This article is within the scope of WikiProject Geography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of geography 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.GeographyWikipedia:WikiProject GeographyTemplate:WikiProject Geographygeography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands 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.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles
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
It is clear from this memo that prior to the Korean War, the US accepted Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.
But the fighting that broke out in the Korean peninsula in June 1950 changed the US attitude.
Seeing Taiwan's value as an 'unsinkable aircraft carrier', a famous characterisation by General Douglas MacArthur, the US began to say that 'the status of Taiwan was undetermined'.
To give legal basis to this claim, the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with Japan merely committed the latter to surrendering Taiwan but did not specify to whom the island was to be returned.
This amounted to a repudiation of US treaty obligation as spelt out in the Cairo and Potsdam instruments.
Despite this deliberate attempt to deny Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan, former US President Richard Nixon pledged to China in no uncertain
terms:
'Principle One: There is one China, and Taiwan is part of China.
'There will be no more statements made to the effect that the status of Taiwan is undetermined.'
This declaration is there in the declassified documents of his historic trip to Beijing in 1972.
However, American words were not matched by deeds.
Despite the Nixon pledge, the 1979 Joint Communique establishing formal diplomatic relations was crafted in a way to give the US room for backpedalling.
In that document, the US said that 'it acknowledges the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is a part of China'.
The US Congress later elaborated on this in the Taiwan Enabling Act Report, March 1, 1979.
It said that 'the Administration acknowledged the Chinese position that Taiwan is part of China, but the US has not itself agreed to this position'.
Thus, from the Chinese point of view, the USCC report calling for an end to the 'one-China policy' is but another attempt to deny Chinese sovereignty over Taiwan.
While Beijing has refrained thus far from public criticism of the report, no one should be under any illusion that it will sit on its hands while Washington tinkers with the one-China policy.
The article gives "pescadores" as the Portugese word for "fishermen"; I know that that is true in Spanish as well. It makes enough sense that a colonial power would have named an island like this, but I just wanted to make sure we know that it's Portugal and not Spain. --BDD 17:41, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A cursory glance at an History book tells you where were the Portuguese and the Castillian back in the early 1500ies: Taiwan was very much in the Portuguese zone. 82.155.75.10222:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In the introduction it is said that the county flower is the chrysanthemum, and on the right box the Firewheel is pointed as the county flower, which I think is the case, seeing the official website: http://www.penghu.gov.tw/Tonyjeff21:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese name for the flower is translated in several ways. The best translation is 'immortals' as it is closest to the local Penghu name.
The blue box is ugly and not needed, especially since there is already a county infobox occupying the same space. Please do not add it without consensus.--Jiang02:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (China-related articles) currently states that it is up to the editors of each article to decide whether to use the box (and not the blue box). Wikipedia:Consensus states, "Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation, in an attempt to develop a consensus. If we find that a particular consensus happens often, we write it down as a guideline, to save people the time having to discuss the same principles over and over. Normally consensus is reached via discussion on talk pages."
