Talk:Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall/Archive 1

Archive 1

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Purpose of the Hall

What is the purpose of the parks and ponds? Are they just decorative? Are they meaningful?

Someone put Chinese after the name of the hall, but my wife says the final character means "Picture" not "Hall" -- We don't know how to fix this. :(

PhiloVivero 23:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Their website has more info, as does this page. I would add more info if I had the time, but it's bedtime...so please go ahead. --Jiang 10:49, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Great Leader

"Great leader" was added with quotation mark to reflect the purpose of this memorial hall which is not only to commemorate a late leader but also a "great leader". I belive citing the statement itself from the official website[1] on its own is NPOV because the description of "great leader" is attributed to Chiang form the Hall administration. One's opinion on whether Chiang is a great leader or not is entirely irrelevant. The ROC and the memorial Hall administration do not change their opinion based on some random Chinese guy's opinion. They acts on what it believe and asserts, and that is what we are trying to show. By quoting the the Hall administration's position, we are definately not agreeeing to it. Please note the difference.Mababa 22:52, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, no title of "great leader" existed for Chiang. This is not Kim il-Sung and Wikipedia is not the People's Daily. If a title exists, we use it w/o quotation marks. If it doesn't, we dont use it. The quotation is unattributed and therefore inappropriate. Even if it is, the website is not in any way authoritative. The "Hall administration" maintains the premises; it did not build the hall or decide to do so. Was there a government proclaimation? Was it part of legislation? Or was it just the webmaster's editorial choice of words? One does not have to be called "great leader" to have a memorial hall. They don't usually call Lincoln "great leader". This is just absurd. --Jiang 23:05, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Puzzled. This logic is extactly the same as you shared with me in editign Taiwan Relations Act. Sure, one does not have to be called "great leader" to have a memorial hall. Nonetheless, the great leader was used to depict Chiang from the official website. Moreover, Chiang was widely to be called the Lord Chiang and the leader of the spirit in Taiwan. It does not have to be legislated. The Hall was part of the goverment administration. It is certainly more than an editorial choice to call Chiang a "great leader." The quotation mark exist here is because people are so used to call Chiang as lord Chiang; however, without a doubt, he is regarded as a great leader(without quotation mark) in most of the pan-blue activitists. I do not understand how come you have different standard in treating PRC's material versus treating ROC's material. I am extremely puzzled.Mababa 23:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The "great leader" here is not a title but a true great leader during the rule of KMT. It does not required legislation to be regarded as a great leader. People choose what they want to believe. Please show some respect to the government and the Hall administrator.Mababa 23:21, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The quotation at Taiwan Relations Act was a direct and official position. It was attributed to its source and relevant in that it would affect the enforcement of the act. This "great leader" reference is something that just doesn't exist and you are making up. He was called "Lord Chiang" (not even Lord in the nobility sense, but as a respectful form of address such a "sir"). This does not mean people called him a great leader or built this memorial because he was a "great leader".

Again, the website is not authoritative. I dont see a case on how using the phrase "great leader" is not an editorial choice. What authortative source do you have? What primary sources? Is the specific phrase "great leader" being used? If some people think he was great (I don't buy your argument that "pan-blue activists" regard him as "a great leader" per se), what relevance does it have here? Why are we quoting something that's not being used, not official, and without attribution? What you are claiming here is so ridiculous that I am having trouble trying to respond to your post.--Jiang 23:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is not a very friendly response I am getting here. You should be embarrassed by your attitude. I am not responding to this one.Mababa 03:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If your purpose is to prove some people regard him as a "great leader", then the sentence utterly fails and instead implies Chiang Kai-shek used the same title as Kim- il Sung. Even then, I dont see the relevance unless people are entitled to memorials only if people they are a "great leader". --Jiang 23:39, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is totally relevant. It is part of cult of personality in Taiwan. People has being criticizing that the Chiang family has been idolized in ROC. As you said, not usual "great leader" enjoys a huge hall being built to commemorate him. Chiang recieved a special treatment from his follower. Puting "great leader" helps people understand that Chiang was unproportionally exhalted and this is my purpose putting it in. As a random Taiwanese resident, I am telling you as a random Chinese that Chiang was publicly called as a great leader. If you do not agree with me, please consult with roadrunner as you consulted with him on my previous edits on SARS before.Mababa 03:09, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If you don't want to discuss then you can't have your way. If my attitude is bad, then it's my fault. If you choose not to ignore my attitude and respond, then it's your fault. I probably am ticked off at what you are trying to do here, but what use is it if you don't make an attempt to clarify or persuade me otherwise?

Tsk, tsk....Your logic is weird. Nonetheless, I am glad that you finally get my intention. :)Mababa 07:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see your point but your edits do not accomplish what you desire. It just makes the article confusing and silly. No, putting in "great leader" does not "help people understand that Chiang was unproportionally exhalted". If you want to state directly that this memorial was built because Chiang was highly exalted then you should try to do so directly and in a NPOV way. (Note that stating Chiang was "unproportionally exhalted" is stating an opinion and trying to "help people understand" this is to promote a particular viewpoint, which is not allowed.) The text you inserted just seems to suggest "great leader" was his title. Now you're giving the Funeral Committee words it did not say. What the low level public relations employee who was assigned to writing the memorial's tourist pamphlet produced is not what the Funeral Committee said.

No, I'm not a random Chinese. I'm a random American college student. If I asked the local PRC consulate for a passport they wouldnt give me one. --Jiang 04:38, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I guess you are still ethnically Chinese. Then, thank you for your suggestion, Mr. random Chinese American. I, as a random Taiwanese, will need to do a bit more homework on our GREAT GREAT LEADER and see if I can find something that I can quote form. This might takes some time before I can make any actually change as I am in a strange position that should use my time frugal and wisely.Mababa 07:41, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

link fix

綠委：中正紀念堂更名 不須修法, China Times link is dead, can someone post the correct link ? This goes to a search page. Wenzi 02:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Name Change Official

Just in: it is now officially called the "國立台灣民主紀念館" - can someone confirm its official English name? [2]—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.118.177.150 (talk • contribs)

Here's another source: [3]--Jerrypp772000 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not official yet. I'm sure the pro-greens are dying to change it. But not yet. Not until its officially changed do you do anything. Do you understand that? and when the KMT returns, they will change it back. Also, the steps that the Executive Yuan did are completely illegal. The legitimacy of the name is being questioned. The CKS Memorial Hall law is still in effect and binding. TingMing 03:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, where's the source to support your statement? There are two sources that say the name has been officially changed.--Jerrypp772000 20:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, it has been officially changed. Moving the article. John Smith's 23:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. The article now needs a tidy-up to reflect the name change. I've done a little bit, but if someone could help it would be appreciated. For example, I wasn't quite sure how to re-word the intro. John Smith's 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I know that the memorial hall no longer exhibits the belongings and information of CKS, but I don't know much about it.--Jerrypp772000 23:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The official name is "National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall." It should be moved.--Jerrypp772000 23:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• The name is highly controversial and the controversy is not settled yet. It should not be moved yet. Also, the name "Democracy Memorial" implies that democracy is dead, and this is a major reason that the name has been ridiculed by native English speakers in Taiwan. 61.30.11.130 07:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Name not officially changed yet

Dont rush to change it. Many have ruled the terms of the change as illegal. There is much controversy surrounding the issue. It was protected by the Taipei City government and cannot be touched as a cultural site for a year. So therefore, the central government has done something illegal. The Taipei Mayor has also stated his intention to not cooperate and also jail those who carry out the illegal order. Also, the Executive Yuan had no authority to simply scrap a law passed by the Legislative Yuan. TingMing 00:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of purging any mention of "Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall" from the lead section, it would be better to place text in the article explaining the controversy. see [4][5] for content and sources.

