User talk:Readin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"

Contents 1 Lynn's IQ ranking? 2 KMT in Taiwan 3 Re: Talk:Republic of China 4 In Remembrance... 5 My apologies 6 Re: China 7 Political status of Taiwan 8 Re: Menu thing... 9 Re: China 10 Political status of Taiwan 11 Kirlston 12 February 2008 13 "China is a country" 14 About "Two Chinas" 15 Wikiproject Taiwan vs Wikiproject China 16 Re: Taiwan 17 Re:Good work on recent earthquake 18 One-China policy 19 Re: Moving a page 20 NPOV 21 Cross Strait relations 22 Puerto Rico

[edit] Lynn's IQ ranking?

- Very controversial book, not peer reviewed . Many refuse to accept its claims or its often arbitrary score assignments. "

IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK

It is about a controversial book about national IQ's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.117.226 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] KMT in Taiwan

Hi there. I saw your point about the gold, etc and thought it was a good one. So I made a change to the article - if you have any ideas make your own changes. Hope to see you around. John Smith's 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I plan to start doing that soon. But I'm new and want to be a little more sure of how things work and what is expected first. Readin 02:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Well when removing biased statements you should just try editing. So long as you give a reason in the edit summary and then leave a comment on the talk page if you're changing a fair bit of text it's fine.

If you have any questions leave a message on my talk page. Indeed it's best to do that even if I've contacted you here, otherwise I might not know you've got in touch. John Smith's 20:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Talk:Republic of China

Hey Readin, I would like to ask you if you can stop adding comments in the middle of my own comments, replies or arguments. I thank you for your participation on this talk page, and I hope we can continue to make these sorts of discussions on the article talk pages. Regards, nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 20:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm using the style I've seen in other discussion pages where comments are offset by a tab. If that bothers you I can try using a different style on that particular page.Readin 20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It actually does bother me however, the guidelines do state that it is ok to interrupt a long contribution, but it also states, and I quote, "In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption.". nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 21:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Remembrance...

--nat ^{Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?!} 18:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My apologies

Readin, I feel rather upset with Kirlston. I know that my reaction to him wasn't very civil, but I can't accept the direction he is pushing the article in. I know that China may be a rather difficult article, but when the upshot of all our discussions is that Kirlston wants to have Japan incorporated in the "China" article (with the consumption of pork in southern Japan as one of the supporting factoids), I don't think there is much I can do. He really is going over the top, and insulting his knowledge of China only seems to have made him more unstoppable. Bathrobe (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, I don't think I can make any more contributions. Whether Kirlston is offended or not, he shouldn't be editing an article on a topic he seems to know so little about. If he doesn't know, he shouldn't edit! I think it's simple as that. The whole discussion about China is becoming ridiculous. When the final article goes to Kirlston's satisfaction, someone will just have to come in and clean up the mess.

Bathrobe (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: China

Hi Readin, could I get your imput/opinion on my protection? Thanks, nat.utoronto 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Political status of Taiwan

I basically axed the pro-reunification rebuttal paragraph in the article in question in a bid to restore neutrality. Can you please take a look? If you're satisfied with the change, please remove the POV tags. Thanks.Ngchen (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Menu thing...

Hi Readin, I don't mind that you're using my menu bar, but just to let you know...the little person with the broom signifies sysop or admin status, which you don't have... nat.utoronto 06:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Readin, I took the liberty of tweaking it a bit (I removed the sysop image, the meta image and the commons image seeing that you aren't a sysop, and you don't have accounts in those sites.) Cheers, nat.utoronto 07:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Readin, well, under the licencing you could technically use it, copy it, etc, however, natnav was specifically designed to fit my needs. Anyhoo, the last three are connected in the sense it shows you activity status ( green = online , red = offline, white = default ) which is run by User:StatusBot. nat.utoronto 22:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: China

Just to clarify something...both the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China maintains an official "One China" policy, even if the Chen Administration's "personal" views is that the Republic of China is not "China". In that sense, what I have written there is somewhat accurate, and I see it as place both states on an equal level instead of the usual one sided pressuring. nat.utoronto 19:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Political status of Taiwan

Well, there are many breakaway regions of the world that are wanna-be independent republics (and do not have a history of statehood). In the case of the Republic of China, it was once a non-wanna-be republic (a history of statehood), but now the Lonely Planet classifies it as a wanna-be republic (which is sarcastically saying that it doesn't regard the Republic of China as a state).