Now, if there is a compelling reason to use the blue box in this particular article, then state it here. No comment means you do not have a opinion, in which case, I am the only one with an opinion.--Jiang01:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest modifying the county infobox itself so that the pronunciation information could be presented inline there, rather than breaking up the lead sentence. cab11:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Moved to Penghu. This debate mostly turned on whether "Penghu" or "Pescadores" is more common in English. The editors opposed to this move seem to be saying that the two are about equal, but also acknowledge that use of "Penghu" is growing, and will be the most common name soon. Given that, it seems pointless to put off this move until then.--Aervanathlivesinthe Orphanage07:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My reasons: we dont talk about "formosa", but "taiwan", we seldom use the colonial power name. Official name of the county is penghu, even wikitravel uses penghu, penghu has more internet entries than pescadores islands —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you are changing all the links without getting a consensus. Please pause and give others a chance to respond to your suggestion. Readin (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I will note that a Google search on "Pescadores" came up with 5.5 million hits while a Google search on "Penghu" only returned less than half that amount (2.3 million hits). So I believe your assertion that "Penghu" has more internet entries is incorrect. Readin (talk) 23:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another data point: Adding "Taiwan" to the search put "Penghu Taiwan" in the lead with 1.8 million hits versus "Pescadores Taiwan"'s 228 thousand hits. I put the "Taiwan" in to avoid other places that might be called "Pescadores". Based on this I have to put "Penghu" back in the lead as the more common name on the internet. Readin (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me that the "Penghu" hits might include a lot of non-English, or that the result might be biased by a tendency of people who use "Taiwan" to prefer "Penghu" while people who use "Formosa" to use "Pescadores" so I tried some additional searches:
"taiwan pescadores island" 78,500
"taiwan pescadores islands" 19,600
"formosa pescadores island" 64,300
"formosa pescadores islands" 72,400
"taiwan penghu island" 1,400,000
"taiwan penghu islands" 171,000
"formosa penghu island" 1,300,000
"formosa penghu islands" 145,000
At this point the Google results are heavily favoring "Penghu". Does anyone see any possible systemic problems with my search terms that I've overlooked?
Appreciate, i was mistaken about the google searches... should we move "Cimei, Penghu" to "Cimei, Pescadores"? Should we also move "Mumbai" to "Bombay"? or "Chennai" to "Madras", maybe "Beijing" to "Peking"? If u agree to keep naming the article "Pescadores", we should rename any article named "Taiwan" to "Formosa", otherwise it would be inconsistent (I think).
Today "Beijing" is definitely more common than "Peking". I'm less sure about "Mumbai" and "Bombay" but that is for the editors on that page to decide. I know nothing about "Chennai" and "Madras".
I don't agree that it is a question of older vs newer. The naming policy says we should use the more common English name. So we need to figure out if there is clear evidence that Penghu is more common. The naming policy also say we shouldn't change the name of a long established article without a really good reason. So if our investigation results in a tie, then the name "Pescadores" will have to stay. See WP:NAME Sorry for so much bold, but I want to make sure the naming poicy gets noticed. Readin (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My google searches suggests "Penghu" is more common. Can you support your contention that "Pescadores" is the more common English name? Readin (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support According to Google searches, Penghu is far more common. According atlases on sale at the bookstore, both Penghu and Pescadores are common. Readin (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Favouringthe move. We use the most common English names for WP article titles... K. According to what I have just googled, I have to deny my previous post:
Penghu: 2.020.000 entries (google)
Pescadores islands: 724.000 entries (google)
Penghu islands: 187.000 entries (google)
Some spanish-portuguese lexicon: "pescadores" means in both spanish and portuguese "fishermen".. If u r thinkin about considering the search:
Pescadores: 4.860.000 entries (google)
As the basis to affirm that "Pescadores" is more common than "Penghu", well, thats not correct, because most of those results r related to, well, "fishermen", u know, the guys who go fishing. (most of those pages r in one of those 2 languages)
So I favour the move, because, contrary to what happens if u google "pescadores", if u google "penghu", all the results are cleary related to the archipelago
Again, Im gonna ask for coherence: Taiwan - Penghu or Formosa - Pescadores (FAVOURING THE 1ST CHOICE)
Ask the ppl in Penghu how do they refer to the place where they live...
Some new sources:
A) WTO has its own section about the Republic of China (Taiwan): its official name in the body is:
Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu (Chinese Taipei) and the WTO
C) The following is a copy of a map i have about taiwan (i have the 1994 edition)... It shows the archipelago as "Penghu" (By the was, it shows "Magong" too)
I) The ROC will start using Hanyu Pinyin as the only romanization system starting next year (since 01-01-2009), well.. Penghu is pinyin. I think romanizing all chinese names to Pinyin (which, by the way, is the policy applied to the Chinese Mainland articles) would add coherence to all articles related to the 2 countries that are "Republic(s) of China".
