Talk:Democratic Progressive Party: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:25, 1 October 2020

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Democratic Progressive Party 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

Archives: 1: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Politics: Political parties C‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as High-importance).

Taiwan C‑class Top‑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 articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Center-Right ??

Despite some of their economic policy being center, barely even center-left, their social is Right-Wing. I think they should be classified as Center or Center- Right. Also in Taiwan social policy, regarding China and Chinese people in Taiwan,is far more important than economic policy. - D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.240.166 (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, economic liberalism is mentioned as part of their ideology, so clearly it is not centre-left. --Oddeivind (talk) 13:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the DPP is the party constantly advocating for military spending and adopting a belligerent stance towards China. Definitely conservative and not liberal in that respect. They should be center; especially with their ties to Taiwan's Presbyterian Church. Cyberpunkas (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism

In all the election campaign, DPP uses the tactic that "if you love Taiwan, vote for DPP", "if you are true Taiwanese, vote for DPP", "if you vote for the pan blue parties, you are not Taiwanese", and furthermore, "if you vote for the pan blue parties, you are Chinese communist", "if you are fed in Taiwanese food, you should vote for true Taiwanese", "Pan blue parties are Chinese parties, not Taiwanese" (2000 & 2004 presidential election, 1998, 2001 and 2004 legistilative yuan members election)

DPP government insists to call the Fujian dialect as "Taiwanese", people who immigrated to Taiwan from China more than 100 years ago as true "Taiwanese", while ignoring the voices of Taiwanese aboriginal people.

From the definition fo Fascism in Wikipedia,

   * exalts nation and sometimes race above the individual.
   * stresses loyalty to a single leader.
   * uses violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
   * engages in severe economic and social regimentation.
   * implements totalitarianism.

point 1: Over the years, even being more corrupted than the GMT government, its core voters follow the slogan of DPP "if you are true Taiwanese, vote for DPP". (2000 & 2004 presidential election, 1998, 2001 and 2004 legistilative yuan members election)

point 2: Chen Shui-bian. The most recent example, holding the 2004 referendum because Chen wants it, and then overturning the 2004 referendum results also because Chen doesn't like them, meanwhile millions of dollars are wasted. (2004 presidential election)

point 3: Use the "Government Information Office" to control medias with opposite openion. Control CTS, TTV and FTV and censor the news regarding opposite parties. Legalise underground radios who supported Chen in the 2004 elections.

point 4: Control the education system. In the official high school social study textbook, DPP government changed the text declares the constitution of ROC first written by GMT "may against the law", law of what is unclear.

point 5: From definition, all totalitarian régimes pose as the culmination of 'true' democracy as opposed to the liberal democracies that exercise the rule of law and respect property rights. In all elections, DPP claims that they are the true democracy, and to oppose DPP is to oppose democracy.

I would welcome Wilfried Derksen to challange the above points. bobbybuilder 18:12pm, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

I am not convinced by the 5 points that it makes the DPP fascist. I would like to see some more Taiwanese reactions on that. At the other hand, it is clearly not a neutral point of view to call this party fascist. A sentence that the party stresses Taiwanese identity is not NPOV.

I will revert the text since it is not NPOVElectionworld 20:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV in wikipedia means to be "neutral", not to be only "positive". If you ignore everything negative, then it is definitely not neutral. "A sentence that the party stresses Taiwanese identity is not NPOV."? Please explain. The definition is there, the facts are there, if you are not convinced, bring up other facts. Otherwise it is just your POV. bobbybuilder 22:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no particular reason to associate racism and fascism with the DPP. I say this as a very strong supporter of the KMT.

If you want to write a deeper article into why some Taiwanese think the DPP is racist and fascist, go ahead, but simply linking DPP to articles on racism and fascism without going into detail about why, won't work.

Roadrunner 22:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Taiwanese vote for A-bian, Chinese vote for Lien." DPP campaign 2000, 2004. "The flooding in Kaohsiung was caused by having too many Chinese coming here." DPP Kaohsiung local government 2003.

To your second point, the details about why are there, I cannot help if you want to read selectively.

Interesting point, many DPP workers also like to go to discussion forums and claim they are loyal KMT supporters, and pretend to be very naive about the current affair. bobbybuilder 22:21, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You can look at my long record of posting on wikipedia, and decide what I really believe.

Also, I included links to racism and fascism with context. One thing that you really have to understand is that most people in the world don't know Taiwan politics, and you have to explain the situation. Linking the DPP to racism and fascism simply makes no sense to most people.

