Talk:Taiwanization

Move

Moved here....

Since accounts vary as to whether Taiwan's political split with the mainland was a secession from a majority Communist state, or was the only remnant of a still-legitimate Nationalist state, it is difficult to say whether there is a parallel to the political situation of Tibet. It remains very polarized, and can only be said to be an example of political de-centralization and localization of government in large states, rather than of secession.

The Taiwanese localization movement really has nothing to do with the political status of Taiwan (now, it did in the 1970's). It's more of a question of local cultural identity.

The other thing is that Taiwanese localization is *not* a particularly divisive issue on Taiwan or for that matter on the PRC. There isn't any major political force in 2003 that I know of that is explicitly against localization.

I changed Min Nan to the more neutral Holo as the language spoken on Taiwan differs from Fujian in accent and vocabulary. Localization is not so much about one culture of ethnic group, but rather all of them. I erased Hu Jin Tao, because his inclusion can give the false impression that his opinion somehow matters in Taiwan's policies. I modified desinicization as the term can not be proven. We are doing some work on that right now to see if the term is valid and if Taiwanese can be considered having been "sinsacized". Localization is rooted to japanese days and I suggest finding a copy of a book called Orphan of Asia or Asia's Orphan, written in 1947, the protagonist is neither accepted as Chinese or Japanese.

---

Removed based on factual research. I have seen good localization research and I have seen stuff that is wild. --User:Roadrunner

---

Added Hu Jintao back. Sure most people in Taiwan might not care what he thinks, but it is important that the PRC has stated that they don't oppose localization. -- User:Roadrunner

---

Need Perspectives on Early History

The article concentrates too much on things as they stand in the early 21st century. Significant oppositions to the movement existed from 1989 to 1992 and much of the Taiwan localization movement and indeed independence movement is deliberately moving in the "British constitutional evolution model" or "boiling frog recipe" by its proponents in the sense that it is building one step at a time and gradually towards the concept of the Republic of Taiwan. For instance, there was a big uproar in the mid 1990s over the proposal by Tu Cheng-sheng, then a research fellow at the Academia Sinica, of his proposal to teach history in concentric circles in senior high school (Taiwanese history first year, Chinese history second). Most people opposed at the time and it was set aside. A decade later, Tu is now the Minister of Education and he pushes a more radical proposal that only Taiwanese history is regarded as local history and merging Chinese and international history, and this time not even the deepest pan-blue supporter makes any noise for fear of backlesh among the current Taiwanese populatgion. If you recall the policies pushed by the 2007 pan-Green politicians during the early post-martial law years, they sounded exactly like what Ma Yeng-jou proposes today and which the same pan-Green politicians will bash for being too "China-centric". So I think there is a shift in goal posts in a time span over the past 20 years and we need to add more of them here. --203.152.114.104 20:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Speculation

There's a lot of speculation and original research in this article, especially in the Support and opposition section. Things like "I know the PRC says they're not opposed, but they are opposed 'in truth'" need to be supported by reliable sources. Have added "unreferenced" tag. --PalaceGuard008 03:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The problem is there is no real collated and neutral souce on the whole topic. I only found fragments of newspaper editorials scattered throughout the Chinese-speaking world, and even references from the official Chinese Communist authorities are lacking. So I'm afraid demanding "reliable source" may well disappoint you. --JNZ 02:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Desinicization discussion

The below sections are the discussion that took place on the talkpage of the pre-merged Taiwan's desinicization campaign article:

Taiwan desinicized in the 1950s?

The article says the desinicization campaign in Taiwan dates back to the 1950s. At that time Taiwan was deep in the heart of the KMT's sinicization campaign.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Readin (talk • contribs)

Propoganda peice?

"this article addresses the perspective of those who likely support the reunification of all of Greater China under a single political entity." Since when do we have articles that address only one perspective?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Readin (talk • contribs)