Some of you reasons are good, others not so good. But I do think that overall the evidence so far is pointing toward a name change. However I still ask that you wait. Changing the name of an article that has been around without modification for along time is not a trivial action. Waiting a week for responses is not too much to ask. You proposed the name change on the 11th. How about waiting until the 18th to make the change? Readin (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move. The islands are called the Pescadores Islands in English. All authoritative atlases so name them. It is quite irrelevant at present that certain interests in Taiwan wish to call them Penghu. That's fine in Chinese, and the Taiwanese media can of course call the islands whatever they want, but until and unless the world's English-language atlases follow suit, they should remain the Pescadores for the purposes of the Wikipedia project. Or we will have to start referring to Vienna as Wien, Munich as München, and so on. I have no objection to adding the gloss (Penghu, 澎湖) after the first reference to the Pescadores in an English-language Wikipedia article, but I see no reason why we should break with the tradition of ages that place names are given in their commonly-accepted English form.
I agree with User:Djwilms, the English Wikipedia should follow usage in main English-language reference works like atlasses and encyclopædias and not English language media on Taiwan only. However, in the Encyclopædia Britannica the islands are named P'eng-hu Islands in their own article, so they are not always called Pescadores in English. On the other hand the same Encyclopædia keeps them naming Pescadores in articles about Taiwan, Strait of Taiwan and Treaty of Shimonoseki. Maybe there is a movement towards the usage of Penghu in that encyclopædia and will the other articles be rewritten in due course?? Guss2 (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In favor of changing the name, we have repeatable Google searches. In favor of keeping the name, we have some statements like "All authoritative atlases so name them" and "Wikipedia should follow usage in main English-language reference works like atlasses and encyclopædias". Unfortunately only Encyclopedia Britannica is mentioned by name. What specific sources use "Pescadores"? Can we have a list? Readin (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flickr, fotki results aint taiwanese media... Please, cite the Britannica edition year.. Somebody said about Vienn to Wienn.. K, what about Peking to beijing, bombay to mumbai, madras to chennai? (the last 3 examples r changes already made and accepted in the english media... just google it, read newspapers...) We aint in the 1970's —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.43.124.203 (talk) 22:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bringing up the examples of "Peking to beijing, bombay to mumbai, madras to chennai" isn't helping. Those are separate cases. We are concerned with current usage of "Pescadores" vs "Penghu". Whether one is older or newer is irrelevant. Frequency of English usage, particularly by reliable sources, is what matters. So far we have strong evidence for "Penghu" from our Google searches. Strong evidence for "Pescadores" based on reliable encyclopedic sources has been mentioned, but not provided. Readin (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me that a way to check contemporary usage at in non-Taiwanese sources would be to check non-Taiwanese news sources. I didn't find anything for either Penghu or the Pescadores at washingtonpost.com, but I found 13 hits for Penghu and zero hits for Pescadores at reuters.com. Ap.org had 5 hits for Pescadores, only 2 of which appeared to be related to Taiwan, while for Penghu ap.org had 45 hits, with 9 of the first 10 being related to Taiwan. Readin (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the parties to this discussion need to be aware that I have reported User:Gumuhua for vandalism to the article Pescadores Campaign, mostly written by myself. Despite warnings from other contributors, Gumuhua has made substantial edits to this article, replacing 'the Pescadores' by 'Penghu' wherever it occurs; removing all Wade Giles romanisation from the article (my practice in the case of articles dealing with Taiwan has been to give all names in Wade Giles, followed by the pinyin version and the Chinese characters in brackets); and removing the initial capitals from names of nationalities (so that French, Chinese, British become french, chinese, british). I have reverted the article to its original state while my report is being considered, but anybody interested can check the extent of the changes made by consulting the article's recent history.
This aggressive and impolite behaviour should not of course affect the merits of User:Gumuhua's arguments for changing the name to Penghu, but it is, I think, revealing. We seem to be dealing here with a contributor who is determined to push his own, controversial, viewpoint regardless of opposition, and who is too impatient to wait for the conclusion of discussion on this issue.