Roadrunner 22:39, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added some more stuff. Actually the main reason I had been holding off on expanding the article like I did with the the article on the Kuomintang is that I very much dislike the DPP, and would have preferred if someone who was very much pro-DPP started with a draft.

bobbybullder - if you want to convince people, you have to look and sound reasonable. Saying the ***DPP is a bunch of fascists*** just hurts your cause.

Roadrunner 22:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please give information what oppositionals label the DPP as fascist and/or racist. I would like you to study what fascism is. Start studying Italy and the Mussolini era. You cannot compare the present government in any way which the fascist dictatorships. Electionworld 05:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pan-blue labels the DPP as fascist. If you do not understand the politics in Taiwan and cannot read Chinese newspaper, I suggest you pull out of the discussion. Are you trying to say Fascist disappeared after the Mussolini era? The definition of Fascism is in Wikipedia, I strongly suggest you study the history of Fascism first, it is not our job to educate you. Please give us examples why we cannot COMPARE the present government in Taiwan IN ANY WAYS with the Fascist dictatorships? bobbybuilder 19:21, 22 Jun 2005 (TST)

Political position

If the DPP is leftist then why is it also taiwanese nationalist, nationalism is a right wing ideology. There is also a difference betwen leftism and liberalsim, left and right are defined by amount of equality while liberal and authotarian are defined by amount of freedom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.123.95 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, no, DPP is not left. None of the major political parties in Taiwan can be considered as Left. During either the 2004 or 2008 presidential campaign, DPP claimed that if KMT got elected, parks covered by the phlegm of crude, and ill-mannered Chinese tourists. While the party was in power, the government made it unnecessary difficult for not only Mainland Chinese brides, but also women from various South Asian countries (who were married to Taiwanese men) to attain citizenship. Chen Shui-bian, the former president and party leader, award Shintaro Ishihara, an extreme right-wing Japanese politician, the Order of Brilliant Star (probably because he's pro-Taiwan, and anti-Communist China). One of the party members once declared on national TV, in a talk-show that gay-marriage was wrong and should not be legal because it would make men stop marrying women. DPP is less Right than KMT, but it's not a leftist party. 123.192.155.81 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which politician said that about marriage? I'm interested, since our current article on same-sex marriage in Taiwan only talks about the opinion of a pro-equality DPP member, and implicates Ma Ying-jeou as reactionary. Shrigley (talk) 14:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To 123.192.155.81 - your analysis, beside being original research is, to put it bluntly, is completely asinine. The Soviet Union banned homosexuality and so did the Communist Party of China until a little over a decade ago. It was punishable under the penal code. So were the communist part of the soviet union and the communist party of china right wing fanatics? You are confusing American politics with the world. During Communist rule in Eastern europe, there was zero immigration. China also supported right wing governments because they were anti Soviet.Rajmaan (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the DPP is not a liberal party in the American/European sense. With Tsai Ing-Wen's social policies and economic policies, they have been moving closer to the left. But their nationalistic identities and agendas are definitely very conservative; also what liberal party wants to INCREASE military spending?! I support moving them to "center" rather then "center-left" or liberal. Cyberpunkas (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this completely. I am going to make the change since the sourced article for the centre-left label makes no mention of the party being centre-left which leads me to ask why that is even the sourced article. Magicalbuddha (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

think tank

http://www.dppnff.tw/about.php

independence for tibet and xinjian

Does it support independence for tibet and xinjian etc?--Kaiyr (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sabotage of name????

Um, it looks to me like someone as a joke changed the Chinese name of the party on the English page to 民豬妓步黨 (people's pig and prostitute forward party--ha ha) instead of 民主進步黨. Could perhaps a native Chinese speaker make sure I'm right about this and change it back? I'm a student of Chinese and not a native speaker so I didn't change it because I'm not 100% sure, but I'm about 99% sure. Thanks.114.35.81.215 (talk) 13:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democratic Progressive Party. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on replacing left–right position with cross-Strait position

