Talk:Cross-Strait charter

Needing Help

Though the person creating this article is I, I am afraid that I aint be able to complete the translaation due to my poor English ability....I've tried a lot...Well, It still takes me lots of time. I see this as a way to improve my EN ability~~but I still any one could help me...AT LEAST correct the grammatical mistakes....Tsungyenlee 14:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I will help. "Ain't" is no longer standard English. Say "I am afraid that I am not able to complete the tranlation due to my poor English translation skills.  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakemason2 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Domestic or international

What terminal facilities do these cross-strait charter flights park at? Domestic or international ones? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aerodromo (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Int'l one no matter which side. The entire operation is like that of flights between Hong Kong, Macau and the Chinese Mainland.Tsungyenlee (Talk to me~)、(Contributions) 16:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyedit denied

Hello! I removed this article from the WP:LoCE's backlog and removed the copyedit tag. The article should be put mostly into proper English before a copyedit can take place. Thanks! Galena11 22:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Contradictory statement on Three Noes

According to the article, "... Taiwan was removed from the Three Noes embargo." But reading the Three Noes article, it says that "The Three-Noes Policy ... is a policy in the 1980s maintained by President Chiang Ching-kuo of the Republic of China (Taiwan) ...". These articles contradict each other, so the text of this article should be edited to fix this. williampoetra (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworded. Probably just a translation mistake between active & passive voice. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please copy the original sentence here? I'm in Mainland China and I can't access the Chinese Wikipedia (the Great Firewall...). I might be able to provide a better translation.williampoetra (talk) 03:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

One of these maybe ? 自1980年代起，中國改革開放，吸引外資到中國投資，和台灣方面放寬以探親方式容許台灣居民到中國大陸地區，兩岸民間的航運需求大增。不過，由於台灣和中國大陸沒有直接空運，旅客和台商均須乘搭兩程飛機，在第三地（通常是香港及澳門，也有少數經韓國濟州島、日本琉球）轉機再乘第二程飛機，方可到達對岸城市。動輒需時半天，尤其是當接近時令節日，大批台商需要由中國大陸返回台灣渡節，多時間航程對他們帶來不便。 I can only guess which, but the first seemed to have both "Chinese economic reform" and 1980. Good luck. 168.122.228.147 (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Those sentences were stating the situation where passengers had to have their flights detoured when they accessing either Taiwan or Mainland, extending their traveling time. --C6h6benzene (talk) 13:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing the translator misunderstood the meaning of the original article, which wasn't exactly well-written. I rewrote it. The Three Noes is a policy in response to the open-door policy from the PRC - it wasn't abolished because of it. Naurmacil (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Translated and rewrote

I re-translated the article from Chinese and rewrote parts of it. Much greater work is needed on the article. The original Chinese article sucked - much of it was personal opinion and it completely lacked any sources. The format also will not suffice for a mainpage article on the English Wikipedia. An urgent rewrite is need and English sources will need to be found. I'd do it but I don't have much time. Naurmacil (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Npov

The talks section and subsequent sections need re-writing for NPOV. Right now, parts read like propaganda for the former Chen Shui-bian administration, heaping all blame for non-progress on the other side. In truth, both sides are probably partially responsible, and the article needs to be a lot more nuanced in its approach. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan was willing to talk without any pre-conditions. China insisted that Taiwan first agree to China's point of view before talks started. In such a situation it is hard to assign blame equally. The best we can do is simply report the fact that Taiwan was willing to talk without preconditions but China insisted on pre-conditions that were unacceptable to Taiwan. That's what we report. if that sounds like we're blaming China I'm sure what we're supposed to do. We can't change the facts. Readin (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's your view of the facts. My view of the facts is that Chen Shui-bian tried to force the mainland government to give up the one-China principle, which he knew they were never going to agree to due to domestic political pressure. It was mere posturing and not a genuine proposal for negotiation.

"Taiwan was willing to talk without preconditions" misrepresents the truth, and in fact is a statement taken straight out of Chen-era propaganda. The one-China principle in whichever guise had been the basis of negotiations for years previously. When Chen insisted that the talks must be conducted without conditions, he was seeking to remove the existing basis of the talks. That, to me, is insisting on a pre-condition.

That Chen had no genuine will to negotiate can be seen from the difference in approach between his administration and the current. The Ma administration also does not agree with the "one China principle" as espoused by the PRC, but it is willing to compromise and use the ambiguous 1992 Consensus as a basis on which both sides can commence negotiations.

The facts were that both sides disagreed on the conditions for the talks, and so no talks were held. If one wants to present one's interpretation of the facts, then both views need to be presented. Either stick clear of interpretation, or present all major points of view.

In any case, the issue has been addressed for now with the removal of the opinionated material. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Enlighten me. When did President Chen insist that the PRC publicly repudiate the one-China principle before talks could proceed? President Chen merely said that Taiwan would not agree to it. What pre-conditions did President Chen set for the talks? The "existing basis for the talks" was a condition tht the PRC insisted on. It was not something Taiwan insisted on nor was it something Taiwan insisted that the PRC disavow.

If you say "Taiwan was willing to talk without preconditions" misrepresents the truth, and in fact is a statement taken straight out of Chen-era propaganda.', then tell me precisely what preconditions Taiwan wasn't willing to talk without. Readin (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Taiwan insisted on the condition that the basis of the talks should not be any version of the "one China principle" or "1992 Consensus". To describe the situation as "Taiwan was willing to talk without preconditions" is misleading, because it creates the impression that Taiwan made no demands. A more accurate phrasing might be "Taiwan insisted on negotiations without preconditions", and an even more accurate phrasing might be "Taiwan insisted that negotiations could not be on the basis of the 1992 consensus".

In one sense, the bigger problem is "willing". When you are insisting on changing the framework of negotiations, you are making demands on the modes of negotiations more than expressing a willingness to negotiate.

The existing basis of the talks was a matter of agreement between the previous administration in Taiwan and the mainland government. It was, in fact, a compromise that represented the intersection of the demands of each. The 1992 consensus was not something "imposed" by the mainland government on Taiwan.

Was it really "not something Taiwan insisted on nor was it something Taiwan insisted that the PRC disavow"?

I don't think then-President Chen was so naive. He knew when he insisted that negotiations be "unconditional", that the mainland government could not agree to that due to domestic political pressure. If the mainland government was to accept his purported "invitation", it would amount to tacit endorsement of his repudiation of the 1992 consensus, and backtracking on its own stated and consistent position. Public opinion would not have swallowed it in China, and Chen knew this. My personal view remains that it was not a genuine proposal, but merely political posturing for domestic point-scoring. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that Readin is also concurrently involved in attempting to re-factor the way Taiwan is represented in Template:Asia topic.--Huaiwei (talk) 20:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Route

Planes do not fly directly across the straight. A plane from Taipei bound for Shanghai, for example, first fly westsouthwestward to the south of Ishigaki. It then fly anit-clockwise around the Yaemyama Islands then westward through the strait between Yaeyama and Okinawa-honto into the East China Sea. For southern cities on the PRC mainland, e.g., Shenzhen and Guangzhou, planes have to fly through the Hong Kong FIR. Hong Kong's SCMP had a story months ago about the detour round the Yaeyamas. Korati (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cross-Strait charter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090430102402/http://online.wsj.com:80/article/BT-CO-20090426-700018.html to http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090426-700018.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)