| This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines. |
Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources.
You are about to undo an edit. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit. If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, explain the reason in the edit summary. Do not use the default message only. |
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|||
{{Talk Header}} |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | {{OnThisDay|date1=2011-05-25|oldid1=430801655|date2=2013-05-25|oldid2=556745349}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Former countries|class=start|auto=yes}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject Japan|class=c|importance=low}} |
||
{{WikiProject |
{{WikiProject East Asia|class=start|importance=mid}} |
||
| ⚫ | |||
{{WikiProject East Asia|importance=mid}} |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
| ⚫ | {{OnThisDay|date1=2011-05-25|oldid1=430801655|date2=2013-05-25|oldid2=556745349}} |
||
{{Annual readership|expanded=yes}} |
|||
==flag== |
|||
The flag is just adorable. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/206.208.133.80|206.208.133.80]] ([[User talk:206.208.133.80|talk]]) 14:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==The Treaty of Shimonoseki== |
==The Treaty of Shimonoseki== |
||
| Line 23: | Line 27: | ||
4. In the twilight period of 6 months between April 17, the signing of the Treaty and October 21, 1895, before Japan took effective occupation replacing the Qing government on the island, the gentry were evacuating the island. In an increasingly absence of governing authority, can a "republic" be assumed to have been borned?<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:67.70.62.27|67.70.62.27]] ([[User talk:67.70.62.27|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.70.62.27|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
4. In the twilight period of 6 months between April 17, the signing of the Treaty and October 21, 1895, before Japan took effective occupation replacing the Qing government on the island, the gentry were evacuating the island. In an increasingly absence of governing authority, can a "republic" be assumed to have been borned?<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:67.70.62.27|67.70.62.27]] ([[User talk:67.70.62.27|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/67.70.62.27|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
||
Re: |
Re: |
||
| Line 34: | Line 39: | ||
Question 4: there were some gentry evacuating, but many stayed. During the period before October 21 there was a pretty heavy fighting on in the island. The "Republic" has never beed formed as a state, excpet for proclamation; but Liu used the title whe commanding his troops. See above.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:81.219.151.3|81.219.151.3]] ([[User talk:81.219.151.3|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/81.219.151.3|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
Question 4: there were some gentry evacuating, but many stayed. During the period before October 21 there was a pretty heavy fighting on in the island. The "Republic" has never beed formed as a state, excpet for proclamation; but Liu used the title whe commanding his troops. See above.<small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:81.219.151.3|81.219.151.3]] ([[User talk:81.219.151.3|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/81.219.151.3|contribs]]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
||
==Name of the state== |
== Name of the state == |
||
The info box says "Republic of Formosa", the title of the article is "Taiwan Republic", but I've never heard either name before, because every source I've read calls it the "Republic of Taiwan". I think it would make sense to use the more common English name "Republic of Taiwan", but even if we don't we should settle on a single name to use.[[User:Readin|Readin]] ([[User talk:Readin|talk]]) 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
The info box says "Republic of Formosa", the title of the article is "Taiwan Republic", but I've never heard either name before, because every source I've read calls it the "Republic of Taiwan". I think it would make sense to use the more common English name "Republic of Taiwan", but even if we don't we should settle on a single name to use.[[User:Readin|Readin]] ([[User talk:Readin|talk]]) 12:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
| Line 41: | Line 47: | ||
::I've moved this page to [[Republic of Taiwan (1895)]], and I think the disambiguation line is pretty clear.--[[User:Jerrch|<span style="color:green">Jerrch</span>]] 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