In articles about Taiwanese political parties, should left–right position be replaced with cross-Strait position? Ythlev (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The left–right spectrum is not useful to describe Taiwanese parties.^[1]^[2] Ythlev (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which instances are you referring to specifically? DrIdiot (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox. Ythlev (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think both should be written. (left–right position & cross-Strait position)--삭은사과 (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind that all parties in government are actually considered right-wing, based on the above sources which are specifically about left–right instead of the cited sources that just mentions left–right. Ythlev (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those two pieces are opinion pieces. I don't think it's correct to characterize DPP as right wing. It definitely has a left-of-center component, and tends to embrace traditionally leftist positions than the KMT. DrIdiot (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For example, DPP has traditionally embraced labor issues more, though they've also walked back on those issues for a variety of reasons (popular opposition, implementation issues). DPP also has far more support for same sex marriage than KMT. DPP has always been a mix of left and right elements. Some commenters in above threads mention Taiwanese nationalism, but this in itself isn't left/right (see Sinn Fein for example). Currently on the page it says center to center-left which I think is OK. DrIdiot (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, DPP tends to swing between the centrist and the centre-left in Taiwanese politics. The Democratic Party of Korea does not call itself a right-wing party, although it has a social conservative tendency that is unfriendly to minority rights, including LGBT. Because the left-right distinction itself is very relative. DPP is the mainstay of reform and liberal forces in Taiwan.--삭은사과 (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to both, as per 삭은사과 Idealigic (talk) 23:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The DPP has passed several laws that can be seen as right wing, including the privatization of electricity, tax cuts, pension cuts, cutting holidays, continuing capital punishment, and even timing it for political gains. Their support for nationalism is in itself arguably a right-wing ideology, given some of their supporters' xenophobic and racist attitudes towards Chinese and Hongkongese people. Yel D'ohan (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On social issues, the DPP is certainly left-wing. And economically, I don't think the DPP is right-wing. Left-wing media such as Jacobin magazine and The Nation also call them center-left parties, so they should not change their political positions recklessly. And there is room for the DPP's anti-China orientation to be seen not as a right wing like Trump but rather as a left-wing nationalist.(South Korean media say Taiwan's DPP government is rather trying to actively accept Hong Kong people who are trampled on by Communist dictatorship as refugees.#)--삭은사과 (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Taiwan, along with Thailand, is the most open country to LGBT among Asian countries. Taiwan is the only Asian country where same-sex marriage is legal. In the 'People Power Under Attack' report selected by CIVICUS, Taiwan was classified as the only 'Open'.--삭은사과 (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "勇敢脫去偽裝的外衣，明明是右派就別再「裝左」！｜羅德水／突圍｜獨立評論". 獨立評論@天下 (in Chinese). Retrieved 7 March 2020.
^ "台灣選舉只有右派價值的藍綠輪替，而主要的第三勢力都不算是左翼政黨". The News Lens 關鍵評論網 (in Chinese). 2 December 2018. Retrieved 7 March 2020.

Taiwan Independence

Although the DDP is not a party that has nothing to do with Taiwan's independence, it does not seem to be putting Taiwan's independence at the forefront at present. In terms of the cross-street position, DPP tends to be more of a "status quo" than a "Taiwanese state". That's why I think the infobox should describe Taiwan independence as a political faction.--삭은사과 (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DPP's ideology

There have been a lot of edits regarding the DPP's ideology recently. It might be worth trying to get some consensus here on what that is and what constitutes a valid source. It might also be worth splitting into "factions" e.g. as in Democratic_Party_(United_States). Here are my two cents on some recent issues:

Taiwanese nationalism vs Taiwanese independence: I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between these two. "Nationalism" has a right-wing connotation though, which I think makes it a little less apppropriate. Related: DPP's stance is that Taiwan is already independent, right? So it's about 華獨 ("ROC independence") vs 台獨 ("Taiwan independence"), but this is more about practicalities rather than goals, and in the end both have the same goal: independence.
Anti-communism: I recently removed this one. I think it's a bad descriptor. Pretty much all major political parties in the USA are "anti-communist" but it's not a useful descriptor of ideology. In Taiwan, I think 反共 today doesn't mean anti-communism but anti-CCP, and in particular anti-unification. It all boils down to unification vs independence and doesn't actually have to do with left vs. right ideology. So I believe this is not a good description.