According to the latter article, the name is not yet effective and there is not yet an English language name for the hall. Given the controversy, and the fact that the name has not been made effective, I say we return the article to Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall under the "use common names" approach. We could have two articles...--Jiang 01:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

why on earth would they want to name this dictator's memorial hall a "democracy memorial hall"? WTF? Must be election time. Blueshirts 00:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, actually they are planning to remove all the things in it that are related to CKS. They're going to exhibit the history of the development of Taiwanese democracy. So I don't think it's because of the election.--Jerrypp772000 00:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hope they do a good job with public money. There are too many shitty "mosquito museums" in taiwan already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blueshirts (talk • contribs) 00:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Maintaining the condition of the museums would be the responsibility of the Taipei City government, I hope they do a good job too.--Jerrypp772000 00:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is election time. That is why there are so many Pro-Independence Anti-Chiang Anti-Chinese moves. The DPP Chairman brought it up when he was campaigning to be the DPP presidential candidate. Su made the move as the Premier when he was also campaigning. TingMing 01:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Back on topic...this article should remain where it is because this name change is being prevented (legal or otherwise) from being carried out. Unlike the airport, the signs are not being changed anytime soon, nor will consensus develop within Taiwan that the name change is legitimate (and hence the new name will not be widely used). Articles are where they are because readers most expect them there: with all tourbooks, maps, etc. still using the old name and with very few English readers knowing about the change (you have to have been looking specifically at Taiwan-related news in the past week to know about this), any move is premature at the moment. In any case, I'd argue for two separate articles, since it is the intention of the renamers to have the CKS memorial and the Taiwan Democracy memorial serve very different purposes (though it remains to be seen how they will be different).--Jiang 08:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, how is it being prevented? Just because the transport signs aren't being changed? Unless there is no official renaming or a court injunction, it will happen. You could argue the naming change hasn't happened yet, but when it does it will happen. Also the whole point of redirects is to redirect people to the right name. For example, Chinese users won't search for "Senkaku Islands", they'll look for "Diaoyutai". So when they do that, they get redirected to Senkaku with the explanations over names, etc.

Also I disagree with two separate articles. It's the same site so should only have one. Maybe you could say the name change was disputed, but again unless there is a legal injunction or something if the name change happens then it will be a done job. John Smith's 11:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think it should be redirected, not separated. We can put the CKS information into the history section.--Jerrypp772000 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we'd better wait for something concrete before putting what's there into "history" section and renaming the thing. The legal issues haven't been resolved now and the bid to rebuild the place just failed because apparently few contractors show an interest in doing this. Just wait till the shitstorm to settle down for now. Blueshirts 14:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

We can actually create a section called "Renaming controversy" and put the legal issues and Pan-Blue criticisms in that section.--Jerrypp772000 15:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be officially renamed, but if people do not accept the new name, theyre still going to go around using the old name. And we can't call one name "right" and the other "wrong" if people can't agree on what is "right" and what is "wrong." Constantinople does not redirect to Istanbul. Similarly, the DPP intends this (or so they claim) to be a memorial to the Taiwan Democracy Movement and not to Chiang Kai-shek. We have to wait and see what theyre going to change, but it doesn't make sense to bunch everything (refer specifically to the "The Memorial Hall" section, which is still valid) into a single history section when we have nothing to replace it with.--Jiang 01:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we should move all the "old" info into the history section. If something is still valid, we'll keep it. The exhibition of CKS-related thing, for example, should be moved into the history section.--Jerrypp772000 01:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Constantinople is an article about the history of Istanbul, it has a whole lot of information. If you can expand the original CKS Memorial Hall article, I wouldn't stop you from separating the articles. However, I think it is unnecessary to separate the two.--Jerrypp772000 01:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked the exhibition is still there in the basement, so it's pretty preposterous to move it into the "history" section now. Nothing has changed at all besides what's written from the executive yuan. Let's just wait until they actually find the time to put something new in or tear down something old, why the rush? Blueshirts 04:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Chiang Kai-shek International Airport renaming was also fruitless. No one actually uses "Taiwan Taoyuan." Most everyone still uses ZhongZheng Airport in normal conversation and contexts. Even many websites/travel agencies/etc. still have Chiang Kai-shek Airport instead of the "new" Taiwan Taoyuan. So therefore, I would propose two articles just like the Istanbul example from Jiang. TingMing 01:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people are calling it Taiwan Taoyuan Airport. Even before it was renamed, some people call it Taoyuan Airport. The Istanbul example is different, it is a historical place which has a lot of historical information, and one article isn't enough to put in all the info.--Jerrypp772000 01:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually you are wrong. Pratically no one calls it Taoyuan aiport. The media continues to call it Chiang Kai-shek, its because everyone has gotten used to it. No one is going to change their habits. There's no reason. Because its the "same thing" TingMing 01:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources please.--Jerrypp772000 01:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you have instant messenger Jerrypp772000?TingMing 01:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there something so private to the degree you need to request his IM instead of providing the "Sources" as he requested here? Vic₂₂₆^說 03:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and stop trying to but into people's business. TingMing 04:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Please at least answer my question first. You have been intentionally ignoring several comments that are directed at you, especially when it tackles on your POV. Also, this is a talk page, which means anyone is entitled to "but (bust?) into people's business" in here. Vic₂₂₆^說 05:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ting, the airport scenario doesn't actually help you, because even if you are right that many people still refer to it as CKS, Wikipedia has renamed the article. Similarly when Bombay was renamed to Mumbai, there was a lot of opposition to it and it took a while for everyone to get used to it. Even now I doubt most non-Indians would search for Mumbai first, instead trying "Bombay". John Smith's 09:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that I made an English grammar mistake Vic226? You are wrong. But into people's business works fine. I am excellent at English. You are wrong. TingMing 00:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What is "but into"?--Jerrypp772000 00:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ting, it's "butt", not "but". And no one says "I am excellent at English" if they have a good command of the language. John Smith's 00:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"But" can be a conjunction, a preposition, an adverb, a pronoun, or a noun. It's never a verb. Anyways, you still haven't answered my question yet. Vic₂₂₆^說 04:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The name would be officially changed tomorrow. [6]--Jerry 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

