Talk:Cross-Strait relations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments[edit]

This article at present contains little, if anything new that isn't covered in Political status of Taiwan. As such, I'm nominating it to be merged into that article. Also, this article at present contains much POV, and might be (from its uselessness) something that ought to be deleted instead. Ngchen 02:43, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Definitely. At the moment, it's just a silly explanation of prior events, instead of actually describing what the relations are like (as done in Political status of Taiwan.) --Breathstealer 11:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It should be done in an opposite way. More materials should be moved to this article, and this article should serve as a main article for the relevant sections there. — Instantnood 23:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. There are a lot of topics that actually belong in this article: cross-Strait marriages and families, immigration, commuting, tourism, commerce, etc. As a member of a family that has members on both sides of the Strait, I think this article could use some objective material about cross-Strait relations, not just the political issues. I'm watching this article and will add to it as time permits. I've done a little bit of grammatical and NPOV cleanup. If any tag should be added, I think that it should be that the quality of the article needs improvement. — Banazir 19:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Taiwan and mainland China, or ROC and PRC?[edit]

Most of this article is about government to government relations. We should be saying "Republic of China" and "People's Republic of China" rather than "Taiwan" and mainland China". Readin (talk) 13:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I think we should, per NPOV policy.--123.243.102.34 (talk) 13:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Say "PRC and ROC" if it is government-to-government relations. Say "mainland and Taiwan" when it is not. There is no formal governmental contact between the two sides. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the relations are formal, they are still relations between the governments. The ARATS and SEF may be "unoffical" but each is controlled and funded by its respective government to handle cross strait relations.
The second paragraph talks about the Chinese civil war, which was a war between governments - the PRC and ROC, not a war between Taiwan and China.
The third paragraph talks about more military conflict - again the actions of government. It also talks about how the governments prevented contact. It also talks about negotiations to create "three links" and again these negotiations are being conducted by the governments and will be concluded when the governments agree.
A large portion of the article talks about the actions of Chen, Hu and Ma - presidents of their respective countries.
Readin (talk) 06:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Given the fact that most English readers would not be familiar with the terms "ROC" or "PRC," only "China" and "Taiwan," it would be more logical to use the popular terminology, and avoid obfuscation. Further, the usage of two nearly identical terms should also violate neutrality as it is an underhanded attempt to make the two government sound like the same one (even though both are autonomous), that would be a pro-unification move, which is not neutral. In conclusion, since neither one would be neutral enough to stop the whining, it would be best to go with the popular choices that are most easily to understand. I hate lawyers.Ssh83 (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hu doesn't dictate?[edit]

On March 20, 2008, the KMT won the presidency in Taiwan. It also has a majority in the Legislature. Compared to his predecessors, who often dictated conditions to Taiwan, Hu has been proactive in seeking ties with Taiwan on the basis of the "One China Policy", especially with the pro-unification Kuomintang party.[4]

How did Hu change? He's still dictating that Taiwan accept "one-china principle" before talks can begin. What has changed to justify the above quote that suggests Hu doesn't dictate terms like his predecessors did? Readin (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The source has this to say

But Hu does not dictate conditions to Taiwan. Instead he has built channels to influence Taiwanese politics. He has established solid ties with the pro-unification Kuomintang (KMT) and possibly also with the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party. He has acquired political mobility, which in politics, as in military affairs, is crucial for victory, or at least to avoid defeat. He has done this by being proactive, and not simply expecting Taiwan to come to him cap in hand. Rather, he took a big political risk as Beijing hosted then-KMT chairman Lian Chan, a visit that turned out to be a huge success.

Unfortunately that's all opinion with no reliable facts. The only fact it does have, about his meetings with the KMT, tells about his meetings with an opposition party, not anything he did to avoid dictating terms to Taiwan. Readin (talk)