Further to the views I expressed earlier on the main issue, I am not sure whether comparing the frequency with which Penghu and the Pescadores appear on the Internet is an appropriate measure. Sure, there are lots of mentions of Penghu, but I bet that nearly all of them are from Taiwanese sources. What does that prove? We know that the Taiwanese prefer to call the islands Penghu. But that isn't the point. As I said earlier, the main criterion should be the attitude of authoritative English-language atlases and encyclopedias, who have their own policies for deciding on whether place names deserve changing. I do not believe that Wikipedia should be used as a channel for pushing controversial nationalist viewpoints.
Regardless of User:Gumuhua's behavior, and I agree that it has not been the best, you are correct that it doesn't affect the merits of the arguments for and against the name change.
You may be right that most of the sources that use "Penghu" are Taiwanese people using English. However, it may that most of the time when the islands are being talked about in English, they are being talked about by Taiwanese. That presents an interesting question about usage: Should we choose the word most English speakers would use to describe the islands, or should we choose the word that is most frequently used to describe the islands?
Before we get to that question, we first need some support for your arguments. You have once again suggested that English-language atlases and encyclopedias use "Pescadores" rather than "Penghu" without saying specifically which atlases and encyclopedias. Before we consider that argument we need to have some verifiability.
Unfortunately, I'm unable to think of a way to modify the Google searches to distinguish between Taiwanese sources and other sources. Do you have any suggestions? Readin (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that u mostly wrote the article doesnt mean only u can edit it...
Wades Giles aint official anymore (when has it been official?) Currently the ROC uses Tongyong Pinyin, but it will be replaced in 2 weeks by the most common romanization system today... Hanyu Pinyin, used among other institutions by the UN, the Library of Congress, the chinese government to teach students in the whole country (since they dont use bopomofo anymore), students of chinese overseas and soon, the government of Taiwan (the policy of the Ma administration is clear). I just find stupid to write 2 or even more romanization systems, cause i consider it confuses readers of the article... The wikipedia site doesnt use "Ching, but Qing, not Peking but Beijing, and so on... I dont have the figures, but i think most of the articles related to china r romanized using hanyu pinyin (Guangdong, Guangzhou, etc).. That still doesnt apply to Taipei or Pingtung, but, again, the policy of Ma is clear... Starting to use Hanyu pinyin next year.
I have used Wade Giles in the articles Keelung Campaign and Pescadores Campaign because they deal with military campaigns fought decades before the invention of pinyin. The Wikipedia guideline on this subject is quite clear:
Wade Giles (Please include for subjects which were notable before the introduction of pinyin, and especially for those which existed before 1910; English references to them will exist using Wade-Giles only, and these are very difficult to look up unless the WG transcriptions are included).
On the question of renaming the Pescadores, you have to look beyond the narrow Taiwanese context and consider how these islands are identified in the atlases, encyclopedias and standard reference books of the English-speaking world. My impression is that, at present, the Pescadores is still the favoured term. I don't have many reference works with me at present in the office, but I've just checked out the Cambridge History of China, the world's most authoritative English-language history of China. Its index entry for Taiwan reads 'Taiwan (台灣), Formosa', and its index entry for the Pescadores reads 'Pescadores'. It also has the entry 'P'eng-hu tao (澎湖島), see Pescadores)'. In both cases, the Cambridge History has chosen to use the name that it believes the reader will be most familiar with: Taiwan, not Formosa; and Pescadores, not Penghu.
If I find myself in a bookstore within the next few days I'll try to look at the atlases they have there. In the meantime, what is the publication date for the Cambridge History of China you're looking at? Also, while there is disagreement about the present term, we all agree that Pescadores was the common term at some point in the past. A book on history might be biased in favor of historical terms. Readin (talk) 04:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Incidentally, do you happen to know the Chinese characters for the villages known to the French as 'Kisambo' and 'Amo', which featured in the 1885 Pescadores Campaign? They're marked on Garnot's map of the campaign which illustrates the article. I've looked at a couple of old Japanese maps of the Pescadores, but haven't so far been able to identify either village. I visited the nearby villages a couple of years ago, but none of the villagers could identify them either. Doubtless the names were changed by the Japanese ...