They are simply putting up some kind of sign. That does not mean it is changed. Also, the CKS signs will remain and the new signs will be torn down because it violates the law that protects Cultural and Historic relics. CKS Hall is one of them. The Legislature also did not scrap the law governing the establishment of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. The executive yuan cannot use the legislature's rights. This is a violation of the Constitution. A law cannot be scrapped by the Executive Yuan. Therefore, it is illegal for the Executive Yuan to change the name. Also, the cultural law states that you cannot change or destroy the historic relic. PS. That news source is from Mingshe which is heavily Pro-green. Obviously they would like to see name changed. The other websites are more neutral and state the facts such as the cultural law, legislature approval, etc. Mingshe does not state the whole story but merely connects 228 which is not tied into this at all. People just like connecting it for heavens sake only. TingMing 00:51, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The name was already changed. And even if it wasn't, what's the point of putting the new sign up if the name is not gonna change? And please provide source on this statement:Mingshe ... is heavily Pro-green.--Jerry 01:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The name is not changed. The change is illegal. It violates the Republic of China Constitution. Something that violates the Constitution obviously is illegal. They put up the sign to draw votes from the Pan-Green camp! duh. thats why they are removing the Chiang statues and renaming everything. It's the Taiwanese Cultural Revolution. Watch out!!!! And eveyrone knoews mingshe is Pan green. Dont play dumb. TingMing 01:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't represent everyone. And how does changing the name of a memorial violate the constitution?--Jerry 01:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

If you dont know Mingshe, are you even true Taiwanese? I am true Taiwanese. You apparently dont read the newspaper etc. etc. or pay attention to this issue. I do though. Look at my last large paragraph.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TingMing (talk • contribs)

Well, if you can provide any source that Mingshe is Pan-Green then I would provide another source. It might be politically biased, but it's still accurate. Here's another source.--Jerry 01:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the last paragraph about the violation of the ROC constitution?—Preceding unsigned comment added by TingMing (talk • contribs)

If you can find a source that says this action is illegal, I would really appreciate.--Jerry 01:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to search for you. That is not my job. That is not my life. I am no one's slave. If you want to find out, then do some research yourself or listen to the news. I am following this event closely unlike some slackers who dont know the facts of the case and try to push a specific POV. TingMing 02:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You are the one asserting that changing the name of a monument is unconstitutional. Now I have no opinion on what the name of this article should be, but since the opposing side has provided their source, the burden of proof is now on your side to provide your source. You are correct that this is not your job. This is a purely volunteer run project, and if you are not willing to put the effort into doing anything more than making ad hominim attacks, then you are always free to leave or make your own fork of Wikipedia not bound by verifiability somewhere else. -Loren 03:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

This article also says the renaming has gone ahead. And, Ting, if you want to ASSERT that something is the case YOU, not someone else, must provide evidence to that effect. I propose the article is renamed now - Ting has no objection other than his/her political bias. John Smith's 10:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a source that says The Gate of Great Centrality and Perfect Uprightness will be renamed. It'll say "Liberty Square" or something like that.--Jerry 13:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not considered "unconstitutional". It's considered "illegal": That law has to be amended before its title can be changed, Hau said. "Yet," he pointed out, "President Chen renamed and opened the memorial hall in violation of the law."--Jiang 08:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

So? Why does that mean the article cannot be renamed? It's only unconstitutional once a court has ruled that is the case. Why hasn't the KMT gone to court? John Smith's 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Who declared it unconstitutional? No one did. It's just that Mayor Hau has threatened to arrest people, leading to the government being forced to compromise by unfurling the new sign as a banner covering the old one using scaffolding constructed for "maintenence" purposes and installing new standalone signage using weights because any use of nails is to be declared "damage" to the memorial.

the question is, has the hall been renamed, or has it not been renamed? it depends on who you ask. Everyone accepts the airport change, even if they disagreed with it, but this is a whole different mess.--Jiang

So if the KMT never agree to it, this article can never be changed? Even the China Post refered to it as "National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall" today. Be realistic, the KMT are always going to dispute the change. It has been renamed - the international and most of the Taiwanese media are reporting that the name HAS been changed. John Smith's 12:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has gone back using the old name. Let's wait some time to see if the municipal govt really tries to tear those signs down.--Jiang 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

The ceremony has been concluded peacefully, there's no reason to defend the old title. There's always the chance for you to change this article's name back when the Blues are elected next year, k?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.207.219 (talk • contribs)

94800 results for CKS memorial hall vs "371" for national taiwan democracy memorial hall, so far. Blueshirts 20:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Blueshirts, I question your motives in trying to use that as a reason not to rename the article. How long has the place been called CKMH and how long NTDMH? It's obvious to anyone the number of search results is going to stay very one-sided for a long time.

More importantly, google hits don't dictate wikipedia page names. How many results do you get for "Nanking Massacre" and how many for "Rape of Nanking"? John Smith's 23:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to wait.--Jerry 22:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

832 for Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall.--Jerry 22:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe an unregistered user called the supposed "name change" peaceful. You are completely wrong. It was not peaceful. It caused ethnic rift and clashes between the DPP and the KMT. This is not peaceful. However, this was the intended response Chen Shui-bian wished to get. The Taipei City government has demanded that the Central Government correct its mistakes regarding the renaming. Mayor Hau has stressed that the City Government will do everything according to the Cultural Preservation Law. What the central government did is a clear violation of that law. The C.K.S. Memorial Hall will stay, because Chen committed an illegal act. TingMing 23:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop criticizing anyone without a source backing up? Why don't you go and find a source that says Chen committed an illegal act?--Jerry 23:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal right now? In regard of the article name, I'd say stick to the status quo (CKMH or NTDMH) disregarding the name change being illegal. If it is changed, then I would go with the current changed name and add another section describing its controversy and how it is illegal or whatever. If it is not, then keep the name as it is, and still add the controversy section, maybe with a tag noting that it's a current event.

Oh wait, whether it is CKMH or NTDMH now is not even obvious at all, as evident to the two different ChinaPost articles above. Beats me. Vic₂₂₆^說 23:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought one would be familiarized by the frequency of “ethnical clashes” in Taiwan, as it happens all the time whenever a politically based promotion takes place. When you compare the minor “clash” that took place on the 19th of May with – let’s say, Lien’s “farewell party” to China at the airport, the renaming ceremony is by all means one of the more peaceful “ethnical collision” that could occur in Taiwan (unless you consider the indecent genital exposure committed by the old Pan-Blue pensioner as a sign of complete atrocity). The fact that people show up to protest at the renaming ceremony is a sign of democracy and legitimacy, as opposed to not a single soul that dared to raise disapproval at the construction of the memorial in the first place? Is that what you consider full legitimacy? Finally, how does pointing out the fact that I’m an “unregistered user” helps to back up your statement? The Taipei mayor has vowed that he’ll arrest anyone that lays a new plaque to the memorial hall – he did no such thing last Saturday. Maybe you’ll like to present a clearer list of points as to why you are so zealously defending this article’s old name – i.e. your personal motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.207.219 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2007 May 20

Here is information that it is illegal. The Taipei City government as well as legislatures even said so. The central government completely violated the law. http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2007/05/21/2003361790 TingMing 05:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you don't like someone's comment does not grant you the license to remove it without proper reason. This is a discussion page, which means everyone is entitled to express their thoughts about any issue. Even WP:CENSOR applies here. Vic₂₂₆^說 07:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