There are those who subscribe to the Montevideo Convention; there are those who don't. Two different POVs as you can see here. There was a lot of discussion about whether or not the Republic of China should be included in the Wikipedia's List of sovereign states with many people having the POV that only the world government known as the UN can decide what constitutes a sovereign state. Now the Republic of China is downgraded as second class (an entity that "reckons" itself as a state), which seems to reflect the POV of the US Department of State's listing of Taiwan. But I'm tired of arguing with people who say that I live in rebel, renegade territory (and the UN recognized mainland China as rebel territory prior to 1971). After all, the Chinese Communist Party is always eternally correct with all world governments kowtowing it for its correctness. There's nothing I can do about that because everyone wants to purchase a cheap Christmas present that is made in China.

If the PRC ended its stalkish obsessiveness with Taiwan, then yes: nearly all countries in the world would re-establish diplomatic ties with Taiwan because they could do so without the cheap toys being held hostage and because they could do so without being blocked access to the potential 1.1 billion market in China. But selfish interests rule over principles: yesterday a CNN analyst called Taiwan "a problem" that refuses to move on with the rest of the international community that Taiwan has to face reunification with China. Fancy that the analyst probably came from the Cato Institute.

I don't know if I answered your questions, but if you want to, you could check out the Uncyclopedia's article on the Political Status of Taiwan.

Allentchang (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my question. I think you responded to the wrong person.Readin (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, weren't you the person who questioned about the de-facto and de-jure section of the Political status of Taiwan? I wrote the entire section, knowing that there are points that I didn't agree with. I had to be fair with those who don't agree with me. Allentchang (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. I thought you were responding to a much more recent post on the discussion page of a different article. My bad. I assumed it you were responding to the other one in part because it was more recent but also because you responded on the talk page rather than the page where I asked the question. Since the other person's question had gone a bit off topic, I assumed you were responding on the user talk page to avoid cluttering the article discussion page.

Since this discussion is relevant to the article, why are you not making your point's on the article's discussion page? Readin (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kirlston

Hey, How are you doing?

I am currently reading an article called "Waving Goodbye to Hegemony" in the New York times. You might be interested -"[1]"-

I hope you are well.
--Kiyarrllston 15:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to History of Taiwan, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you. seicer | talk | contribs 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. This edit inserted in unreferenced texts, which is not consistent with the cited paragraphs preceding and proceeding the statements you had entered. Adding in citations would satisfy the CITE requirement. seicer | talk | contribs 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

See your talk page for responses.Readin (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "China is a country"

Hi, I'm attempting a re-write of the opening of China to resolve the definitional issue that has plagued the article. I noticed that you commented previously on the issue. I've opened a straw poll to gauge whether consensus is to define "China is a country". Could I ask you to comment/vote at Talk:China#Straw poll? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I know your view is now that we shouldn't state "China is a country". A couple of succint points in commentary would be appreciated. Thanks. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About "Two Chinas"

I re-wrote and expanded the "History" section for several reasons.

• One, I think "Background" is more appropriate since the article is about the term "Two Chinas". There is no actual thing as "Two Chinas". So a section that deals with the background of the situation described by the term is better called "Background" and not "History" - "History" should be used for a section on the history of the term.
• Two, there was a lot of misleading content in the article, such as the stuff about the Ruijin Soviet: I've seen that claim (that the Ruijin Soviet was the first time there were "two Chinas") bandied about in online forums and anti-Communist China magazines from time to time, but it is factually untrue, since China was split between many autonomous entities throughout the Republican period, and the Ruijin Soviet was no different from any of them.
• In re-writing the Background section I was hoping to illustrate that history of division and separation in order to place the final division that led eventually to the current situation in a historical context.

I don't want to get back into the debate. My latest run-in with the Indian flag-wavers (thanks for noticing, btw) has made me very disillusioned, and I will trust your good judgment to trim, edit, or restore whatever parts of the text as you see fit. Cheers, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Taiwan vs Wikiproject China

I've circulated a note on both Wikiprojects looking for input. You're right, it's impossible to both include and exclude Wikiproject China from the articles in question. I am thinking some sort of compromise along the lines of Gdánsk vs Danzig is needed, but maybe someone else will have a better idea.Ngchen (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The Gdánsk vs Danzig compromise revolved around the question of what's a fair way to name the now Polish city, which used to be German. Good arguments for both sides exist such as (1) well, it's Polish now, and (2) Danzig is the better know English name. The result was something along the lines of naming it Gdánsk w/r/t references about it from ??? (post WWII)-the present, and Danzig for certain German periods, and Gdánsk for the rest. I'm willing to see what the participants in the two Wikiprojects think before making any further changes because, as you correctly note, it's impossible to both include and exclude a Wikiproject simultaneously from any article. Sure, the result is not ideal; however when faced with an impossibility one has to compromise somehow.Ngchen (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Taiwan