I looked in some atlases (I thought I would remember their names, but I only remember "Hammond" at the moment) on sale in B&N this weekend. The search was inconclusive. Both Pescadores and Penghu were used together. Based on this and the overwhelming results from the Google searches, I have to throw support behind renaming the article to "Penghu". Readin (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's becoming clear that we are in a messy stage of transition at present, and that both names are in common use. No doubt Penghu will win out eventually, as virtually nobody outside Taiwan really cares what the islands are called; though it's always sad when a name with a history of more than 300 years drops out of use. Most of the other 'colonial' placenames in Taiwan (e.g. Mount Morrison) date only from the nineteenth century. The Pescadores, like the name Formosa for Taiwan, goes back at least to the seventeenth century and possibly to the sixteenth, and is a fine name that evokes the spirit of the era of the European voyages of discovery.
Presumably the name change will be done in such a way that typing in 'Pescadores' will get a direction to the article. And I would hope that the name 'Pescadores' is given a high profile in the introductory paragraph, as there will be a number of history enthusiasts who have heard of the Pescadores (invaded successively by the Dutch in the seventeenth century and the French and the Japanese in the nineteenth) but who will not recognise the name Penghu. It might be sensible, indeed, to give the article the title 'Penghu (Pescadores Islands)'.
I have included references to the name Penghu (mainly under its Wade Giles alias, P'eng-hu, but with the pinyin and Chinese characters also given up front) in my article Pescadores Campaign, but I feel very strongly that the traditional name Pescadores should remain in a historical article of this kind. It would be utterly anachronistic to talk of the 'Penghu campaign'. The article is most likely to be consulted by readers who have come across the term campagne des Pescadores in a French historical work.
I concur almost exactly with this point of view; although the problems with a double name (believe it or not, editors will fight over order in such constructs) make me prefer to keep Pescadores until Peng-hu becomes unquestionably established in English. This shouldn't take long; the BBC went over in 2001. For comparison, the nationalist campaign for Mumbai made it official in 1996, and it is now established. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson23:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the rename of Pescadores to Penghu from the historical perspective, I have a lot of sympathy for history, I like "Bombay" a lot better than "Mumbai" and I wish "Constantinople" were still "Constantinople", but the Wikipedia standard doesn't care about history.
Obviously the title of the Pescadores Campaign article should remain unchanged unless it becomes clear that it is no longer called the "Pescadores Campaign", which seems doubtful. We don't refer to Peking Man as "Beijing Man" just because the city name has changed. We don't call the Gallic Wars the "French Wars" these days. Readin (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just history, though. Unlike Formosa or Peking, Pescadores was the established name a decade ago; until it is clear that the new name is established, we should not switch. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson14:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to know that the topic is still being debated: I just looked the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" 2007 edition (online article), and guess what?? It shows Penghu (not romanized in pinyin, but WG), and, guess what too? If u type Pescadores, it redirects u to the Penghu page... wow... (yup, not an established name...)
Now, who will affirm that the Ecyclopaedia Britannica is not a reliable source? Id say its the most academic ecyclopedia on earth, and the most reliable english encyclopedia...
BTW, nobody has told me y Google Maps and Windows Live Maps are not reliable maps... Please, supporters of Pescadores give me an answer...
And about, Pescadores Campaign' I have to agree with u, though Id like it to be renamed... If we still talk about Peking Man and not Beijing Man, it should keep that name...
Err... how and who will decide when Penghu' is the "established" (as u say) name?
Please read WP:NCGN, which discusses Geonet. It does not look for English usage, except for a handful of cases (like Florence), where the English name is very well known indeed; it gives the local official name. That is not in question; the question is whether English has adopted it.