To comment on your news article you provided: it is illegal, yes, but that does not erase the fact that the name of the hall was changed. In other words, the name has been changed, and it was charged to be an illegal act. As your news article pointed out: "The hall was officially renamed the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall (台灣民主紀念館) during a ceremony on Saturday." Just because it is illegal does not mean the name is unchanged. I'm not even sure now how clearly I should explain this for you to understand, since you never seem to take into account of others' opinions as detailed as this one. If we use the new name and add another section explaining its controversy?... it's already there. Vic₂₂₆^說 07:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Vic is right. Just because the change has been argued to be illegal does not mean it did not happen. Those that oppose the change are doing so because they disagree with the change, not because they can prove it was not changed. John Smith's 10:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. Actually I already said that like two days ago [7].--Jerry 18:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because you hold some ceremony doesn't mean the name is changed. They still have to go through the necessary laws and regulations (公文) to have it changed. This act of revealing the plate is nothing. Plus, the Taipei City Government has demanded that these be removed, because it damages the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. They have issued two tickets of 30,000 NT dollars already and will do so until its removed by the central government. Otherwise the city government will lose patience and take it down themselves. Taipei Times is a pro-green paper too. TingMing 00:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

They actually went through the documents before the official ceremony. "the Taipei City Government has demanded that these be removed," I understand, and that's what the controversy section is for. Taipei Times is a pro-green paper? Well, as I've said before, even if it is biased, it should still be accurate.--Jerry 00:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, the memorial was officially renamed on May 10. That's almost 10 days before the ceremony.--Jerry 00:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

You should go read around. They violated the law and Constitution. It is a cultural site that cannot be altered in any way shape or form. Some random ceremony does not mean that it was changed. Did you notice that 中正紀念堂Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall signs are still everywhere. No one will change it. TingMing 00:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The Executive Yuan changed its name first on May 10. The ceremony was held on May 19. The memorial hall has been renamed, legal issues should already be in the controversy section.--Jerry 00:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The relevant policy is "use common names". I just turned on the television and viewed two news channels (中天 and 年代) over a 5 minute period. Both reported that employees of the municipal government have removed all the banners that were unfurled on the hall during the naming ceremony. And both called the memorial by its old name "at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall..." (在中正紀念堂...). "The Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall has returned to its original appearance."--Jiang 03:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That is not always the case. For example, "Nanking Massacre" rather than "Rape of Nanking", or indeed the name change from CKS airport. If an official name change goes through, that should be used. The "policy" you mention is often useful for things like where ownership of something is disputed. That is not the case here. John Smith's 06:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we move the Nanjing Massacre article to "Rape of Nanking"? People are indeed following through with calling TPE "Taoyuan Airport" (like they didnt already to begin with) but the local news media is not following through with the name change. Has it been changed or has it not been changed? It's a matter of who can enforce it - the education ministry or the municipal government. It's like say that we have to declare Taiwan an unalienable part of the People's Republic of China because the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, as passed through the National People's Congress, says so. Who enforces this? Do people accept it as fact? --Jiang 07:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you move it? Because "Rape of Nanking" is a popular name, rather than an objective one. Try and move it and we'll see how far you get. John Smith's 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

why not? I don't see how massacre is more "objective" than rape. Blueshirts 19:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Blue, if you want to rename that page take the discussion there. John Smith's 19:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no official name change. They just set up a useless ceremony that costed millions of NT Dollars. At the end, it was NOT Renamed. The signs were in violation to the Cultural Preservation Law as well as the Taipei City AD law. They city government removed all signs earlier today in defiance of the central government. TingMing 07:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Goldfish

"The ponds are filled with the colourful goldfish that are also found in many sacred places and temples throughout Taiwan."

Are they koi or goldfish? And in any case, wouldn't they be found in ponds throughout China or even East Asia? --211.30.235.104

Yeah, I read the Chinese version, and it says 錦鯉, so they're koi.--Jerry 19:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New exhibition

The official website says that the memorial hall will exhibit new things.--Jerry 00:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually they decided not to change the exhibits. All remaining exhibits will stay. TingMing 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly?--Jerry 00:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This says 臺灣民主紀念館的設立，將展示臺灣人追求民主的艱辛歷程，並藉由相關活動史料、文件、影像資料的展示與教育推廣，共同珍藏臺灣得之不意的民主發展與成果價值。. I know you read Chinese.--Jerry 00:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The BBC source cited clearly says that a new exhibition focussing on Chiang's "white terror" legacy has been opened. In fact, it has a photo of the new exhibition. --129.78.64.105 05:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

And you can't say that BBC is pan-Green or "know crap" about it. I don't think it is any less reliable than CNN or Fox News. Vic₂₂₆^說 03:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This article says that there's an "special" exhibition called 再見蔣總統.--Jerry 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Bye 先總統 蔣公 (President Chiang) does not mean that there's a new exhibit. That is just merely an activity organized by some pan-green TI group. It will only last a little bit. It has not been organized by the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Management Office TingMing 22:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The article says that the exhibition, which is presented inside the memorial hall, is somewhat popular.--Jerry 22:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And also, can you please stop saying things like so-and-so is merely pan-green. It is getting a little annoying.--Jerry 23:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why are you afraid of me saying pan-green? That is the reality. It should not annoy you unless you yourself are Pan-Green. Look, I checked on the CKSMH website. There is indeed some sort of temporary event organized by a Pan-Green group inside Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. But, the old exhibits will be kept intact as well as the Best Statue of Lord Chiang in the main vault. TingMing 01:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me tell you what is also a reality: the 228 Incident. While you glorify Chiang Kai-shek in some of your arguments, it does not appear that the native Taiwanese were happy about Chiang's arrival at all; in fact, they see it as a type of invasion. This might also be part of the reasons why DPP decided to rename the Memorial Hall, although this is only my guess. Nevertheless, I don't think Chiang is as lordly as you have been thinking. Not all POVs from the "pan-Green" peeps that you have always been referring to are false. Vic₂₂₆^說 01:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In the comments above, you just revealed your real background, as a Pan-Green Native Taiwanese splittist. You deliberately attacked President Chiang Kai-shek. President Chiang deserves your respect. Taiwan-Chinese people value Chiang's great contributions to their nation, The Republic of China. TingMing 03:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOAP - Wikipedia is NOT Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. --Folic Acid 05:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have been fairly detached from the chaos of Taiwan politics for about four years until recently, when User:Nationalist came along and added the ROC in Chien-Ming Wang, which is in my watchlist because I follow baseball closely. By bringing out the 228 Incident to you, I am merely showing you the validity of POV opposite to yours. To be frank, I don't like Chien Shui-bien more than you like the DPP. Maybe Chiang deserves your and other KMT's respect for whatever reason; however, I doubt you can convince those who had suffered through the Incident and the subsequent Restriction period under his rule to even like him at all. Finally, calling me a "Native Taiwanese splittist" because of the 228 Incident that was just thrown to you is just utterly uncalled for. Vic₂₂₆^說 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Recently the 228 incident has become the iconic defense and reasoning behind anything the Greens do. This is reality and fact. The 228 incident was only a misunderstanding and people exaggerate it way too much. They make it too unreasonable. By throwing out the 228, it was uncalled for, and furthered my suspicion of you having pan-green leanings or values. Chiang Kai-shek deserves all ROC citizens' respect as he was the President of the country. Without him, there would be no Taiwan today and it would be under communist totalitarian rule. Long Live Chiang Kai-shek's memory. Forever disregard the 228 excuse. TingMing 06:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say again that I do not have political preference regarding politics in Taiwan as you have assumed. The 228 Incident was a mere example of the opposing POV that stands against yours. Also, you stated: "Chiang Kai-shek deserves all ROC citizens' respect as he was the President of the country. Without him, there would be no Taiwan today and it would be under communist totalitarian rule. Long Live Chiang Kai-shek's memory. Forever disregard the 228 excuse." This is your own POV, as the others do not necessarily have to agree with you just because you say so. If you wish to reach a consensus at all, you will have to step back and reason in other people's opinions instead of rejecting them all. You might want to read Folic Acid's explanation of a consensus, too. Again, Wikipedia does not endorse one-sided support/defense on any POV. Vic₂₂₆^說 06:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