Hi, thanks for reminding me about that tag. I was checking out some basic information as part of wider research so didn't have time to indicate any particular problems at that time - but I do intend to at least point out examples of what I mean, if not try to fix them. Davidovic 07:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Have put a comment about the three main sections that I found problematic on the article's talk page. Cheers, Davidovic 08:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Good work on recent earthquake

Thank you! I hope my work doesn't seem too "Western" biased. I know Taiwan's history really well, and I do believe Taiwan will one day be a part of China again. However, Taiwan has its own independent government, and that government refuses to be a PROC SAR, so I'm debating to put Taiwan away from HK and Macau's SAR status listing. But I do my best. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 02:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that true? I’m a democrat, but I’m not a huge fan of Taiwan independence. Temporary, yes. Definitely. --haha169 (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I always thought Democrats supported Taiwanese independence. They definitely support Tibet's. (See San Francisco's Torch Relay. The Golden Gate Bridge...). Anyways, does this discussion really relate to the article? --haha169 (talk) 04:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I like Taiwan's democratic experiment, and support it full-heartedly. However, I know that Taiwan and China will recombine some day - it is quite inevitable. I only hope it will be on good terms. Hopefully, by then, the Chinese Communist Government will have transformed itself into a Democratic Communism. (I just made that term up.)--haha169 (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Currently, the only country that is doing any major form of imperialism is the United States. Taiwan historically was a part of China, and Taiwan itself has its own dream of uniting as well. Just not at the moment. If you'll look back to post-WWII and Chinese Civil, you'll notice Taiwan proclaiming that the entire mainland was also theirs. They've since renounced that statement, but they still believe in unification. I'm hoping for a peaceful one. --haha169 (talk) 23:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

So you're bending my words? I never said Chinese annexation. I said "reunion". They do not mean the same thing - and I'm wondering, why are we having this conversation? However, you do have a good point that I missed about the post-WWII Taiwanese government. However, there is no denying that many Taiwanese still support reunion. Truthfully, though, quite a few do not. I'm just saying that whatever happens, it'd better be peaceful and not end up as an United States imperialism strategy like Iraq.--haha169 (talk) 23:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It was definitely an interesting conversation. I know I have Chinese biased in me (I am ethnically Chinese, after all). And another thing, could you use ":::" in front of your comments so I can read them more easily? Thanks. Could you respond to my message on the earthquake talk page about the re-merge if you haven't already?--haha169 (talk) 23:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but, erm, I've already deciphered all of those comments. Its fine, I was just pointing it out for future reference. --haha169 (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One-China policy

Hi, I just wanted to remind you that edits done in good faith, such as that by the editor you reverted, does not constitute vandalism. It may be biased, it may be inaccurate, but unless something is done in bad faith, it's not vandalism. Thank you.Ngchen (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Moving a page

I'm sorry if my moving a page causes a problem. In the case of Political status of Taiwan, I don't understand what it is -- after all, the opening paragraph highlights "the political status of Taiwan" and "the political status of the Republic of China". Is it the order "Republic of China" then "Taiwan" in "Political status of the Republic of China and Taiwan"? Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Okay. I hadn't realized how touchy an area this can be, so I'll read the whole article and then post something on the talk page as you suggest. Meanwhile, I've also made this request -- this and [M]y attempt to rename Political status of Taiwan being is the result of editing Template:Politics of the Republic of China. Sardanaphalus (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

As there's a mixture of foreign-relations articles using "Taiwan", "Taiwanese" and/or "Republic of China" alongside other countries' names, I've held back on the above. My understanding is that "Taiwan" is an informal name for the Republic of China because it identifies the island making up most of, but not all, the Republic of China's governed territory. For consistency and accuracy, therefore, it seems to me that "Republic of China" without any additional "(Taiwan)" could/should be used across article/template/category names, but with mention of "Taiwan" as the informal synonym within articles. Articles including "Taiwan" within their titles would/should then be taken to refer to the island Taiwan. What do you think? Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the scope of your reply. Essentially, I think it all makes sense, though I'm not sure about the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese) quote. Having recently finished a little more template categorization, I'm wondering whether the following options can "cover all bases" as regards names:
  • Either "Taiwan (island)" for articles/templates/categories/etc about the island called Taiwan;
  • or "Republic of China (Taiwan)" for all other uses, as it includes both the formal and informal name for the Republic of China, but emphasizes the formal, technically accurate name. Categorized as "China, Republic of" (i.e. under "C");
  • which means redirect pages with category needed to place the same article/template/etc under "T" for "Taiwan" in the same category/categories.

