Talk:2005–06 Taiwanese local elections

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2005–06 Taiwanese local elections article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Taiwan Mid‑importance

	Taiwan portal 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.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

page move

Please do not move pages without consensus. The convention here is to use "ROC". See wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese). This is done for all other ROC election articles.--Jiang 20:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't we using the common form here? To do otherwise just confuses readers. The term "ROC" just isn't used where I'm from (the UK), and from what I can see on the internet, it doesn't tend to be used outside Taiwan and the US, which are both happy to use the term "Taiwan" too. Isn't clarity more important than the rigorous enforcement of a naming convention (WP:IAR and all that)? jguk 21:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please gain consensus at wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese) first. It's not about this single article. Moving one article doesn't cut it. It's about a bunch of articles. If there is consensus, they all have to be moved, and the wording in the text everywhere (all mentions of "Republic of China") have to be changed as well. There's about no chance of that happening. We've been through this before. Fuchien province is not in Taiwan. Isn't accuracy and neutrality better than the rigorous enforcement of mass ignorance? --Jiang 21:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The predominant meaning of "Taiwan" in the English language is to mean all areas controlled by the government in Taipei. Compare "Malta", which is used to describe the country as well as the island, and "Great Britain", which is used to mean "England, Scotland and Wales" as well as the main island. So accuracy isn't an issue - "Taiwanese", in English, is 100% accurate. As far as neutrality is concerned, all sides to the cross-Straits dispute regularly use the term "Taiwan". It's about the only thing they agree upon, so I don't buy the neutrality argument either.

As it is "ROC" is an unknown or a confusing term in most English-speaking areas. I bet if I referred to the "Republic of China" here, most people would assume I was talking about the areas controlled from Beijing. To be useful an article has to be readily intelligible to a wide audience. At present, the current name fails on this score, jguk 13:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike "Malta" and "Great Britain", "Taiwan" rarely includes the islands now under ROC administration along the coast of the continent and in the South China Sea. These islands have never been thought as part of Taiwan, although it's true that since the ROC was relocated and based on Taiwan, "Taiwan" is frequently used, incorrectly and inacurately, as an equivalance to "Republic of China". In common use, such usage may be alright, as these islands are often not quite significant. Wikipedia, however, provides accurate and neutral information. — Insta ntnood 17:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Taiwan" is mostly used as a descriptive term referring to the geographical areas currently controlled from Taipei. This is not incorrect or inaccurate - it is normal English usage - it is what the word means. Remember, words can change their meaning over time, and when a usage becomes prevalent, then it is clear the meaning has changed. The meaning of "Taiwan" in 1905 is not the same as the meaning of "Taiwan" in 2005, and there's no reason to suppose that the meanings should necessarily be the same.

There are many other examples of how meanings have changed - for instance "Big Ben" originally referred only to the bell St George's Tower at the Palace of Westminster, but now it is almost universally used as the name of the clock tower itself, and, through common usage, it is now quite correct to do so, jguk 19:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that should be settled at wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese) first. I don't see how this article is an exception. "Taiwan", while being used as a term for the "Republic of China", is not used to refer geographically to the Fujianese islands of Kinmen and Matsu. This will amount to calling the "United Kingdom" "Great Britain". --Jiang 02:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Office titles

I would like ask for a confirmation on whether "County Magistrates, County Councilmen, and Township Governors" are official translation of the offices or common translation of the terms.61.59.83.199 18:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"County Magistrates" are an official translation. I am not sure about the others. I'll try to look tonight. --Nlu 23:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The ROC government sites and papers don't seem to be consistent about the other two types of offices. --Nlu 21:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BlueShirts' edits

BlueShirts, the reason why I believe strongly that your edit about whether this shows anything about identity politics is POV is because we can only speculate as to the reason why the voters rejected the DPP candidates, and there are many, many possible reasons: DPP didn't run good enough candidates; the people were angry at the corruption scandals; the people were unhappy about DPP's campaign tactics with regard to Hu/Chu; &c. Your opinion is that it's identity politics, and that's fine, but that's what it is, an opinion, not proven fact, and therefore is POV. --Nlu 20:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for explaining it to me. It's not my opinion but from pretty established newspapers like ChinaTimes (in Taiwan), so is it still npov? Thanks. BlueShirts 20:28, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then it's their opinion, still not proven fact. I might accept it as NPOV if opinion polls (plural -- a single poll doesn't do it for me) establish it, but right now they're simply speculating. (And China Times has a tendency to be ideological in its opinions.) --Nlu 21:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It will be npov if you cite China Times as the source of the opinion, and add other opinions from competing and ideologically different sources.--Jiang 00:16, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

POVs are always POVs. Just need to make sure you include POVs from different sides with citations. Also need to make sure they sound like POVs in the article. In WP, a POV must have the followings:

   * Who advocates the point of view
   * What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.)

Xplorer 02:12, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Maps

As far as I can recall there are maps on Yahoo! Taiwan showing which parties winning the which townships and controlling which county/city councils. Any great cartographers here to create similar maps? Thank you. — Insta ntnood 18:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

try asking on zh. that's where i got the current maps.--Jiang 23:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the maps are no longer on Yahoo! Taiwan. — Insta ntnood 12:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2018 Taiwanese local elections which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:33, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]