::I've moved this page to [[Republic of Taiwan (1895)]], and I think the disambiguation line is pretty clear.--[[User:Jerrch|<span style="color:green">Jerrch</span>]] 15:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
::: it should really be properly translated as "Taiwan democratic state". <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2406:3003:2006:C2A4:B405:9560:466E:CA0F|2406:3003:2006:C2A4:B405:9560:466E:CA0F]] ([[User talk:2406:3003:2006:C2A4:B405:9560:466E:CA0F#top|talk]]) 18:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
==Declaration of Independence== |
== Declaration of Independence == |
||
The English translation is claimed to be a 'rough' translation of the Chinese. 'Rough' is a euphemism for 'inaccurate'. This is an unduly sanitised translation, which gives a false impression of the original. Why not translate it accurately? The first line should start with the words, 'The Japanese robbers', not 'The Japanese'. The intemperate language used by the supporters of the Taiwanese Republic in 1895 was noticed not only by the Japanese, who were routinely referred to as 'dwarves' by Tang Ching-sung and his supporters, but also by Western observers. The vituperative tone of this and other Republican proclamations is a historical fact, and should not be airbrushed out of history simply because it gives a poor impression of the Republic and its adherents. |
The English translation is claimed to be a 'rough' translation of the Chinese. 'Rough' is a euphemism for 'inaccurate'. This is an unduly sanitised translation, which gives a false impression of the original. Why not translate it accurately? The first line should start with the words, 'The Japanese robbers', not 'The Japanese'. The intemperate language used by the supporters of the Taiwanese Republic in 1895 was noticed not only by the Japanese, who were routinely referred to as 'dwarves' by Tang Ching-sung and his supporters, but also by Western observers. The vituperative tone of this and other Republican proclamations is a historical fact, and should not be airbrushed out of history simply because it gives a poor impression of the Republic and its adherents. |
||
[[User:Djwilms|Djwilms]] ([[User talk:Djwilms|talk]]) 03:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
[[User:Djwilms|Djwilms]] ([[User talk:Djwilms|talk]]) 03:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
== |
== was [[Liu Yung-fu]] president? == |
||
|
according to [[Liu Yung-fu]] he became head of state after Tang Ching-sung fled, but did not succeed him as president. |
||
[[User:דב ט.|דב ט.]] ([[User talk:דב ט.|talk]]) 14:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Major overhaul== |
== Major overhaul == |
||
I intend to substantially overhaul this article in the next few weeks. I will be including more information on the administrative organisation of the Republic and its various decrees and acts during its brief existence. I will also try to shed more light on the collusion between various Chinese and Taiwanese statesmen in setting up the Republic. I will try to resolve the issue of Liu Yung-fu's constitutional status after the flight of T'ang Ching-sung. I will also expand the section on the historical significance of the Republic to make it clear that the events of 1895 were not a rehearsal for eventual Taiwanese independence. All non-Chinese contemporary observers - Japanese, British, French and Americans alike - condemned the proclamation of the Republic as a dishonourable maneouvre by the Chinese to evade their obligations under the Treaty of Shimonoseki. |
I intend to substantially overhaul this article in the next few weeks. I will be including more information on the administrative organisation of the Republic and its various decrees and acts during its brief existence. I will also try to shed more light on the collusion between various Chinese and Taiwanese statesmen in setting up the Republic. I will try to resolve the issue of Liu Yung-fu's constitutional status after the flight of T'ang Ching-sung. I will also expand the section on the historical significance of the Republic to make it clear that the events of 1895 were not a rehearsal for eventual Taiwanese independence. All non-Chinese contemporary observers - Japanese, British, French and Americans alike - condemned the proclamation of the Republic as a dishonourable maneouvre by the Chinese to evade their obligations under the Treaty of Shimonoseki. |
||