DrIdiot (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Nationalism" has a right-wing connotation Exactly, so the DPP is not a left-wing party. DPP is not very nationalistic though, compared to Statebuilding Party whose members speak in full Hokkien all the time. Ythlev (talk) 10:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me, independence means having Taiwan be the official name. "ROC independence" is basically status quo. DPP is largely a status quo party whereas NPP and Statebuilding are support independence. Ythlev (talk) 11:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I almost agree with the Ythlev user. Therefore, I think we should add 'anti-communism' to the infobox and eliminate 'Taiwanese independence'. (However, I don't think nationalism itself is the ideology of the right-wing. DPP is clearly a center-left party and at the same time a nationalist.)--삭은사과 (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think DPP is more anti-communist than KMT. Rather, you should remove anti-communistism from the infobox of KMT documents and add anti-communistism to the infobox of DPP documents. I don't think we need to distinguish anti-CCP from anti-Communism in Taiwan's politics in the 21st century. This is because the pure-meaning communists in Taiwan have little significant political influence.--삭은사과 (talk) 11:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly against putting "anti-commmunism" in the infobox. "Anti-communism" mostly makes sense in a *national* context that pits communism vs. some other form of government, e.g. the Kuomintang was anti-communist while it was in China. However, there is no serious Communist party in Taiwan, and the DPP is only anti-communist in the sense that it is against unification with China, which is driven by the CCP. So it's not an anti-communist party per se, it is anti-unification. DrIdiot (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of internal consistency, Wikipedia defines "Taiwan independence" as a movement and "Taiwan nationalism" as an ideology. So I think we should stick with the latter in the infobox. DrIdiot (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the KMT is no longer an anti-communist party, so it doesn't make sense to include it in the infobox for KMT. However, I still maintain it doesn't apply to the DPP either. DrIdiot (talk) 13:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exception for displaying both simplified and traditional characters in Infobox Chinese

@Geographyinitiative and CaradhrasAiguo: Please use this space to discuss whether this article should be one of the exceptions to displaying both simplified and traditional Chinese characters in {{Infobox Chinese}}. This was originally brought up here in a broader discussion about the general rule, which was then clarified with: the consensus at this RfC is that both the simplified and traditional characters should be generally displayed in {{Infobox Chinese}} with room for case-by-case consensus on exceptions. Please remember to be civil! — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21 and CaradhrasAiguo: Hello all. Per this edit, [1] I am opening a discussion regarding creating an exception under the concept that "both should be displayed unless there is consensus for an exception". The Democratic Progressive Party is not known to have members who use the characters 进 and 党 to describe the name of the organization they are part of. The DPP is not demonstrated to publish materials in the society in which they live in which an official, native language name for the DPP includes the characters 进 and 党 (and that name is used in actual native-to-native communication). The members of the actual society the DPP is in are not known to use 进 and 党 in the name of this organization when they describe it in their native language between themselves. 进 and 党 are part of an alternate linguistic system not found in the principal place of operation of the DPP organization. The form of the name of this organization using the characters 进 and 党 is documented on Wiktionary, a dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but is an encyclopedia, and only needs to display the name in use in the society in which the DPP is actually operating. Old style dictionaries would never include non-native linguistic material in an entry on a foreign language topic. Display of 进 and 党 with reference to the DPP on the Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia article IS warranted since Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia is also for people who read those characters, and that form is in use in areas that are not Taiwan. However, display of the form with 进 and 党 side by side with the real, actual name used by the actual party gives the false impression to English Wikipedia readers that the name with 进 and 党 is equally acceptable to the actual DPP name for itself, or that the DPP has ever used the other name historically- both points are not proved and don't seem to be provable. Also, Taiwan is an actual free society that is under constant threat of invasion by a power that would seek to force Taiwanese society to use the characters 进 and 党 throughout normal native-native communication and hence inclusion here is a dangerous pro-PRC linguistic policy POV that denies the fact that Taiwan has its own linguistic standards separate from those of China- see Taiwanese Mandarin, Taiwanese Hokkien, etc. Inclusion of the form with 进 and 党 on ENGLISH Wikipedia is clearly outside the scope of what an English Wikipedia article needs in terms of foreign language material. I have been overcoming bad precedent in Wikipedia and Wiktionary on this front for a long time- for instance, see the names of many of the districts of Kaohsiung and Tainan which are clearly to be derived from Tongyong Pinyin-- Wikipedia has often been cowed to ignore that reality. Taiwan has an independent military force from the PRC and Taiwan is not actually subject to PRC policy, nor will it ever be. I urge you to be sensitive to the actual situation in the actual location and the actual organization, and not include unsourced, POV superfluous foreign language material in English Wikipedia's article for the DPP. When, I ask, on English Wikipedia do we add foreign language names to an article that the organization subject of the article has never called itself by in its own society? Only here? Thanks for your consideration; I welcome any responses. (Also, I advocate hiding and not outright deleting the naming not used by the DPP- it may be proved that this form is actually used by the DPP in some respect and that this form deserves to be displayed.) Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