Rename proposal

Like other topics, I think this article should be renamed to Desinicization in Taiwan.--Jerrch 00:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Would that be better than calling it "Localization in Taiwan"? What do the people actualling doing it call it?Readin (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The DPP never called it "desinicization," they called it "Name Rectification Campaign" (正名運動).--Jerrch 13:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't merging this article with Taiwanese localization movement be a good idea?--Jerrch 01:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on my limited knowledge I think it would be. If you think it would be and no one else responds, go for it. But if someone else objects don't make this vote the tiebreaker. I'll want to read the two articles more carefully before making a real vote.Readin (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

sinicization

I've learned recently, I guess I kind of new part of it anyway, that many of the names in Taiwan were put in place by the KMT as part of a Sinicization plan. For example, many of the streets in Taipei had their original Japanese names replace with Chinese names by the newly arriving KMT. Anyone know where one can find sources for this information? Would this article be a good place to talk about this as background? Or perhaps would it be more appropriate information for the Taiwan and History of Taiwan articles? Readin (talk)

It should be in all of these articles. Since this is an undeniable fact, I don't think a cite would be necessary in this case. Not everything needs a cite. Feel free to take the liberty to add the information as you wish. I was very disturbed the first time I visited Taiwan by these street names. Many Taiwanese are also bothered by it and sought to rectify the street names.--Certified.Gangsta (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

CG's edits and "achieving balance"

Hi, I'm not sure Certified.Gangsta's changing of "began an effort to sinicize the population" into "began a relentless campaign to sinicize and brainwash the population by force" is a way of achieving greater balance. That was only one example of many. --Joowwww (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

CG made many efforts. The term "brainwash" is, according to www.m-w.com Meriam-Webster,

1  : a forcible indoctrination to induce someone to give up basic political, social, or religious beliefs and attitudes and to accept contrasting regimented ideas 2  : persuasion by propaganda or salesmanship

so in this case it is technically accurate and provides more information than what was replaced. However you are correct that the tone is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article. I would support a correction to that sentence.

The reason I reverted the reversion is that overall CG's changes were positive. In most of the instances his changes represented a definite improvement. For example, he removed "This was viewed as the government trying another angle for desinicization by removing any trace of China from Taiwan". He also changed many instances of "local" to "Taiwanese", a far more specific and appropriate word. "Local" is the term used by the PRC to push the idea that Taiwan is just a local area of national China. Had CG changed "local" to "national" to emphasize that Taiwan is a nation, it would have been a problem. But he chose a neutral specific word over the previous biased word.

I certainly don't agree with all the changes, but the article after CG changed it is much better than the article before he changed it. Rather than reverting the whole thing it makes sense to go in and fix specific problem spots. Readin (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right I should have just removed the edits I found which violated WP policy instead of just reverting it all. --Joowwww (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked though Certified.Gangsta's recent edits and have kept some changes, but reverted a lot. Someone who goes around "balancing" articles in this way does not deserve to call it neutralising POV. CG is attempting to rewrite both history and geography, and in extreme cases his edits are bordering on racism, xenophobia and propaganda. Certified.Gangsta, you need to realise a distinction between what is fact and what is your opinion on what fact should be. I suggest you read WP:NPOV very carefully if you already haven't, remembering that it isn't a guideline but a policy, and if you have I suggest you read it again. Remember to add references to any new content if you don't want it removed. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's going to take me some time to fix your changes, as you're pushing a POV pretty hard too. One obvious example is your substitution of "mainland" for "China". In the context I saw it "China" made sense as the ROC wanted to retake all of "China" however defined. But one could read it as separating China from Taiwan, so it makes sense to change it. However, saying "them mainland" heavily implies that Taiwan is part of China. "mainland China", already a concession, is the neutral term. Readin (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "China" is ambiguous, this is exactly the reason why the PRC article isn't at China. The reason "mainland" is NPOV is because Taiwanese people can still be considered Chinese, not as citizens of the PRC but as a greater Chinese ethnicity, something the Republic of China agrees with as it calls itself the Republic of China, and claims all of China, including its people. In as many examples as I could find I changed "in Taiwan" to "on Taiwan". "In" implies a country, "on" implies the island. Use of "mainland" as well as "on Taiwan" is completely acceptable in a geographic sense. CG was asserting that Taiwanese people aren't in any way Chinese, which is heavy POV, and adding "mainland" neutralises any hint of some editors trying to swing the article one way or another. --Joowwww (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Typical English usage is to say "in Taiwan". Changing it to "on" for a subtle reason as you've described is a POV push. "China" is POV to you as you believe Taiwan is part of China. Anyway, people say "in Scotland" rather than "on Scotland" even though there is no dispute about whether Scotland it part of the United Kindom. People say "in California" and "in Hawaii" and again, there is no dispute that they are part of America.