I have removed previous versions of the Declaration of Independence (a Chinese text and an English translation) because they have no independent validity as historical documents. The closest we can come to the text of the original Declaration is the English translation quoted by Davidson, who was in Taipei when it was issued and, as a war correspondent assigned to cover the imminent Japanese invasion, enjoyed access to T'ang Ching-sung. Davidson's version is our only valid source for the contents of this Declaration, and all variant versions presently floating around in Taiwan derive ultimately from Davidson's translation. |
I have removed previous versions of the Declaration of Independence (a Chinese text and an English translation) because they have no independent validity as historical documents. The closest we can come to the text of the original Declaration is the English translation quoted by Davidson, who was in Taipei when it was issued and, as a war correspondent assigned to cover the imminent Japanese invasion, enjoyed access to T'ang Ching-sung. Davidson's version is our only valid source for the contents of this Declaration, and all variant versions presently floating around in Taiwan derive ultimately from Davidson's translation. |
||
|
|||
[[User:Djwilms|Djwilms]] ([[User talk:Djwilms|talk]]) 01:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:This isn't exactly on-topic to your comments, but regarding the recent move, I'm not sure why this was ever moved from "Taiwan Republic." Last time when I checked, that was by far the most common English name. See [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22republic+of+formosa%22+1895 "republic of formosa" 1895] vs. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22taiwan%20republic%22%201895 "taiwan republic" 1895], for example. I suppose a few of the early sources might use "Formosa," I didn't think that was predominant. Am I wrong? [[User:Dominic|Dominic]]·[[User talk:Dominic|t]] 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
:This isn't exactly on-topic to your comments, but regarding the recent move, I'm not sure why this was ever moved from "Taiwan Republic." Last time when I checked, that was by far the most common English name. See [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22republic+of+formosa%22+1895 "republic of formosa" 1895] vs. [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22taiwan%20republic%22%201895 "taiwan republic" 1895], for example. I suppose a few of the early sources might use "Formosa," I didn't think that was predominant. Am I wrong? [[User:Dominic|Dominic]]·[[User talk:Dominic|t]] 04:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
| Line 60: | Line 71: | ||
::I didn't realise the initial move to [[Republic of Formosa (1895)]] was done unilaterally. Just give me a shout if someone wants me to move this back to where it originally was. I will move it back if asked since it was done apparently without discussion and it is now a controversial move. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 04:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
::I didn't realise the initial move to [[Republic of Formosa (1895)]] was done unilaterally. Just give me a shout if someone wants me to move this back to where it originally was. I will move it back if asked since it was done apparently without discussion and it is now a controversial move. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 04:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::I didn't realise this move was likely to be controversial, though I perhaps should have done. I fully appreciate that 'Republic of Taiwan' or 'Taiwan Republic' are the most natural modern translations of the Chinese name of the Republic, but what we should be looking at is the English form used at the time. In 1895, during the brief period of the Republic's existence, English translations of its propaganda output (including the declaration of independence) seem consistently to have used the term 'Republic of Formosa', implying that that was the Republic's official name in English. I am trying to find a concrete example of official usage in English, besides the documents quoted in Davidson, such as a banknote or stamp, but have not so far been successful. Perhaps someone could shed light on this issue. It seems to me that, if the Republic did adopt an official style in English, we should be using it. If anyone can show me an example of the term 'Republic of Taiwan' used in 1895 in an official context, I will happily yield on this issue, but I suspect 'Formosa' was used more or less consistently, as it was then the accepted English name for Taiwan. [[User:Djwilms|Djwilms]] ([[User talk:Djwilms|talk]]) 06:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