There is no specific argument presented here that there is a justification for keeping an artificial non-Taiwanese name using the characters 进 and 党 for this Taiwanese organization on this English language Wikipedia article hence I have hidden the form from the page waiting for any further confirmation or clarification. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The continued reverting is a failure to observe WP:BRD, I suggested on at least one occasion that an RfC be opened, but this was not heeded. Instead, the above wall of text present identical WP:RGW arguments to those found in the MOS discussion: commies / mainlanders bad, long live invincible independent Taiwan something something, but but these entities only exist in Taiwan. The Ministry of Civil Affairs, AFAIK, does not have any jurisdiction outside the mainland, and was founded in May 1978, well after the normalization of Simplified on the mainland. That is not an argument to exclude traditional there. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 16:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence yet provided that the DPP uses this form in at its own name or that Taiwanese call it by this name. Why continue to attempt to force a name that is not used by the DPP onto this page? How does that inform the reader of an English language encyclopedia? Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has been rejected at the MOS RfC. Nothing is being forced, it isn't even displayed inline in the first sentence with {{zh}}. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 17:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The RfC consensus is that both forms should generally be used for all articles (including Taiwan & ROC articles) because both forms are considered the same name.
I think there is a valid point that the DPP not using the simplified characters themselves is not different from most other articles about Taiwan. Otherwise, the argument would lead one to remove all of the simplified characters from articles about organizations in Taiwan and remove all traditional characters from post-1960s mainland China (as well as corresponding cases in HK, Macau, Singapore, etc.) and that would contradict the RfC consensus. So an exception should probably be based on a different argument than "XYZ doesn’t publish materials using simplified/traditional". — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Keep in mind that traditional characters on PRC articles can be referenced to proven historical or artistic usages. Traditional characters are still part of the linguistic system in the PRC [2], whereas most of them never were or are in Taiwan ROC. Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of organizations and names in the PRC formed after the 1960s that never used traditional characters, but we should still generally display both according to the RfC consensus. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:00, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Traditional characters are a secondary part of the legal and linguistic system of the PRC China society they are a part of whereas Taiwan doesn't have most of the simplified characters. That's an important distinction. The big PRC dictionaries like Xiandai Hanyu Cidian ALL have traditional characters (in a secondary capacity of course, which aligns with the Wikipedia policy of putting them after and below simplified forms). The Taiwan dictionaries don't have many of the simplified forms and most of them aren't in acutal use in Taiwan society. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But again, that's a general argument that would exclude almost all Taiwan articles (and many places outside Taiwan) on the large-scale scope that the RfC considered. Taiwan/ROC was explicitly mentioned in the statement of the RfC and that exact argument was presented early on in the RfC. The consensus of the RfC was ultimately to include both simplified and traditional characters, with editors arguing on the basis of accessibility, the prevalence of simplified characters in international Chinese-language publications, and reducing time-wasting WP disputes (like this one). — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: PRC names for Taiwan locations and content can and are documented in the dictionary on Wiktionary, while the simplified characters actually used in Taiwanese society can be shown on the Taiwan-exclusive pages when sourced. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. It is POV to add foreign language lingustic forms not used by the society in question or in the area/organizaiton/person in question to an encyclopedia article. Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is an argument for not including both forms in the infobox. But it is a general argument that was considered by the RfC, and the community consensus has been established to include both forms anyways.