TingMing, I don't know which party Vic supports, but what I know is that there are many KMT-supporters who don't like Chiang either.--Jerry 13:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I will tell you this: there are many pan-greens who dont like King Chen Shui-bian either. TingMing 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

His title is not "king." And this is not relevant at all.--Jerry 17:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you say that is not relevant, then why did you bring up the KMT and Chiang .TingMing 21:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I, along with many others, have already said this for n times: Wikipedia does NOT endorse/favor one POV over another. Here are the POVs that are currently standing: while you glorify on Chiang's contributions to Taiwan, there are others who either 1) hate Chiang deep into the bones for his conduct toward the native Taiwanese or 2) see both sides as extreme POVs and prefer the middle ground. Again, if you are looking for a consensus and end this debate, you will have to give grounds to the POVs you don't like and come up with a concept that all of us will partially agree upon. Your admiration toward Chiang will be respected, but not when you are trying to push them all the way into Wikipedia and eliminate all other POVs that stand against him. You can say "Chiang did so-and-so to the Taiwan during his reign", but it would be considered biased if you make it "Chiang is a great leader because he contributed so-and-so to the Taiwan" or "Chiang is a villain in Taiwan because of scandalous so-and-so during his reign" (both unacceptable, and the former of which is closer to your POV). Moreover, whether Chiang is respectable in Taiwan is not a de facto truth (and de jure does not apply), as evident to different political viewpoints of Chiang that exist currently.

Back to topic: although you stated that the exhibition "is just merely an activity organized by some pan-green TI group", they are not random DPP supporters out of nowhere; they are from the governing party (DPP) to which the opposition party (KMT) are filing lawsuits. And yet again, all modifications to the Memorial are official according to the governing party (DPP), and the attacks by the KMT do not make the modifications nonexistent. While DPP are violating the laws and the Constitutions with their actions, Wikipedia has no obligation to follow them and censor the current situation because it is illegal.

To sum it up, what I can see from the situation right now is that the governing party (DPP) officially changed the name of the Memorial, but the opposition party (KMT) are demanding the government to restore the original because it is against the laws, and the situation is currently stalled until further new information in the near future. In the meantime, as the IP user pointed out, the designated names might be used interchangeably depending on different individual's political views. Vic₂₂₆^說 01:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. to Jerry: I am on the other side of the Earth from Taiwan, and I found both parties equally bad in different aspects. I have barely followed Taiwan politics at U.S. since around the attempted assassination of Chen before the last election.

WP:SOAP: Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Whether Chiang Kai-shek was good or bad, great or not, has no bearing on this article, and none on the present editing controversy whatsoever. The question is: "what is the factual situation as reported by reliable sources?"

To answer that question, some things you can ask about, by reference to reliable sources, include: "what do the locals call it now?" "is the renaming being challenged?" "what are the various levels of government doing about it?" "what do these reliable sources assess to be the legal situation?"

What you dont do is conduct your own legal or political analysis. This is especially dangerous because most editors involved here seem to be (1) strongly opinionated, even biased (Jerry, Tingming), or (2) not actually in or from Taiwan (Vic226, John Smith's), and I would fall within the second category too. So any personal analysis from any of us is likely to be either biased, or be influenced by cultural and political differences that detracts from an objective and complete assessment of the situation.

For example, just in the last post, saying the DPP is "governing" and the KMT is "opposition" is somewhat simplistic. Use of such terms are problematic because of the five-branch separation of powers in the ROC constitution. Such assessments should only be used in the article if they satisfy Wikipedia's attribution policies and NPOV policies.

I rather like the summary in the section below. Perhaps we can work from there. --Sumple (Talk) 07:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I have my own POV and that TingMing has his own. However, I have backed up my edits by adding sources, which TingMing is apparently not doing.--Jerry 13:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV description of the situation...

I think the situation can be summarised as follows:

• The Executive has set up a "National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall"
• However, the "National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall" still exists as the law is still on the books.
• Until this discrepancy is resolved, different branches of the government and different levels of government will be using different names.
• Locals in Taipei are using different names depending on their political or other views. --129.78.64.105 05:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Residents spit on new "Taiwan Democracy Hall" sign

Source: Residents spit at the new sign. http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=453663&lang=eng_news&cate_img=83.jpg&cate_rss=news_Politics_TAIWAN Also a man even took off his clothes in front of the main gate of CKSMH in an effort to show that he has balls and that Chen Shui-bian has no balls and that Chen is a girl.

It only mentioned "a veteran", who does not represent "many local residents" that you added before. Moreover, your second instance after the article link is not mentioned in the article, and will need to be cited separately for that. Vic₂₂₆^說 07:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

said signs were voluntarily removed on May 25 and is reported on the front page of today's China Post. However, I can't locate the same article online.--Jiang 07:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people did spit including the veteran himself. How would they know he was a veteran anyways? They made an unreasonable assumption. I personally knew a lot of people that spat at the new sign. I would go spit at it too but they had already removed the sign. I will go spit on it inside then in the near future. TingMing 21:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Source it. Just because you claimed that there are a lot of people who did the same does not make it true. Your claims cannot attribute solely to your own statement/personal experience. Vic₂₂₆^說 01:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I will go spit on it so that there are more people. I will take pictures and upload it too then. TingMing 03:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You all need to calm down. Tingming, if many people did spit on it, it should be reported in the press. Perhaps you can find another article that says that. --Sumple (Talk) 07:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Protection over two punctuations?

Wow, I'm amazed. Protection as a result of the bolding of one phrase. Let's sort it out, shall we? I'm inclined towards the term ("National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall") being bolded, because it looks like a contender for the official name, so it would be a principal term. Your thoughts? In particular, what is the argument for it not being bolded? --PalaceGuard008 09:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree - it should be bolded for the reason you mentioned. John Smith's 17:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Use common/official/legal names. Right now that name is Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, not anything else. Therefore, while NTDMH shall be included. It does not have to be in bold for fear of confusion. And bolding it does not reflect reality. TingMing 01:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

How doesn't it reflect reality? The Taiwanese Central Government (legally or not, legitimately or not) is calling it the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall. From the sources posted, it also seems that at lest some press reports are using that name.