:::I didn't realise this move was likely to be controversial, though I perhaps should have done. I fully appreciate that 'Republic of Taiwan' or 'Taiwan Republic' are the most natural modern translations of the Chinese name of the Republic, but what we should be looking at is the English form used at the time. In 1895, during the brief period of the Republic's existence, English translations of its propaganda output (including the declaration of independence) seem consistently to have used the term 'Republic of Formosa', implying that that was the Republic's official name in English. I am trying to find a concrete example of official usage in English, besides the documents quoted in Davidson, such as a banknote or stamp, but have not so far been successful. Perhaps someone could shed light on this issue. It seems to me that, if the Republic did adopt an official style in English, we should be using it. If anyone can show me an example of the term 'Republic of Taiwan' used in 1895 in an official context, I will happily yield on this issue, but I suspect 'Formosa' was used more or less consistently, as it was then the accepted English name for Taiwan. |
||
|
|||
:::[[User:Djwilms|Djwilms]] ([[User talk:Djwilms|talk]]) 06:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::::I guess I was just thinking that absent any official name in English, we should adopt the dominant name used by scholars over the last century. I think that all other things being equal (both names being non-official) "Taiwan Republic" (and not "Republic of Taiwan") is used by most sources including early ones, but especially modern, scholarly ones, and "Republic of Formosa" is used almost exclusively by some early records. If that's right, I would think we should be using "Taiwan Republic" as well. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]]·[[User talk:Dominic|t]] 09:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
::::I guess I was just thinking that absent any official name in English, we should adopt the dominant name used by scholars over the last century. I think that all other things being equal (both names being non-official) "Taiwan Republic" (and not "Republic of Taiwan") is used by most sources including early ones, but especially modern, scholarly ones, and "Republic of Formosa" is used almost exclusively by some early records. If that's right, I would think we should be using "Taiwan Republic" as well. [[User:Dominic|Dominic]]·[[User talk:Dominic|t]] 09:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
||
| Line 66: | Line 79: | ||
:::::I agree that all the variants have their place, and I think if you type in any of them you will get an automatic direction to this article. My point is that we should use as the title of the article the official or semi-official English name of the Republic in 1895, not an unofficial modern translation of its Chinese name. When T'ang Ching-sung notified the European Great Powers of the establishment of the Republic, presumably in French (as the diplomatic language of the day), did he call it the Republic of Formosa or the Republic of Taiwan? Whatever the answer, that is the term that should surely be used. |
:::::I agree that all the variants have their place, and I think if you type in any of them you will get an automatic direction to this article. My point is that we should use as the title of the article the official or semi-official English name of the Republic in 1895, not an unofficial modern translation of its Chinese name. When T'ang Ching-sung notified the European Great Powers of the establishment of the Republic, presumably in French (as the diplomatic language of the day), did he call it the Republic of Formosa or the Republic of Taiwan? Whatever the answer, that is the term that should surely be used. |
||
:::::I'm sure you are right that the English translations 'Republic of Taiwan' or 'Taiwan Republic' are much more common nowadays than 'Republic of Formosa', especially in Taiwan, but that does not mean we should privilege them if 'Republic of Formosa' was an official term. [[User:Djwilms|Djwilms]] ([[User talk:Djwilms|talk]]) 09:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
:::::I'm sure you are right that the English translations 'Republic of Taiwan' or 'Taiwan Republic' are much more common nowadays than 'Republic of Formosa', especially in Taiwan, but that does not mean we should privilege them if 'Republic of Formosa' was an official term. |
||
|
|||
:::::[[User:Djwilms|Djwilms]] ([[User talk:Djwilms|talk]]) 09:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | |||
I found this article confusing until I realised that the term ''Ch'ing'' it uses extensively appears to be an alternate spelling of the more widely used ''Qing''. Qing does appear a few times in the article. |