"mainland" is POV to those who believe Taiwan is not part China. "mainland China" is between those two. While it can still offend those who believe Taiwan is not part of China by some how implying that China is a "mainland", it should in no way offend those who believe Taiwan is part of China. Readin (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is irrelevant, and I can assure you that I don't let it affect the credibility of articles I write. You clearly believe Taiwan isn't part of China judging by your defensive attitude and I could easily accuse you of POV edits with your determination to change it to "in Taiwan". What people say is also irrelevant, WP:COMMONNAMES comes and will always come second to WP:NPOV. That is Wikipedia policy. Encarta says China and Taiwan, so does Encyclopedia Britannica. Wikipedia doesn't. I will accept the use of "mainland Chinese who moved to Taiwan" and its variants.

After WWII, the Chinese set about Sinicizing Taiwan (hence the current attempts to de-sinicize). Terms like "waishengren" (outside province person) and "daluren"(mainlander) became common and are still common. So I think it's acceptable to use the term "mainlander" given the awkwardness of alternatives (like "mainland Chinese who moved to Taiwan") so long as the first use explains what the term means. For "the mainland" there is a neutral alternative that is not awkward, "mainland China" so I believe that is the term that should be used consistently. Were I POV pushing, as seem to think I'm doing, I would be stubborn about insisting we use "China" as that is the common term for the PRC, and the fact that the KMT insists that the ROC is "China" is an instance of Undue weight. "For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority."

I'm not sure what you mean when you say I insist on writing "in Taiwan". I have in the passed changed usages of "on Taiwan" to "in Taiwan" because "in Taiwan" is the normal English usage when talking about Taiwan and the awkward "on Taiwan" looks like an attempt to push a POV that Taiwan is only an island. Someone has gone through and changed all the usages of "in Taiwan" to "on Taiwan". I haven't, as you accuse me of doing, had a "determination to change it to "in Taiwan"" since I've left your edits in place. Instead I was thinking about suggesting a compromise where the usages alternate between "in Taiwan" and "on Taiwan". Readin (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, a compromise solution that User:Jerrch and I came up with w/r/t the article Academica sinica is to refer to the mainland as "mainland Chinese," "mainland China" etc. etc. This compromise can be a useful solution to the naming issues. Ngchen (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A notice

I'd like to remind all editors of WP:UNDUEWEIGHT, which states that minority viewpoints shouldn't be given large amounts of mainspace coverage. I don't know very much about the level of nationalism in Taiwan, but be it low or high, the amount of WP content given to it should reflect that level. --Joowwww (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

In latest poll numbers I can find, 2004, 6.3% of Taiwan's citizens consider themselves just Chinese. 45.4% consider themselves Chinese and Taiwanese. 45.7% consider themselves just Taiwanese. Taipei Times A Ministry of Foreign Affairs poll taken in 2001 "found 70% of people would support a name change to "Taiwan" if the island could no longer be referred to as the Republic of China." BBC

The number of people favoring Taiwanese nationalism can be read as either 45% or 70% depending on how you read the polls. The 70% number is probably closer because identifying as "Chinese" and "Taiwanese" may reflect some people using "Chinese" to denote their ancestry and cultural origins and "Taiwanese" to denote their current culture and country.

Therefore, when talking about Taiwan, the POV of Taiwanese nationalists should be given at least as much weight as those of Chinese colonialists. Readin (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I personally find what you said highly offensive. Isn't the fact that the Han Chinese pushed indegnous Taiwanese out of their usual place of residence when they moved the taiwan from coastal chinese provinces an act of colonism? What makes those han Chinese so special that they can complain loudly about so the so called 'nationalist colonialism' without adequately considering what was being done to the indigenous people. People all live on this small island called Taiwan and people should find ways to have peaceful coexistence without placing such offensive labels on people. --123.243.102.34 (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Pyl, forgot to login

Taiwanese aborigines certainly have POVs that should be respected as well. However in this case WP:UNDUEWEIGHT may indeed apply since the number of people who now self-identify as Taiwanese aborigines is now so small (although recent study showed that some 80% of descendants of pre-1940s Han in Taiwan have some Taiwanese aborigines in their ancestry). If the Taiwanese aborigine population were strongly united in a separate view and were politically active in pushing it, it would deserve more space.