It seems to be fairly commonly used, even if not quite as common as the "National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall" name. --PalaceGuard008 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ting probably doesn't consider the Taiwanese government "legitimate" because he doesn't like the political party that currently controls it. John Smith's 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's one point of view certainly. I'm sure the PRC leadership would agree. But even if they aren't legitimate, they are using that name and the press is also using that name, and that's what matters. --PalaceGuard008 00:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"...the press is using that name..."? I believe this statement is not totally right. Some press, like this one [8], is still using the term "Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall" on 2nd June. I think we should respect these "sources of information", and accept the fact that the term "Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall" is still being used.--Computor 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The legal aspect of the renaming process is indeed disputed, but Wikipedia is about facts. We already added a section that talks about the renaming controversies. I agree that we must include Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, but the article should be moved to National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall. The memorial hall no longer exhibits CKS's legacy, therefore using the old name would be inaccurate.--Jerry 16:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I haven't received the news that the "memorial hall" (or "that building", to sound more neutral) is "no longer exhibiting CKS's legacy". For example, I am yet to hear that Chiang's statue in the building was removed, or his exhibiting belongings got replaced (I can still see both of them on the official website), so I expect the changes are not so great such that "CKS's legacy is no longer exhibited" (though reduced may be). Could someone please update me with some reliable sources about what is currently IN that building? I do not live in Taipei, so I invite anyone residing there to correct me.--Computor 21:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Err... "the press uses that name" is used in a non-exclusive sense. As in, the press is using both names. Hence we should report both names. Both names seem to be used quite commonly, so both should be bolded. --PalaceGuard008 01:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The legal and most commonly used name is still Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall. That is found everywhere in Taipei, in Taiwan, etc. The city government has refused to change anything (signs) related to CKS Hall. We have already included NTDMH in there as a "possible" alternate name, albeit illegal. That is enough. John Smith, you are completely mistaken in my personal views. I am not a Pro-PRC communist from Mainland China. Rather, I am a proud and loyal citizen of the Republic of China Republic of China which since 1949 has been based on the island of Taiwan. I am staunchly anti-Communist. The ROC is the only legitimate government of China. The Communists in Peking are illegitimate. I support the ROC to the fullest extent but not Taiwan independence. TingMing 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your political views should be irrelevant to wikipedia editing, yet unfortunately you let them shape the way you interact with other people here. John Smith's 22:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just answering your question. You implied I was a puppet of the Communist regime. I am NOT. TingMing 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Implied? How? He didn't say anything.--Jerry 22:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read the above. They were having a discussion implying I was saying that the ROC government is illegitimate. I hope you know that is NOT What i THINK. TingMing 22:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said you were a Communist - I suggested you probably didn't consider the government legitimate because you don't like the DPP. John Smith's 23:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think anyone here cares about your political view.--Jerry 23:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. John Smith, the Republic of China is a full republic. It doesn't matter who is in power. the DPP or the KMT. The government is still the government. Let's not play partisan politics here. As long as its the Republic of China government, its legitimate. For you brits, it might matter if Labour or Wigs are in power to see if its legitimate. I'm sorry my British brother, but in Taiwan, it doesnt work that way. TingMing 23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah right - you don't think the government can even change the name of a national memorial! John Smith's 23:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

TingMing, your political views are irrelevant. Personally, I also believe that the change was either illegal or illegitimate. However, that is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with whether we bold it as a principal term or not.

The question right now comes down to whether the Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall is commonly used - and it is, probably just as commonly used as the NCKSMH in the press, and so it should be presented accordingly. --PalaceGuard008 05:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't allow a single, self-claimed biased user to claim dominance over an article to his own. Isn't there a disciplinary commitee we can report to for this kind of behaviour? An editor that do not value the spirit of democracy in information exchange i.e. going AGIANST the majority view on an article's contents, have no place here. The name change is recent, so you can't except the public media to start adopting the new name in anytime soon - considering that media in Taiwan is as politically biased as this Tingming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.208.178 (talk • contribs) 05:58, 2007 June 7 (UTC)

The case has already been settled. See his talk page. Vic₂₂₆^說 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

wasn't there something about the pan-blue majority in a legislative committee shooting down a motion to provide funding for the democracy hall? Blueshirts 17:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing Taiwan and Republic of China from intro paragraph.

Hi y'all...I would like to propose a change to the intro paragraph as it seems that we have several groups of editors who would like to push their POVs on each others. I have two proposals:

1. The National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (Traditional Chinese: 國立中正紀念堂) is a national memorial dedicated to the late President Chiang Kai-shek. It is located in Taipei City on the island of Taiwan, off the coast of Mainland China. On May 19, 2007, President Chen Shui-bian announced the renaming of the landmark to National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall (Traditional Chinese: 國立台灣民主紀念館). The controversy surrounding the legality of this move means that, in the near future, both designations are likely to be used. The structure, one of the city's defining landmarks, shares the grounds of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Park with the National Concert Hall and National Theater.

2. The National Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (Traditional Chinese: 國立中正紀念堂) is a national memorial dedicated to the late President of the Republic of China, Chiang Kai-shek, which is located in Taipei. On May 19, 2007, President Chen Shui-bian announced the renaming of the landmark to National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall (Traditional Chinese: 國立台灣民主紀念館). The controversy surrounding the legality of this move means that, in the near future, both designations are likely to be used. The structure, one of the city's defining landmarks, shares the grounds of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Park with the National Concert Hall and National Theater.

The first one adds in the geographical location/description. And both remove Taiwan and Republic of China from the paragraph. Why would someone want to do this? I would, because I'm sick and tired of editors trying to push their POVs. By removing both Taiwan and Republic of China, we can avoid an editing war. On the one hand when you have just Taiwan, you'll get some people who see this as movement to say that Taiwan is independent from China or Taiwan is the name of the State and not ROC. On the other hand, when you have just Republic of China, you'll have those people who see this as a method to push a pan-Blue POV. And then when you have "Taipei City, Taiwan, Republic of China", that is a false statement as Taipei City is a "special municipality" under ROC law and is not part of "Taiwan Province". So...I like to hear you thoughts on this and to reach a consensus to end a possible editing war. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 03:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support per comments above and both proposals. Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 03:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose unnecessary; the new set of conventions says that we should use Taiwan if it describes a geographical location. I don't think it's that complex.--Jerry 14:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup, I just saw them...so...ok, me follow the conventions...case closed :P... :D Nat Tang ^{talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me!} 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Combining articles: National Theater and National Concert Hall

Wiki told me this discussion existed. I looked for it elsewhere, though, and didn't see it. Maybe this is the place to post this.

I recommend combining the articles National Theater (Taiwan) and National Concert Hall (Taiwan) into one article titled National Theater and National Concert Hall (Taiwan). The article about the arts venues would remain separate from the article Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall.

Terms that would forward readers to the article:

• NTCH
• NCH
• National Cultural Center
• National Cultural Center (Taiwan)
• National Taiwan Cultural Center
• National Experimental Theater (Taiwan)
• National Recital Hall (Taiwan)
• National Chiang Kai-shek Cultural Center R.O.C.
• National Chiang Kai-shek Cultural Center
• Chiang Kai-shek Cultural Center
• CKS Cultural Center
• Variant spellings using -re endings (theatre, centre).
• Variant spellings using the word culture instead of cultural.

Combining the two makes research easier because it follows the practice of the Cultural Center administration itself. The same body handles events at both buildings. The buildings share the same publications and web site. They were planned, built, and opened together. It works like the Kennedy Center in Washington DC, really: you have a theater and a concert hall and a recital hall grouped together at a locale, but all of it is the Kennedy Center. Under the circumstances it's a bit awkward to maintain two different articles because there just happen to be two buildings. You'll end up duplicating information.

Titling the article by reference to the two structures also follows the practice of the Cultural Center, which uses NTCH (National Theater and Concert Hall) as its acronym. It distinguishes the names of the buildings at the outset of the shared article. It helps introduce the acronym NTCH and helps readers recognize and remember it in conducting their own further research.

I have written an article for the purpose. Right now it exists in mirrored form under the two headings we have. I prefer to merge the two articles as I have suggested.