I found this article confusing until I realised that the term ''Ch'ing'' it uses extensively appears to be an alternate spelling of the more widely used ''Qing''. Qing does appear a few times in the article. |
||
| Line 75: | Line 91: | ||
==Official Languages Questions== |
==Official Languages Questions== |
||
Was Mandarin really an official language of the Republic of Formosa? Can we get any sources on this? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/174.94.23.150|174.94.23.150]] ([[User talk:174.94.23.150|talk]]) 01:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Was Mandarin really an official language of the Republic of Formosa? Can we get any sources on this? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/174.94.23.150|174.94.23.150]] ([[User talk:174.94.23.150|talk]]) 01:42, 31 May 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
==Description - republic or government or others== |
== Description - republic or government or others == |
||
The place to discuss is here, not reverting on the article itself. --[[User:Lemongirl942|Lemongirl942]] ([[User talk:Lemongirl942|talk]]) 08:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC) |
The place to discuss is here, not reverting on the article itself. --[[User:Lemongirl942|Lemongirl942]] ([[User talk:Lemongirl942|talk]]) 08:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
Ping {{u|Matt Smith}} --[[User:Lemongirl942|Lemongirl942]] ([[User talk:Lemongirl942|talk]]) 08:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC) |
Ping {{u|Matt Smith}} --[[User:Lemongirl942|Lemongirl942]] ([[User talk:Lemongirl942|talk]]) 08:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
| Line 126: | Line 144: | ||
'''Update''': Done. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 12:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC) |
'''Update''': Done. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 12:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
<!-- Please leave your comments above this line. --><br>{{ |
<!-- Please leave your comments above this line. --><br>{{Reflist-talk}} |
||
<br> |
<br> |
||
== About the revert by User:Fortuna_Imperatrix_Mundi == |
|||
==Description as a 'state'== |
|||
{{ping|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&diff=760533432&oldid=760507701 reverted] my edits by citing policy [[WP:NPOV]]. But as far as I can see, even your revert itself conflicted with WP:NPOV. Since you cited WP:NPOV, please explain how not consistent with WP:NPOV my edits are. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 03:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
{{ping|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} You [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&diff=760533432&oldid=760507701 reverted] my edits by citing policy [[WP:NPOV]]. But as far as I can see, even your revert itself conflicted with WP:NPOV. Since you cited WP:NPOV, please explain how not consistent with WP:NPOV my edits are. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 03:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:That revert is fine. As I have said before Matt, that original version is fine. As they say [[Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it|If it ain't broke, don't fix it]]. Honestly, all of this looks like a [[Wikipedia:Solutions looking for a problem|Solution looking for a problem]]. You have a warped view of NPOV - what seems like a problem to you is not a problem to the rest of us. If you still feel that you are right, try convincing other experienced editors and obtaining consensus. --[[User:Lemongirl942|Lemongirl942]] ([[User talk:Lemongirl942|talk]]) 04:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
:That revert is fine. As I have said before Matt, that original version is fine. As they say [[Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it|If it ain't broke, don't fix it]]. Honestly, all of this looks like a [[Wikipedia:Solutions looking for a problem|Solution looking for a problem]]. You have a warped view of NPOV - what seems like a problem to you is not a problem to the rest of us. If you still feel that you are right, try convincing other experienced editors and obtaining consensus. --[[User:Lemongirl942|Lemongirl942]] ([[User talk:Lemongirl942|talk]]) 04:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
| Line 144: | Line 163: | ||