So, the current Template:ROC Army, for example, would be renamed "Republic of China (Taiwan) Army" and categorized under "China, Republic of", while a redirect page to it named "Taiwan (Republic of China) Army" and categorized under "T" would be created to appear in the same categories (in italics). Repeat with all other ROC/Taiwan templates/articles/etc and include a standard note (as a comment) on each page explaining what's going on. Do you think this has any mileage? Sardanaphalus (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

You added an NPOV template in the Self-determination article, but gave no explanation on the corresponding talk page. If you don't explain there, someone will probably just remove the template. It's not much use to know that someone thinks that a section is somehow non-neutral, without even and indication of what bias they think it has. - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cross Strait relations

Hi, thanks for looking over my edits on Cross strait relations. I try my best to cover all points of view, but am obviously not going to manage that while I hold one particular point of view. I'm glad we can agree to disagree and hope that our edits lead the article closer to the "truth". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Puerto Rico

SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON DECOLoNIZATION CALLS ON United States TO EXPEDITE

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gacol3160.doc.htm

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/gacol3138.doc.htm

Tomorrow, 06/09/08 on the UN Decolonization comitee will be discuss the Colonial Status of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico is a colony. Puerto Rico is a territory.

(Seablade (talk) 05:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1309/is_n4_v26/ai_8242837

This response below is also posted on your discussion page:

From Meriam-Webster:

Main Entry: col·o·ny

Pronunciation: \ˈkä-lə-nē\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural col·o·nies

Etymology: Middle English colonie, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French, from Latin colonia, from colonus farmer, colonist, from colere to cultivate — more at wheel

Date: 14th century

1 a: a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties with the parent state b: the territory inhabited by such a body

2: a distinguishable localized population within a species <a colony of termites>

3 a: a circumscribed mass of microorganisms usually growing in or on a solid medium b: the aggregation of zooids of a compound animal

4 a: a group of individuals or things with common characteristics or interests situated in close association <an artist colony> b: the section occupied by such a group

5: a group of persons institutionalized away from others <a leper colony> <a penal colony>; also : the land or buildings occupied by such a group

Which of those definitions does Puerto Rico meet?

Well, the Wikipedia definition: Colony (Seablade (talk) 20:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

According to CIA World Fact Book, Puerto Rico is "unincorporated, organized territory of the US with commonwealth status". The website for the legislature of Puerto Rico has a link to "The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico". It looks like Puerto Rico is officially a "Commonwealth" and by common sense application of the definition of the word "colony", Puerto Rico is not a colony. As for the links you provide from the UN, they are hardly persuasive. First of all, the UN is an unreliable source of information on questions of the status of nations, territories, etc.. For example, according to the UN, Taiwan is not a sovereign independent nation.

Second, I looked into the links you provided and . The "Special Committee on Decolonization" consists of Antigua & Barbuda, Bolivia, Chile, China, Congo, Cote D'Ivoire, Cuba, Dominica, Ethiopia, Fiji, Grenada, India, Indonisia, Iran, Iraq, Mali, Papua New Guinea, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, Syrian Arab Republic, Timor- Leste, Tunisia, United Republic of Tanzania, Venezuela. So where is North Korea? It's not a complete list of countries that hate the United States without North Korea.

From the second link you provided: "Acting without a vote today, the Special Committee on decolonization approved a draft resolution. Acting without a vote? That's supposed to persuade anyone of the unbiased fairness of the committee? Also according to that page the draft text was written and introduced by Cuba, another unbiased observer of U.S. affairs, no? Readin (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, read this ones:

Let Puerto Rico Decide: An Introduction to Puerto Rico's Status Debate http://www.letpuertoricodecide.com/details.php?cid=4

Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2005) http://www.house.gov/fortuno/pdf/PuertoRicoBooklet.pdf

Puerto Rico: The Oldest Colony on Earth http://blog.ronaldfernandez.com/2008/05/26/puerto-rico-the-oldest-colony-on-earth.aspx

Is Puerto Rico a Colony? http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16198 http://blog.ronaldfernandez.com/2008/05/26/puerto-rico-the-oldest-colony-on-earth.aspx

Report By the President's Task Force On Puerto Rico's Status (December 2007) http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/documents/2007-report-by-the-president-task-force-on-puerto-rico-status.pdf (Seablade (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC))

I hope thay you understand that Puerto Rico's status is colonial: the people (US Citizens) of Puerto Rico need a process of decolonization in order to make a transition out of their current colonial status, and into a status of full dignity and equality. Statehood or Independence. (I prefer the first one).

The President's Task Force are the official position of the U.S. Government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seablade (talk • contribs) 07:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)