I would appreciate some editorial help with my citation format in HTML. My main source was the official NTCH web site. Information about the twentieth anniversary season, Classic 20, came from a Taipei Times article. Links to both are shown in the section headed "References/Links".

It has been suggested that the article for both these structures also be merged with the article for the monument to Chiang Kai-shek. This is not a good idea. The buildings exist for very different functions and are administered differently. Readers seeking information about the one want very different information, usually, than readers seeking information about the other. Trying to merge all this serves neither well. It makes an already long article longer and harder to navigate. Keeping the arts venues distinct, with a link between the two, suffices.

Keep in mind that a great deal more material exists to be provided for the National Theater and Concert Hall beyond what I've supplied. It would be a matter of legitimate encyclopedic interest, for example, to provide a list of NTCH artistic directors, to offer a historical chronology, to mention highlight performances, and to list noteworthy premiers of new plays and compositions. All of this information is out there for Wiki contributors to find and share with us. They need that room. Alton 09:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Opposition party

It's inappropriate to use the term "opposition party" to refer to either the KMT or the DPP, or either the Blue or Green coalition. As one will learn by reading Opposition (parliamentary), the term "opposition party" refers to the party that does not control the legislature in the Westminster system. It is inapplicable to a Presidential system like Taiwan's. See, for example, the lack of references to the Democratic Party (United States) as the "opposition" in the US.

The situation is analogous. The KMT controls the legislature. If Taiwan were a Westminster system, it would be the government party. Taiwan is not a Westminster system. But that does not make the KMT the opposition party. All you can say is that it does not control the presidency. Under the five powers Constitution, the President can't just pass laws without the legislature's assent. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The KMT does not control the legislative - it only does so with the support of the PFP. However, it is true that the Taiwanese media refers to the DPP as the "ruling party" and KMT et al as "opposition". "Opposition" refers to the political parties that are set against the government/not allied with it, not who is in control of the chamber(s) itself. John Smith's 19:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The Taiwanese media calls the DPP 執政黨 and the KMT and PFP 反對黨.--Jerry 19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes the KMT controls the legislature with the support of its coalition partner. So the accurate way of describing it is "the KMT-PFP coalition is the majority party in the legislature". However, my point about the Westminster-origin of "opposition" remains: no matter which way you look at it, the DPP is not the majority party in parliament, so the KMT is not the opposition in the Westminster - i.e. ordinary English - sense. Again, I point to the way the Democrats in the US are not referred to as "the opposition".

2. This is the English wikipedia. The word "Opposition" should be used in its ordinary English sense as used in English (i.e. the non-government party in a Westminster legislature), and not in the sense that its probable Chinese translation is used in Chinese. \

3. The situation of the KMT (or KMT-PFP coalition - the distinction does not matter in this context since they voted as one on this issue) is analogous to that of the Democrats in the US: a presidential system; controlling the legislature but not the presidency. Whichever way you would describe the Democrats, the same should be used for the Pan-Blue legislators here.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion on this but the American media calls the DPP the ruling party and the KMT the main opposition party.--Jerry 18:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

New addition moved from article:

As these events occurred a contrasting approach, within the ranks of the KMT, absorbed the attention of Taiwan's public. Chiang Kai-shek's great-grandson Demos Chiang (蔣友柏) told a popular magazine that the Chiang family had indeed brought suffering to many people. He said the KMT served its own interests best by admitting as much, apologizing for its role, and moving on to create its new identity as one party among many in a democratic system.<ref>[http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2007/05/29/2003362956''</ref>''

Have removed the above paragraph from article. Two problems: 1. that it "absorbed the attentino of Taiwan's public" is not apparent from the source cited; 2. I tried to edit it so that it is relevant to this article, but couldn't. The story seems to be about this guy's attitude to Chiang Kai-shek or family or administration, and not about the memorial itself or the legality of the renaming. Not sure it is relevant to this article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I support your action, and I was the one who added it. I wasn't sure about the addition, either. I never found wording that struck my ear as appropriate, to begin with. The interview was occasioned by the upcoming renaming of the hall but the English news sources I could cite didn't state this. The comment about the interest of the public was personal experience--the magazine was Next, a hugely popular magazine in Taiwan, and the interview was widely discussed in Taipei. But that reference was mainly about indicating the date. The interview appeared in the same month as the events being detailed in the Wiki article and were part of the public discussion then taking place.

But that context in Wiki, IMO, was already a problem. I see the whole last section is an unnecessarily detailed digression into municipal political maneuvers. The addition was relevant to the immediate subject (showing readers the plurality of opinion that exists among the KMT under discussion). But I don't think much of that immediate subject even belongs. Most of it strikes me as too detailed and too "close to things" for an encyclopedia entry about a monument.

I shouldn't have fed it. Wiki is not a nightly news show. I think it's better just to clarify for readers the general positions of the parties, say the situation is still playing itself out, and give a general picture of how things stand at the moment. One can leave things at that until the picture changes. Alton 10:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we really need to change the "post latest news" with something more to the point. should start removing stuff and rewording as the political issue clears and the future of the site more certain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akinkhoo (talk • contribs) 15:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Name change - again

It appears that this time the Taiwanese government has won its fight to rename the monument/memorial hall, according to this article - Taiwan's Chiang Kai-shek Memorial to fade into history.

Obviously I am not suggesting changing the name and re-writing the article now, but subject to any later developments I hope that people will not object to a name change of this article and the according necessary re-write. John Smith's (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the Memorial Square are renamed to Liberty Square [9].--Jerry 18:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't really mind if you change it, but I just read that news report, and there are still a lot of legal battles over this issue, and until they are all solved/dealt with, I would suggest that we maintain the status quo for now.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thing is that the matter will never be "settled" because the KMT will always oppose it. Even if the DPP won control of the legislative and Taipei mayor & city elections, the KMT would still be threatening this, fining that and suing, etc.

Wikipedia shouldn't block name rectification on those grounds. Of course we can mention the fact the name change has been disputed, but that's it. If the site is given special status that means it comes under the control of the national authorities, it's up to them - there's no law to say the KMT have to agree to it. John Smith's (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

From my reading of the Chinese press, the DPP administration is continuing to push through "administrative" changes. I think that is conceptually different from a legal change of name, given that the Taiwan Democracy Hall does not legally exist while the CKS Memorial Hall still legally exists.

The Education Ministry's claims in the article linked to in this section make no sense, legally speaking. The heritage council is in charge of approving or disapproving modifications to protected structures. Approval to change a tablet does not a legal change make.

I expect that this issue will be resolved after the next presidential and legislative election. I say we continue to document moves on both sides, and change the heading/lead as appropriate when the matter is settled - i.e. either the DPP manages to pass the bill through parliament, or the KMT manages to win the presidency and annul these administrative orders. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the article again. It says the heritage council has designated it/is going to designate it as a national memorial, which is thus under the control of the central government. Do you dispute that? Also, as I've said previously, it will not be "resolved" after the elections because the KMT will continue to whine and throw temper-tantrums regardless of what happens. John Smith's (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, PalaceGuard008 does have a point. If the KMT win the next presidential and legislative elections, then the decision will be reversed. However if the DPP remain in power, then the whole name change will be set in stone. So we could definitely wait and maintain the status quo til those election do happen.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  08:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I very much disagree with your thinking. Even if the DPP continue to control the presidency, that won't mean the KMT can't win in 2012 and then change the name. There's always the threat of a name change being reversed, so if one argues the article should not be renamed on the basis of a possible name change it can never be renamed.

