demonym is simply the common appellation and shouldn't be dominated by minority and context-specific concerns.

Since we are talking about a Wikipedia article, the consensus within this discussion is the one that matters. Regarding to your view that there is consensus outside this discussion, I disagree with it.

I also disagree with your construction for the reasons behind the lack of reliable sources. The fact that matters to Wikipedia is, there are no reliable sources that an editor can rely on to say the demonym should be "Taiwanese" only.

But I thank you for being able to accept the status quo of having "Chinese or Taiwanese" as denonym. I don't think this is an argument that can deliver anyone with a satisfactory outcome. So I think we should just leave it at that.--pyl (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Responding to Liu Tao's comments above:

Your example of N/S Korean doesn't apply there since both North Korea and South Korea are exonyms; they call themselves Chosonin and Hangukin. And of course in both N and S Korea, unlike in Taiwan, there is zero controversy their cultural identity as Koreans.

And, No, there is no such thing as the "official demonym". The official name of ROC is 中華民國, the citizen of ROC are 中華民國國民, there is nothing "official" beyond this. You won't even catch Ma calling himself 中國人 now that he's the president, nor will he call Taiwanese people 中國國民. For all practical purposes, that is simply confusing. Yes, Penghu and Kinmen are technically outside of Taiwan province, but outside of the specific political context, few associate the term "Taiwan" with "Taiwan province". You ignore the reality that the term "Taiwan" is universally used to refer to everything that is ROC outside of politically sensitive topics. Penghu and Kinmen natives are just as likely to call themselves Taiwanese when abroad; outside of local context. I am simply describing the reality, it's not helpful to politicize everything. o (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)