As a side note, simplified characters are not just PRC names. Many independent international publications use simplified Chinese; for this article (民主进步党) alone: BBC News, Deutsche Welle, New York Times, Radio Free Asia, Reuters, etc. The Simplified Chinese characters are also the standard in publications from Singapore and Malaysia. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other jurisdictions make the choices they want about what they want to do. That's fine! Taiwan makes it's own choices too, and that's fine too! I'm talking about Taiwan itself. It's not "one size fits all". The facts have to be taken into account.Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia articles are written for an international audience, they do not solely reflect nomenclature by local populaces. The RfC consensus is what it is. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The general principle here is that something implemented in one place may not be fully implemented in another. Traditional forms are clearly part of (in a very secondary capacity) PRC society in the legal, artistic, academic and historical realms, and those characters are clearly put in a secondary position on the relevant Wikipedia articles. Simplified forms only have a limited scope of usage in Taiwan society. On Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia, that's a Wikipedia servicing people who use all kinds of forms, so that Wikipedia version seems somewhat justified in including all forms of all words everywhere. But on English Wikipedia, I'm just trying to document foreign language forms that are in use or have been in use in some capacity in the society in question. Taiwan uses simplified characters in very limited situations. Some topics cover things related to both PRC and ROC, so forms of language from all sides are naturally relevant. But it is an unwarranted extension of PRC influence to make everything the PRC wants to come to pass in Taiwan language a focal point on English Wikipedia articles. The English Wikipedia articles can't put extraneous forms not actually used in Taiwan on the page without good cause. It's a violation of the concept of an encyclopedia. Now OF COURSE the PRC version of the characters for the DPP's name are part of human language in general, hence I personally created the Wiktionary page for it- 民主进步党. That's a dictionary, and a great one. However, that form is not part of the legal or social system in Taiwan as far as Wikipedia knows at this time, nor is/was it endorsed or used by the DPP organization itself (or at least that fact has not yet been demonstrated). Wikipedia is pushing PRC linguistic policy in an unsettling way if we allow lingustic forms not actually used in Taiwan on Taiwan-exclusive pages. I don't mean any ill will to Cahardas at all by this of course. The user has an important perspective on PRC-ROC etc situations and that needs to be part of the equation when we write Wikipedia in the most neutral manner possible. But there's "neutral" and then there's adding the names proposed by a conqueror to the territory sought to be conquered despite the fact those forms are not shown in particular cases presented to have currency in the territory in question. That second type is not neutral- it's biased POV. The simplest course is to let Taiwan tell us what Taiwan is using/has used/etc. That is done by referencing secondary, reliable sources. In the case of this particular article about the DPP, I think we can say that the DPP has not used the foreign language name form including 进 and 党 yet, or at least it is not yet demonstrated to do so. Since the DPP is wholly within the Taiwan zone (as far as we know now) it just seems more plausible that adding 民主进步党 on this page is not a reflection of Taiwan society or the actual native langauge usages of the DPP, but is instead unwarranted (in the context of an encyclopedia article). Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These points about that form is not part of the legal or social system in Taiwan as far as Wikipedia knows at this time, nor is/was it endorsed or used by the DPP organization itself, that it is on Wiktionary, that the PRC uses simplified characters and has a POV against Taiwan, etc. are still just relitigation of the RfC where the same point was already raised but where the consensus was to include both forms. If there isn't anything specific to this article that was not part of the closed RfC, the general consensus still stands and I don't think there is much else to say. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are trying to say, but this is actually about the names for organizations and places actually proven to be in use in Taiwan. There is a limited scope of simplified characters in use in Taiwan society which can be demonstrated to be used in names in certain contexts. Names not yet actually documented in the region are just that: names that are not yet documented- not sourced to a secondary, reliable source- and hence are not yet demonstrated to be valid for inclusion on an English Wikipedia article. Adding extra foreign language names that haven't been shown to exist in the society in question is not upheld in any context on Wikipedia. Here, an exception to the apparent standing rule that "anything the PRC residents might hypothetically use to call a place should be included everywhere, with exceptions" is sought with regard to this specific Chinese character name for this specific organization, on the basis above presented. 进 and 党 are not yet documented to be used as part of a foreign language (non-English) name for this organization, and this extra form (the form with 进 and 党 not used by the DPP) is not yet shown to be part of the native language interaction between members of Taiwanese society. (Again, there's a million qualifications that I don't want to go through about how Wiktionary (not Wikipedia) is a dictionary documenting PRC/simplified/etc names for locations, etc etc.) Does it make sense to prove a foreign language name for this organization from sources that do not come from Taiwanese society native-to-native communication? Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

You're not listening anymore. You have repeated the same exact thing at least seven times now and are just fighting the consensus at the RfC. The consensus is that both forms should generally be included, and you haven't provided an argument for this article is any different from the broad-scope argument already raised in the RfC.

If you continue repeating this same argument from the RfC, I won't waste any more of your or my time here. You can open an RfC for this particular article, but if you just use this same argument then I don't think you'll convince anyone that this is an exception. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: I cannot actually stop you, but I urge you to consider carefully what you are doing here. The DPP is not using the name in question, yet the non-used name is presented side by side with the actual name as if both are equally part of Taiwan culture. No extra foreign language names are added on any other Wikipedia article in this manner. For the sake of the protection of my account, I have to stop editing related to this exception for this page. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What has to be done is to implement the community consensus until a new one is formed. Right now, the RfC consensus is to use both forms in articles except where there is a separate consensus for an individual article to be exclude a form. Right now, there is no such consensus that this article is an exception and the only arguments that have been presented for this article to be an exception are the general arguments from the original RfC.

Briefly, again, on some of the individual points here: Wikipedia is not solely based on usage in local jurisdictions, accessibility to an international audience is important to the encyclopedia, and I personally do not think that the presence of the simplified characters in {{Infobox Chinese}} implies that the simplified characters are used in Taiwan. Regarding No extra foreign language names [...], the result of the RfC is that editors considered the simplified and traditional forms to be the same name, so the simplified form is not considered to be a separate foreign language name.