:::Dear {{reply|Matt Smith}}. Your arguments are completely spurious and disingenuous. You were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=760526468&oldid=760514844&title=User_talk:Matt_Smith requested] by [[User|EdJohnston]] to revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&diff=prev&oldid=760506804 this edit]. You did not do so. You were then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=760532715&oldid=760530581&title=User_talk:Matt_Smith BLOCKED] for edit-warring. So that edit still had to be reverted. Which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=760532715&oldid=760530581&title=User_talk:Matt_Smith I did]. Please do not pretend you do not understand. Please also note that the page will now stay ''as it is'' until a broad consensus is established on this page. Note too the word 'broad': that means multiple editors, not just you. This converstaion, for which you have kindly namechecked me in the title, is now closed. Many thanks. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 07:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
:::Dear {{reply|Matt Smith}}. Your arguments are completely spurious and disingenuous. You were [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=760526468&oldid=760514844&title=User_talk:Matt_Smith requested] by [[User|EdJohnston]] to revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&diff=prev&oldid=760506804 this edit]. You did not do so. You were then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=760532715&oldid=760530581&title=User_talk:Matt_Smith BLOCKED] for edit-warring. So that edit still had to be reverted. Which [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=760532715&oldid=760530581&title=User_talk:Matt_Smith I did]. Please do not pretend you do not understand. Please also note that the page will now stay ''as it is'' until a broad consensus is established on this page. Note too the word 'broad': that means multiple editors, not just you. This converstaion, for which you have kindly namechecked me in the title, is now closed. Many thanks. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 07:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
::::{{ping|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} |
::::{{ping|Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi}} |
||
::::I suggest that you read [[WP:Etiquette]] and do not use insulting words recklessly. That helps maintaining your |
::::I suggest that you read [[WP:Etiquette]] and do not use insulting wordsso recklessly. That helps maintaining your credibility. Otherwise you might be reported as violating policy [[WP:No personal attacks]]. |
||
::::{{u|EdJohnston}} requested me to revert my edit because you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matt_Smith&diff=760510139&oldid=760367368 reported] that edit to him, didn't you? Note that what he previously warned me is to avoid "{{green|mak[ing] any more reverts}}". Was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&diff=prev&oldid=760506804 my edit] you reported a revert? It was not. So why did you make that report to him as if I was edit warring again? Who was and is the one that |
::::{{u|EdJohnston}} requested me to revert my edit because you [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Matt_Smith&diff=760510139&oldid=760367368 reported] that edit to him, didn't you? Note that what he previously warned me is to avoid "{{green|mak[ing] any more reverts}}". Was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&diff=prev&oldid=760506804 my edit] you reported a revert? It was not. So why did you make that report to him as if I was edit warring again? Who was and is the one that are being spurious? |
||
::::As to the block, although I tried my best to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMatt_Smith&type=revision&diff=760530581&oldid=760526468 explain] to him that particular content I edited had never gone trough any edit warring and I did no edit warring to it, he still listened to you. I |
::::As to the block, although I had tried my best to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMatt_Smith&type=revision&diff=760530581&oldid=760526468 explain] to him that particular content I edited had never gone trough any edit warring and I did no edit warring to it, he still listened to you. I regrettosaw that. |
||
::::You said you still had to do the revert because EdJohnston requested it. Okay. On that request alone, your reason is acceptable. But again, my that particular edit was not an edit warring at all and |
::::You said you still had to do the revert because EdJohnston requested it. Okay. On that request alone, your reason is acceptable. But again, my that particular edit was not an edit warring at all and should not be reported misleadingly as if something serious happened again. Further more, EdJohnston only requested my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&diff=prev&oldid=760506804 this edit] be reverted; why did you also reverted my [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&type=revision&diff=760483529&oldid=760165013 these edits] (5 in total) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&diff=760507701&oldid=760506804 this edit]? Are you going to say that you wasn't aware those noticeable edits? |