I don't think we should wait much longer on this. We've given plenty of time for those opposed to the merger to provide a reliable source suggesting that "Pescadores" is more common than "Penghu" and so far we have nothing. Meanwhile we have a the Google searches plus Encyclopedia Britannica saying "Penghu" is the term to use. If we don't get some reliable sources or good evidence for keeping "Pescadores" within a couple days, I will proceed with the rename. Readin (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Penghu is the name of the main island of the archipelago, what if somebody chooses to create the "Penghu" (island, the main island only) article?
Plus: wikipedia clearly differentiates between, among others: "Taipei" (city) and "Taipei County", "Taichung" (city) and "Taichung County", "Gaoxiong" (city) and "Gaoxiong County"... Shouldnt we follow that rule too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gumuhua (talk • contribs) 23:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Few if any people will look for "Penghu County". If you think this administrative division is important enough as an entity separate from the place "Penghu" then create a separate article. Otherwise simply make a redirect that points "Penghu County" to the "Penghu" article. (Using Taipei as an example, the "Taipei" article covers the city and typing "Taipei City" redirects the user to the "Taipei" article.
My understanding is that the term "Penghu" usually refers to the entire group of islands. If not, then perhaps we erred in renaming this article and should have kept the "Pescadores" article for island group and created a "Penghu" article for the single island. For now, there doesn't seem to be sufficient content or interest to justify having two separate articles for thethe island group and the single island. Readin (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We won't really have an issue here. As far as I know, the County includes all and only the islands of the Penghu archipelago. We'll have the freedom of writing about both in the same article. As far as I can see, the article is fine, it talks of both the county and the islands, in fact its basically organised as a County article. We can keep the name 'Penghu' to generalise between both the County and islands. Liu Tao (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Association for Asian Studies. Ming Biographical History Project Committee (1976). Goodrich, Luther Carrington; 房, 兆楹 (eds.). Dictionary of Ming Biography, 1368-1644, Volume 2. Association for Asian Studies. Ming Biographical History Project Committee (illustrated ed.). Columbia University Press. ISBN023103833X. Archived from the original on . Retrieved 10 March 2014. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)
李, 庆新 (2006). 海上丝绸之路英. Translated by William W. Wang. 五洲传播出版社. ISBN7508509323. Retrieved 10 March 2014. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); horizontal tab character in |others= at position 14 (help)
As for the Dutch depredations along the coast of Fukien in the 1 620's and early 1630's, the 'Red-haired barbarians' were effectively chased away and in 1633 soundly beaten at Liaolo by the legendary smuggler- turned-admiral, Zheng Zhilong. After that humiliation the Dutch in Taiwan were dependent on the goodwill of the Zheng clan, until their final expulsion from Formosa by Zheng Chenggong in
There's always the link through for people who are genuinely confused as to what the Republic of China is (they should learn already), but I've got no problem with glossing it as Taiwan... once. We shouldn't have both names through the entire article. Do it one time as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in the lead or infobox and then leave the others as Taiwan or Republic of China as appropriate. — LlywelynII16:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The question is I was wondering, with Penghu (aka Pescadores) still part of the ROC, is Penghu claimed by the PRC? We know the constitution of the PRC states that "Taiwan is part of the sacred territory of the People's Republic of China. It is the inviolable duty of all Chinese people, including our compatriots in Taiwan, to accomplish the great task of reunifying the motherland." and it possibly extends to Penghu. Wrestlingring (talk) 06:13, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Chinese version of this page says that the main island is called 澎湖本島, i.e., "Penghu Island" or "Penghu Main Island", but the English page indicates that the island is called "Magong Island" or "Magong City/Huxi Township" (which is kind of nonsensical). Seems likely that "Penghu Island" is the correct name, but it's hard to find anything authoritative for this. Can anyone find and add a source clarifying what each island, especially the big one, is called? 114.44.208.19 (talk) 05:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