You can disagree with what CaradhrasAiguo has said to you here. You can disagree with I have said in response to you. You can disagree with the consensus of the RfC. But you need to accept that it is the consensus even if you disagree with it; a failure to get the point is considered disruptive. I do not intend on revisiting this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: Can I be allowed a question based on your remarks? True or False: It is part of a general argument from the original RfC to say that the DPP organization itself never used / is not using the extra form of its name.
If the answer is "false", then the statement "the only arguments that have been presented are general arguments from the original RfC" is false.
If the answer is "true", then my argument is not actually perceived in the correct sense- I am saying something about this organization specifically. Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are applying the same argument that "___ never used / is not using simplified characters", but replacing ROC with DPP. The subject is different, but the argument itself is the same. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: So you are saying that there's an explicit rule on Wikipedia that requires (or just allows?) posting foreign language (non-English) linguistic forms not proven in Taiwan in the 'Infobox Chinese' for Taiwanese-topic Wikipedia articles? Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never said that there is an explicit rule. But there is the RfC consensus that has been explained countless times now. Please stop. — MarkH₂₁^talk

@MarkH21: I know your patience may be taxed, but I offered to stop discussion, at which point further points were made. I think this is getting somewhere now. Are you saying that there's an explicit RfC rule on Wikipedia that requires (or just allows?) posting foreign language (non-English) linguistic forms not proven in Taiwan in the 'Infobox Chinese' for Taiwanese-topic Wikipedia articles? Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: I know you're tired. You're thinking, oh god, another internet troll. But I changed the names of many of the districts of Kaohsiung and Tainan based on reliable, secondary sources. I have added Wade-Giles forms throughout Wikipedia and Wiktionary despite impassioned resistance from Hanyu Pinyin only people because those forms are undeniably part of the historical record (at minimum). I am doing a great job, and so is Cahardas and so are you. All I'm saying is that I have a different understanding of the nature of the rule or consensus that you are trying to implement here. So again: Are you saying that there's an explicit RfC rule on Wikipedia that requires (or just allows?) posting foreign language (non-English) linguistic forms not proven in Taiwan in the 'Infobox Chinese' for Taiwanese-topic Wikipedia articles? Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: You wrote the words "there is the RfC consensus". Which is it? What day was it achieved? Could you cite to it? How exactly does it apply in this particular case? Allusion to an unsourced authority is not evidence of anything. I'm having a hard time believing it is being implemented correctly, especially when many districts in Tainan and Kaohsiung were clearly using Tongyong Pinyin derived names for themselves (and those names are used in media and scientific literature) but Wikipedia was showing the Hanyu Pinyin derived names and was hence wildly biased. I am saying there may be a bias here on this page right now too. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

" most editors noted that there is room for case-by-case exceptions." is what I'm talking about. I don't know what part of the decisions you may be/are referencing. The exception is that the DPP is not shown to use the form with 进 and 党. Other organizations and people may be shown to do so via a secondary, reliable source. There is no consensus to force forms not used on Taiwan onto Taiwan-exclusive topics (DPP operates in ROC not PRC or elsewhere and is not known to publish material in which its name is displayed using 进 or 党), which is what I'm saying this seems to be. Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me give an example. I just added the traditional character form of the name for the Communist Pary of China on that Wikipedia article. [3]. I justified my edit based on a website I found within five seconds of searching that showed the CCP using the traditional character name on a Hong Kong government website. What I'm saying is that you didn't do that with the DPP and the decision RfC did not mean you can impose PRC linguistic policy on Taiwan topics willy nilly. The general rule for topics relating to Chinese characters is that all forms should be shown, but when there is no clear evidence that a simplified form is part of the local culture/personal life/organization/etc, there's a clear reason to think about an exception, which I'm saying applies here. It's patently ridiculous to include a name the DPP doesn't use and never used on its article masquerading as if it is equally legitimate with the actual name in native language usage in the area (again note: there is of course another form of the DPP name using 进 and 党 which is documented on Wiktionary and note again the comments about PRC usage of traditional above). There can be no consensus to include extra foreign language context not used by/in the subject of the article, and the RfC didn't impose PRC policy on Taiwan. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no meeting of the minds among Wikipedia users that overturns WP:WEIGHT. "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." It is undue weight to display lingusitic symbols not used by this organization on the page as if they were of equal legitimacy or are used by the DPP organization. No misunderstanding of a CfR consensus cancels that. Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaradhrasAiguo: What is the content of the RfC you are proposing that I open? Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RfC. However, any argumentation that smells of "to hell with the PRC commies" (which ironically ignores the usage of simplified in Singapore and increasing numbers of diasporic Chinese) will not be looked kindly upon. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 01:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CaradhrasAiguo: Are you committed to making a real decision on whether the English Wikipedia DPP page should include a foreign language form of its name not used by the DPP organization? If so, can you tell me what you think I would propose in a RfC? How is this article about the PRC in your mind? Why do you think the exception from the RfC you are talking about doesn't apply here? This is definitely an at least borderline candidate for an exception under that rule, right? To you, are all my arguments "PRC bad!"? Is there even a scintilla of logic in what I'm saying to you, editor to editor, or do I need to be (in your personal judgment) consigned to the flames for removing/hiding a foreign language form not used by the DPP at this time from the English Wikipedia page? You paint me as insane fringe person, but I have made enormous contributions in the districts of Kaohsiung and Tainan that proved the existence of names for areas there that are not in Hanyu Pinyin. I'm just telling the people what the sources are saying. And I'm saying that Wikipedia may be biased away from the actual situation in Taiwan in the case of this page- the DPP page. Could what I'm saying be even slightly true, or is the value of some kind misguided "law and order" "my-understanding-of-the-RfC-or-the-highway" idea more important than everything I have done on here? Have mercy on me. Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC) (modified)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: This is absolutely disruptive WP:IDHT behavior, Geographyinitiative. The consensus of the MOS RfC is to include both forms of the Chinese name, as has been explained to you ad nauseum, and there has been no consensus whatsoever here that this article is an exception to that general rule. You have also been advised to start a new RfC on this topic already, but you are continuing to not listen to other editors and continuing to edit war over this. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "勇敢脫去偽裝的外衣，明明是右派就別再「裝左」！｜羅德水／突圍｜獨立評論". 獨立評論@天下 (in Chinese). Retrieved 7 March 2020.