Even if the monument only has a new name for 6 months or so (I believe the President Chen's term expires a month or more after the election), that will still be its official name and the article should reflect that. Also there is no guarantee it definitely would have its name reverted even if the KMT do win the presidency if the public are opposed to another change. So, as I said, if the heritage council do officially put the monument under the central government's control and the name change is announced or affirmed, rename the article (and any other related ones that have to be) accordingly. John Smith's (talk) 14:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I think JS is confusing between two concepts: on the one hand the site of the Memorial Hall, which is now heritage listed and thus within the central government's jurisdiction in terms of approving or disapproving modifications, and on the other hand the two rival institutions, the CKS Memorial Hall and the Democracy Memorial Hall, the former of which exists at law but (perhaps) not in practice, and the latter of which (perhaps) exists in practice but not at law.

The two concepts are interlinked - if the CKS Memorial Hall becomes abolished and the Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall becomes established, then we are likely to say that the name of the site changes, since it is the institution which uses, manages, and occupies the site.

However, right now the Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall doesn't exist at law. At best, it is an informal, unregistered "trading" name of what is legally the CKS Memorial Hall. That the site becomes heritage listed doesn't give the Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall any more or any less legal basis.

To give you an analogy, whether the Palace of Westminster is heritage listed or not, whether its planning is controlled by Greater London Council or a national body, does not affect the legal status of the institution that sits in the palace, being the Parliament of the United Kingdom.

As to "KMT whining" - all functioning democracies face such an uncertainty as governments change. However, whether something legally exists or not is easily determinable without reference to the probability of another party winning government in the future. WorkChoices is a part of the law of Australia, even though we know that the present government intends to - and will - abolish it soon. Likewise, when either the DPP passes a law or the KMT cleans up all the quasi-legal administrative stuff, the legal situation will be clear and we will report it as such. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I have tagged part of the last paragraph as dubious. Under the ROC Constitution, only the Legislative Yuan has the power to pass legislation. The executive arm can only pass delegated legislation authorised by authorising legislation passed by the Legislative Yuan. Unless this is some peculiar meaning of "bill" that I am not aware of, the Cultural Heritage Council is not competent to pass a "bill", that competency being solely in the domain of the legislature. I have a feeling there has been a mistranslation. Does anyone have a report on the same news item from a more reliable source? The Taipei Times article, for example, does not mention a "bill". I think it would be better described as a "regulation" or "designation" or even "inscription". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's more of a "motion" or "resolution", especially when it comes from a non-legislative council or committee. nat.utoronto 21:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Name change

The name should be changed now. After an official renaming ceremony and inscription change of the main gate plus the building itself, I don't see why this page shouldn't be moved. The legality of the name change is somewhat controversial, but that's what the Controversy section is for. Wikipedia is about facts, and the fact is that the name of the memorial has been changed to Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall.--Jerry 21:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not just "somewhat controversial" - the name has not been changed at law: no law has been passed deprecating the CKS Memorial Hall and insituting the Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall. I say keep status quo until the situation clarifies next year after the elections. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

But the fact is that the name has been changed. And you can put the legal issues under the Controversy section.--Jerry 20:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't the renaming ceremony held months ago? They just changed the inscription. How is this different?--Jiang (talk) 20:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well changing the inscription seems pretty different because if it wasn't changed, anyone could argue that the name hasn't changed. So the inscription change makes the name change more complete. That hardly what we should focus on, though.--Jerry 21:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's a personal interpretation. I could conversely say it's not "pretty different". They had those portable signs up for months. And we're talking about the name inscribed on the main gate, not the name of the hall. --Jiang (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

"More" complete perhaps, but not complete. My stance is that until it gets fixed up legally in one way or another, we keep to the existing legal name. The situation would be different if everyone in Taiwan calls it the Democracy Hall - but that is not the case. Where there is no clear and unambiguous common name, Wikipedia policy is to defer to the official one. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe this article should have been moved in May. I do want to point out, a legal name does not make it official.--Jerry 22:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How so? As far as I'm concerned legal = official. What, in your opinion, makes something "official"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe the official renaming ceremony makes NTDMH the official name. And I am curious about where exactly WP:NC says Where there is no clear and unambiguous common name, Wikipedia policy is to defer to the official one. May I see the exact quote?--Jerrch 18:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's in the naming conflict rules: WP:NCON.

Anyone can have a "renaming ceremony" and call it "official" - but if it is not authorised by law, it is not official. I dunno, perhaps we come from different legal systems and there is not much of that sense of supremacy of the rule of law in your system. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Can I see the exact quote please?

Well, I suppose a ceremony in which the elected president announces an official name change to a building administrated under the government an official one. I don't know, but I think the central government has more power than the local government.--Jerrch 14:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody is above the law. Even the president cannot act without legal authority. This is what we call "separation of powers". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, but I don't think Wikipedia should be about the law, it should be about the fact. The fact is that the name has changed by the central government. There might be some legal issues, but that's what the controversy section is for.

Can I please see the exact quote that says Where there is no clear and unambiguous common name, Wikipedia policy is to defer to the official one.?--Jerrch 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NCON#Proper nouns: there is no common name in this case, so the official name prevails.

Wikipedia may not be about the law, but it is also not about the unilateral, ultra vires actions of a government official. Wikipedia is about sources: unless a clear majority of sources document that the new name has been established as the common name, then we either (1) retain the previous common name, or (2) retain the official name. As of now, the legal name must be the official name.

Regardless of how much you love Chen Shui-bien, the fact remains that there is no basis for the new name being "official" because it is not supported by the state of the law in Taiwan. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I do support the DPP, but I have never said before that I support Chen. Please keep that in mind.

Okay, I agree now, that the official name is CKS Memorial Hall. One more thing though, I'm afraid that CKS Memorial Hall will not be a self-identifying term anymore, since the memorial will no longer displays CKS legacies and belongings. If that happens, how are we going to name this article?--Jerrch 20:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jerry, IMO, as we always do with touchy Chinese-ish politics and such, it's best to leave the status quo until such time we have a more or less definitive answer/solution to our problem, which is the upcoming 2008 presidential-legislative elections, whoever wins will pretty much set the answer in stone ( Ma and the KMT = NCKSMH / Hsieh and the DPP = NTDMH ). nat.utoronto 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

But if either are mix (i.e. Ma in the presidency and the DPP in the legislature or Hsieh in the presidency and the KMT in the legislature), the mess will continue and we'll have to wait another 4 years before this is solved) nat.utoronto 20:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

(Just for a different perspective) The way Chinese Wikipedia seems to be treating the issue is to call the site the "Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall", and then have a separate article for the organisation the "Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall". The buildings and grounds are described in the former. The organisation and controversy as to its legal existence are described in the latter.

This seems to be the same way Chinese Wikipedia deals with Forbidden City/Palace Museum: there is one article talking about the buildings and grounds of the Forbidden City, then a separate article called "Palace Museum" that deals with the organisation and the museum collections. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Exhibition

The Democracy Hall will be having new exhibitions after the opening of the hall. Here's a news article on it. [10].--Jerrch 17:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)