||
::::Of course I know a consensus is need before major changes be made, and that was why I started this discussion. Now you stressed "consensus" once again, but why were you being responseless when a discussion needed your participation in order to reach a consensus? Wouldn't that be self-contradictory? And this discussion will not simply close just because you, who is also responsible for reaching a consensus, say so. Unless you state that you no longer have opinions about the proposed changes of this article, you are not in a position of evading your responsibility in this discussion. |
::::Of course I know a consensus is need before major changes be made, and that was why I started this discussion. Now you stressed "consensus" once again, but why were you being responseless when a discussion needed your participation in order to reach a consensus? Wouldn't that be self-contradictory? And this discussion will not simply close just because you, who is also responsible for reaching a consensus, say so. Unless you state that you no longer have opinions about the proposed changes of this article, you are not in a position of evading your responsibility in this discussion. |
||
::::--[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 09:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
::::--[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 09:17, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
||
:::::{{reply|Matt Smith}} yes, I think you should report me. Please file a report at [[WP:ANI]]. Cheers, [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 12:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I try not to report others and incur their dislikes when problems can be solved through communications. So I hope I won't need to resort to WP:ANI in the future. |
|||
::::::The discussion between us hasn't ended. Please let me know if you still have any objection to these two major changes: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&diff=prev&oldid=760506804] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&type=revision&diff=760483529&oldid=760165013 ] (after making the tone more neutral). Thanks. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 13:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::A word in your shell-like, {{u|Matt Smith}}: when you find yourself in a dispute with other editors (me, {{u|Lemongirl942|LG942}}, and an administrator), you should probably avoid ANI for a while. Incidentally, I have changed this section header as per [[WP:TALKNEW]]. Cheers. [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:maroon; text-shadow:#666362 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">'''O Fortuna!'''</span>]][[User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi|<span style="color:navy"><sup>'''''...Imperatrix mundi.'''''</sup></span>]] 13:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::I had taken note of your advice. |
|||
::::::::I'm fine if you prefer discussing one thing at a time. Do you have objections to the proposed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Republic_of_Formosa&diff=prev&oldid=760506804 change]? If so, please explain them in detail on the basis of core content policies ([[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:NOR]], or [[WP:V]]). Thanks. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 14:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
{{od}}As far as I am concerned, the article is fine now. I see no problems with the term "unrecognised state". --[[User:Lemongirl942|Lemongirl942]] ([[User talk:Lemongirl942|talk]]) 17:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:Please discuss the matter on the basis of core content policies, not personal opinions. A source already contests the statehood of the entity so using "state" does not conform to [[WP:NPOV]]. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 02:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::Like I said, it is obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of English that it was a state. (We are not using any legal definition here btw, just the common understanding). If you disagree with that, show me sources which say that it was "not a state" (as in a state in common English usage, not a legal term). --[[User:Lemongirl942|Lemongirl942]] ([[User talk:Lemongirl942|talk]]) 03:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::What a breaking news to me. But is it possible that such a "basic understanding" results from mis-thinking the entity qualifies for the requirements of statehood in international law? I might not know very much about basic understandings of English, but could you confirm that, in common English, it is fine to say an entity like this one is a "state" even if it does not qualify for the requirements of statehood in international law? --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 03:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::It is totally fine to say it is a state. States can be of 2 kinds - recognised and unrecognised. This was one an unrecognised state. --[[User:Lemongirl942|Lemongirl942]] ([[User talk:Lemongirl942|talk]]) 03:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Not sure if I understand it correct, but this issue does not seem to be an issue of "recognised" or "unrecognised". It is an issue of whether the entity really operated like a state or not. As I mentioned somewhere else before, this entity was just a rebellion/revolutionary government and did not even administer/rule Taiwan for one day. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 03:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::That's your opinion. It's a pointless waste of time to discuss since you don't seem to understand and anyway, we are not here to convince you. As far as I see, the discussion is over for me. We don't have any consensus to make changes here, so if you edit war/make changes without consensus, you will be reported and blocked again. If you still want to flog a dead horse, you can go ahead - I just won't be participating. [[WP:REHASH|Rehashing]] the same arguments over and over is disruptive and grounds for a block. --[[User:Lemongirl942|Lemongirl942]] ([[User talk:Lemongirl942|talk]]) 04:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::This matter might be related to basic understandings of English, which I'm not very very familiar with. Anyway, I would like to double check the "basic understanding" you mentioned with other native English speakers and then post the result at here. Could you recommend a discussion board in which I can get advices related to basic understandings of English? And I know that a consensus is needed so there's no need to be worried. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 04:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::As a native English speaker, I would agree that this use of "state" is fine; common usage doesn't hew to the definition laid down in the Montevideo Convention. -[[Special:Contributions/165.234.252.11|165.234.252.11]] ([[User talk:165.234.252.11|talk]]) 18:22, 24 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Thanks for confirming that. I have no further opinions on this topic, then. --[[User:Matt Smith|Matt Smith]] ([[User talk:Matt Smith|talk]]) 03:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC) |
|||
Copy and paste: – — ° ′ ″ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Sign your posts on talk pages: ~~~~ Cite your sources: <ref></ref>
{{}} {{{}}} | [] [[]] [[Category:]] #REDIRECT [[]] <s></s> <sup></sup> <sub></sub> <code></code> <pre></pre> <blockquote></blockquote> <ref></ref> <ref name="" /> {{Reflist}} <references /> <includeonly></includeonly> <noinclude></noinclude> {{DEFAULTSORT:}} <nowiki></nowiki> <!-- --> <span class="plainlinks"></span>
Symbols: ~ | ¡ ¿ † ‡ ↔ ↑ ↓ • ¶ # ∞ ‹› «» ¤ ₳ ฿ ₵ ¢ ₡ ₢ $ ₫ ₯ € ₠ ₣ ƒ ₴ ₭ ₤ ℳ ₥ ₦ № ₧ ₰ £ ៛ ₨ ₪ ৳ ₮ ₩ ¥ ♠ ♣ ♥ ♦ 𝄫 ♭ ♮ ♯ 𝄪 © ® ™
Latin: A a Á á À à  â Ä ä Ǎ ǎ Ă ă Ā ā à ã Å å Ą ą Æ æ Ǣ ǣ B b C c Ć ć Ċ ċ Ĉ ĉ Č č Ç ç D d Ď ď Đ đ Ḍ ḍ Ð ð E e É é È è Ė ė Ê ê Ë ë Ě ě Ĕ ĕ Ē ē Ẽ ẽ Ę ę Ẹ ẹ Ɛ ɛ Ǝ ǝ Ə ə F f G g Ġ ġ Ĝ ĝ Ğ ğ Ģ ģ H h Ĥ ĥ Ħ ħ Ḥ ḥ I i İ ı Í í Ì ì Î î Ï ï Ǐ ǐ Ĭ ĭ Ī ī Ĩ ĩ Į į Ị ị J j Ĵ ĵ K k Ķ ķ L l Ĺ ĺ Ŀ ŀ Ľ ľ Ļ ļ Ł ł Ḷ ḷ Ḹ ḹ M m Ṃ ṃ N n Ń ń Ň ň Ñ ñ Ņ ņ Ṇ ṇ Ŋ ŋ O o Ó ó Ò ò Ô ô Ö ö Ǒ ǒ Ŏ ŏ Ō ō Õ õ Ǫ ǫ Ọ ọ Ő ő Ø ø Œ œ Ɔ ɔ P p Q q R r Ŕ ŕ Ř ř Ŗ ŗ Ṛ ṛ Ṝ ṝ S s Ś ś Ŝ ŝ Š š Ş ş Ș ș Ṣ ṣ ß T t Ť ť Ţ ţ Ț ț Ṭ ṭ Þ þ U u Ú ú Ù ù Û û Ü ü Ǔ ǔ Ŭ ŭ Ū ū Ũ ũ Ů ů Ų ų Ụ ụ Ű ű Ǘ ǘ Ǜ ǜ Ǚ ǚ Ǖ ǖ V v W w Ŵ ŵ X x Y y Ý ý Ŷ ŷ Ÿ ÿ Ỹ ỹ Ȳ ȳ Z z Ź ź Ż ż Ž ž ß Ð ð Þ þ Ŋ ŋ Ə ə
Greek: Ά ά Έ έ Ή ή Ί ί Ό ό Ύ ύ Ώ ώ Α α Β β Γ γ Δ δ Ε ε Ζ ζ Η η Θ θ Ι ι Κ κ Λ λ Μ μ Ν ν Ξ ξ Ο ο Π π Ρ ρ Σ σ ς Τ τ Υ υ Φ φ Χ χ Ψ ψ Ω ω {{Polytonic|}}
Cyrillic: А а Б б В в Г г Ґ ґ Ѓ ѓ Д д Ђ ђ Е е Ё ё Є є Ж ж З з Ѕ ѕ И и І і Ї ї Й й Ј ј К к Ќ ќ Л л Љ љ М м Н н Њ њ О о П п Р р С с Т т Ћ ћ У у Ў ў Ф ф Х х Ц ц Ч ч Џ џ Ш ш Щ щ Ъ ъ Ы ы Ь ь Э э Ю ю Я я ́
IPA: t̪ d̪ ʈ ɖ ɟ ɡ ɢ ʡ ʔ ɸ β θ ð ʃ ʒ ɕ ʑ ʂ ʐ ç ʝ ɣ χ ʁ ħ ʕ ʜ ʢ ɦ ɱ ɳ ɲ ŋ ɴ ʋ ɹ ɻ ɰ ʙ ⱱ ʀ ɾ ɽ ɫ ɬ ɮ ɺ ɭ ʎ ʟ ɥ ʍ ɧ ʼ ɓ ɗ ʄ ɠ ʛ ʘ ǀ ǃ ǂ ǁ ɨ ʉ ɯ ɪ ʏ ʊ ø ɘ ɵ ɤ ə ɚ ɛ œ ɜ ɝ ɞ ʌ ɔ æ ɐ ɶ ɑ ɒ ʰ ʱ ʷ ʲ ˠ ˤ ⁿ ˡ ˈ ˌ ː ˑ ̪ {{IPA|}}
Pages transcluded onto the current version of this page (help):
This page is a member of 1 hidden category (help):