[2] "台灣選舉只有右派價值的藍綠輪替，而主要的第三勢力都不算是左翼政黨". The News Lens 關鍵評論網 (in Chinese). 2 December 2018. Retrieved 7 March 2020.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 :::[[WP:RfC]]. However, any argumentation that smells of "{{tq|to hell with the PRC commies}}" (which ironically ignores the usage of simplified in Singapore and increasing numbers of diasporic Chinese) will not be looked kindly upon. <span style="color: #8B0000">Caradhras</span>Aiguo (<small>[[User talk:CaradhrasAiguo|leave language]]</small>) 01:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 :::: {{ping|CaradhrasAiguo}} Are you committed to making a real decision on whether the English Wikipedia DPP page should include a foreign language form of its name not used by the DPP organization? If so, can you tell me what you think I would propose in a RfC? How is this article about the PRC in your mind? Why do you think the exception from the RfC you are talking about doesn't apply here? This is definitely an at least borderline candidate for an exception under that rule, right? To you, are all my arguments "PRC bad!"? Is there even a scintilla of logic in what I'm saying to you, editor to editor, or do I need to be (in your personal judgment) consigned to the flames for removing/hiding a foreign language form not used by the DPP at this time from the English Wikipedia page? You paint me as insane fringe person, but I have made enormous contributions in the districts of Kaohsiung and Tainan that proved the existence of names for areas there that are not in Hanyu Pinyin. I'm just telling the people what the sources are saying. And I'm saying that Wikipedia may be biased away from the actual situation in Taiwan in the case of this page- the DPP page. Could what I'm saying be even slightly true, or is the value of some kind misguided "law and order" "my-understanding-of-the-RfC-or-the-highway" idea more important than everything I have done on here? Have mercy on me. [[User:Geographyinitiative|Geographyinitiative]] ([[User talk:Geographyinitiative|talk]]) 01:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC) '''(modified)'''
+:::::{{ping|Geographyinitiative}} This is absolutely disruptive [[WP:IDHT]] behavior, Geographyinitiative. The consensus of [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/China_and_Chinese-related_articles#Request_for_comment:_Do_the_traditional_and_simplified_forms_of_Chinese_count_as_the_same_name_or_different_names_in_regards_to_eligibility_of_displaying_characters?|the MOS RfC]] is to include both forms of the Chinese name, as has been explained to you ''ad nauseum'', and there has been no consensus whatsoever here that this article is an exception to that general rule. You have also been advised to start a new RfC on this topic already, but you are continuing to not listen to other editors and continuing to edit war over this. — <span style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;font-size:100%;color:black;background-color:transparent;;">[[User:MarkH21|MarkH<sub><small>21</small></sub>]]<sup>[[User talk:MarkH21|<span style="background-color:navy; color:white;">talk</span>]]</sup></span> 02:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)