Go according to what the source says. It is not up to us as editors to go behind sources: add in contrary opinions if another source has a different opinion. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Opinions should be attributed, not be presented as the view of Wikipedia. Unless some facts can be presented or the text says that the statement is an opinion of the source, then it needs to go. Readin (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Opinions need to be attributed only if the source is less than reliable, or if there is some dispute. If the opinion reflects broad consensus, and there are no significant contrary viewpoints, then it is fine as is. Most statements, remember, are in truth opinions even when they describe or summarise "facts". Is this source unreliable? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The piece is an opinion piece. It is not presented as a news story and makes no claim to being objective. It is not encyclopedic information. Do you have any evidence that the opinion reflects a broad consensus? Coming from a newspaper that lumps Taiwan into a grouping with China while giving Japan and Korea their own individual sections, I hardly consider the newspaper as a whole unbiased. They call the grouping "Greater China" which is a bit to reminiscent of Greater Serbia and Greater Germany. The Wikipedia entry for "Greater China" says it is an economic term, but in this newspaper there is a separate section for "China Business". So I do not consider the newspaper an unbiased source of opinion. The article is clearly only an opinion piece. And I've seen no evidence that it represents a consensus view. Have you looked to see what the DPP has to say about Hu's policies? Readin (talk) 02:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Um, actually, Greater China is a politically NPOV designation. I find it a bit objectionable, since it makes a distinction between so-called "Greater China" and "China".
Given that both the PRC and the ROC have committed themselves to the 1992 Consensus, the conception of China as one entity seems to me to be fairly NPOV - though of course it is not completely so since it is contrary to the opinions of hardcore Taiwan separatist supporters.
Moreover, it is reliability that matters, not "NPOV-ness". Of course, complete lack of neutrality often goes hand-in-hand with unreliability, but the two concepts are distinct. As far as I know, Asia Times is a reliable and professional news source. Of course, the conceptual paradigm that it works under is appreciably different to yours. That, however, does not of itself make it unreliable. That said, I have no issue if you want to qualify the sentence with "According to some observers", or indeed, "According to so-and-so's analysis".
What, precisely, is it that you are objecting to about this line? If you can bring up a couple of contradictory sources, then we can balance the different opinions.
I am not aware of what, if anything, the DPP has against Hu's policies. Could you elaborate? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Saying that Hu "dictates" to Taiwan more or less than his predecessor is inherently POV. It is not a provable fact. So the reliability of the Asia Times fact checking isn't issue. The article is an opinion piece and it expresses an opinion. It should be treated as such rather than being treated as fact. 16:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Enough politics, I think[edit]

The article has enough politics to establish the background, I think. I think what it needs more of are:

  • actual relations: cross-strait marriages in recent years; defections, visits, whatever, in earlier years;
  • cultural exchanges, other types of collaboration, etc.
  • investment, economic co-operation, cross flow of money.

Your opinions? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Relations between countries are generally thought of in political terms. If you look at other articles about foreign relations of the China (Sino-Japanese relations, Sino-American relations, China-India relations) and Taiwan (Japan-Republic of China (Taiwan) relations) you'll find they are almost entirely about politics. As such I don't seen any great need to include non-political relations in this article, particularly since the term "cross-strait relations" was coined as a politically correct term for the political relationship between the two nations.
On the other hand, more information is better than less information. Just because information isn't provided on other important topics doesn't mean it shouldn't be provided for this important topic. If we go forward with this we should work to provide similar information about other important international cultural exchanges such as the cultural exchanges between Taiwan and Japan and the high rates of marriage between Taiwanese and southeast Asians.
The one big question then is where to put this information on non-political relations. Should it be in this article which uses a named for the political stuff, or should it be in another article and if so, what should we call it? "Sino-Taiwanese Exchanges"? Readin (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, this isn't about relationships between "countries" - in fact, the PRC and ROC have no official relations. All the relations have been political non-relations, plus semi-official and non-official exchanges.
The Chinese wikipedia article, which is featured, I think, divides the article into two broad sections: "Political relations", which broadly covers the topics we've dealt with so far. Then several sections on things like economic, cultural, etc exchange.
I agree with you that obviously the political relations is the most important: but the politics is also dealt with in great deal in articles like Political status of Taiwan.
Perhaps what we can do is one section on history and politics (i.e. what we already have), and then another section on non-political relations.
I think the common sense meaning of the word "relations" is broad enough to encompass both official and non-official relations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's impossible to stop people from throwing political views left and right, especially when the majority of the page is about political stuff. Just look at the disagreement in whether to use China/Taiwan or PRC/ROC, zealots find all kinds of crap out of anything. Perhaps it will be better to create a seperate article for non-political relation. Maybe put big bold letters on the top mentioning that. Ssh83 (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross-strait relations "occasionally" non-governmental??[edit]

I'm not happy about the wording there.

I think cross-strait relations are almost entirely non-governmental, with the dubious exception of SEF-ARATS negotations. Those were alive for only about 10 years out of the almost 60 years that the article focuses on. How about this formulation:

"Cross-strait relations refers to the relations between mainland China, which sits to the west of the Taiwan Strait, and Taiwan, which sits to the east. Especially, it can refer to the relations between the respective governments of the two areas, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China."