That covers the Wikipedia part of your question. If you want to discuss the morality of the earlier Han Chinese immigration, the morality of the earlier aborigine immigrations, the morality of the 1940s immigration, or the the morality of positions of the current native Taiwanese (those whose families were present in Taiwan prior to the 1940s), then get an id and take up the question on my home page. This talk area is for discussion about what should be the content of the article. It's not supposed to be a forum for debate.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Taiwanization. -- John Smith's (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

---

I think the article Taiwan Name Rectification Campaign should be merged into this article, because that article is only a stub, and the same material is covered in this one.Ngchen (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge - Agree, it's just a content fork and can easily be covered in Taiwanization. --Joowwww (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge - Agree --Mistakefinder (talk) 09:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

why so much time given to China

I was reading through the changes in th "Education and language campaign" section and noticed that a lot of space was being given to the reaction in China. However, this is a domestic issue for Taiwan. China's reaction was not as important as the reaction of Kuomintang and pan blue that had control of the legislature. The information is not totally useless, so I'm preserving it here. But for NPOV purposes and to avoid the misleading implication that the PRC controls Taiwan's internal processes, the information needs to be presented differently or at least take a back seat to the reactions of the KMT and other Taiwanese. Readin (talk)

These efforts were perceived in China as initial efforts towards breaking the ties between Taiwan culture and Chinese culture by downplaying the long-term Chinese cultural and historic identification in that region.

In mainland China, this was seen as an effort to diminish the use of standard Mandarin and its cultural influences in favor of revising the cultural and psychological foundations on the island of Taiwan by using other languages.

The proposals to revise Taiwan's history textbooks were condemned in February 2007 by the People's Republic of China's Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council as being part of the desinicization campaign. In July 2007, the Taiwan Ministry of Education released a study that found 5,000 textbook terms, some relating to Chinese culture, as being "unsuitable". The Kuomintang saw this as part of a textbook censorship desinicization campaign. The proposals have not been adopted.

Readin (talk) 14:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

China's reaction is totally relevant. Don't forget that there is a mainstream POV that Taiwan is part of China's internal affairs. Your POV that it is a internal Taiwan issue is not the only POV.--pyl (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that China's reaction is completely irrelevant. The problem is one of balance. The reaction of one of the two major parties in Taiwan, the party that could obstruct in the legislature and undo the changes when it regained the presidency, is far more important to the reaction of a government that had and has no power to change the actions.

To be balanced, the reaction of the KMT should be given priority over that of the PRC. Indeed, as an entity that is de facto external to the whole decision making process, the PRC reaction should likely go in separate section.

But you are right that the PRC reaction is relevant to some people and should be included in the article. Readin (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

what the CCP says totally does not make any sense at all, in fact the taiwanese language is CLOSER to the ancient chinese language than mandarin. mandarin was signifigantly infleunced, and spoken by non chinese speakers and peoples. this is why they'are full of lies, they are trying to make everyone speak mandarin to wipe out chinese culture. taiwanese are in fact racially closer to the ancient chinese than the CCP government up in Beijing. the original ancient chinese were pushed back by migrations during the first jin dynasty and the song dynasty and mongol invasions. southern chinese and taiwanese are the real chinese. northern people including beijing are ALIENS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.143.35 (talk • contribs)

References

Chen Shuibian's quotes do not belong in this article

There is no indcation in the following speech of Chen that he meant anything in regards to culture or eticity. He only voiced support for a separate political entity:

Taiwan is an independent sovereign country, but a lot of people do not think of Taiwan as a country and do not dare to call Taiwan an independent sovereign nation, which is quite abnormal. ... Taiwan must not fall into the trap of being regarded as part of China, or become a special region of China like Hong Kong.

Iraq and Kuwait are both arab, and both separate countries. Calling Chen's speech desinicization is original research, especially since he himself said that he regarded himself as chinese and that his hometown was in china.

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-31/world/taiwan.nukes_1_nuclear-weapons-nuclear-posture-review-nuclear-threat?_s=PM:asiapcf

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2006/07/02/2003316835

Many DPP leaders have visited their ancestral hometowns in Fujian in the mainland

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/print/91760.htm

Chen was in fact subjected to a stinging criticism by a "de sinicization" advocate, Li Thian-hok over here

http://www.taiwandc.org/twcom/101-no4.htm

Rajmaan (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Taiwanization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929143951/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2004/new/may/15/today-fo2.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2004/new/may/15/today-fo2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)