Your thoughts? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I can agree that most relations between any two countries are non-governmental. Most relations between the US and China are economic and cultural, but when someone talks about "Sino-American relations" they are almost always talking about politics, and the Sino-American relations article is almost exclusively about relations between the two governments. The same is true for Sino-Japanese relations, China-India relations, Japan-Republic of China (Taiwan) relations, etc.. A google search on "cross strait relations" turns up a lot of information about how the governments behave toward each other.
I'm not thrilled about the wording of the sentence either - I'm a better editor than a writer - but I was looking for a way to accommodate your desire to make the article about more than just governmental relations while keeping true to the fact that most of the time (not always, but most of the time) the term "cross strait relations" is used for governmental relations.
Your statement that "I think cross-strait relations are almost entirely non-governmental, with the dubious exception of SEF-ARATS negotations." is simply false, particularly with your qualification of 10 out of 60 years. For a large portion of the last 60 years, the only relations between Taiwan and China were governmental. They were conducted through fighting (small scale fighting occurred on the Taiwan-controlled islands near China long after the war), and indirectly through other nations and international organizations (the fights for recognition) and through public statements. Just because they negotiations and conflicts weren't always "official" doesn't mean they weren't controlled by the governments and therefor inter-governmental. Readin (talk) 11:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your analogy of "Cross Strait relations" with "Sino-[insert country] relations". Regardless of one's views of the political status of Taiwan, it cannot be denied that the relations between the PRC and the ROC were, for a long time, that between competing regimes of the same country; that this is no longer the case today does not mean that they have somehow become ordinary foreign relations. Neither government treats, nor has ever treated, the other as a "foreign" government - though perhaps a few of the more fanatical supporters of the Taiwan Solidarity Union might wish it was otherwise.
It is simply misleading to draw comparisons with "Sino-American relations".
I also disagree that "fighting" between two governments can be described as inter-governmental relations. It is better described as the lack of relations. There has never been any inter-governmental relations. I think of inter-governmental relations in its full form as exemplified by the system of High Commissions in the British Commonwealth: though the sovereignty of all realms are vested in the same person (the Queen), each government sends High Commissioners as representatives of the government (but not the sovereign). There is simply nothing remotely like that between the PRC and the ROC. All we can talk about on the governmental front is all the attempts to - or failure to - create any such relationship. Rather, the focus of the article already is on the lack of relationship, and the semi-official and non-officil (e.g. party-to-party) relationships.
How about this as a compromise?
": "Cross-strait relations refers to the relations between mainland China, which sits to the west of the Taiwan Strait, and Taiwan, which sits to the east; especially, the relations between the respective governments of the two areas, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with several of your arguments, but your proposal is pretty good - much better than what I wrote. So I'll focus on the proposal. We can modify it slightly to avoid having to describe the disputed stuff as "countries" which would be more accurate than "areas" but would likely offend you.
": "Cross-strait relations refers to the relations between mainland China, which sits to the west of the Taiwan Strait, and Taiwan, which sits to the east; especially the relations between their respective governments, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China."Readin (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. That sounds great. I'll implement it into the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
IMO, what's the point of an explaination when nobody knows what you're talking about? Do any of you actually know people who can read that and understand it's talking about chinese government and the taiwanese government? Sigh... Ssh83 (talk) 23:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

book exchanges[edit]

"Cultural exchanges have increased in frequency. The National Palace Museum in Taipei and the Palace Museum in Beijing have collaborated on exhibitions. Scholars and academics frequently visit institutions on the other side. Books published on each side is regularly re-published in the other side, though restrictions on direct imports and the different orthography between the two sides somewhat impede the exchange of books and ideas."

What impact have free speech restrictions had on such exchanges? I'm not sure if Taiwan still enforces any of its old anti-communism laws that restrict speech, but I suspect quite a lot of text regarding history and politics gets blocked in China. Readin (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There are censorship issues on both sides. "Pro-China" media and publications are not allowed in Taiwan, and similarly pro-independence media and publications are not alowed in China. I don't have citable sources to hand though - will add such information as I come across them. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I've read, Pro-China media and publications are very much allowed in Taiwan. In fact I hear and read a lot of complaints about them. And there was a scandal (about a year ago I think) where a TV station (TVBS?) was majority owned by China in violation of laws, but the Taiwanese high court ruled that the ownership could remain as is.Readin (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you'll find that the Xinhua News Agency and the People's Daily have been disallowed from posting reporters to Taiwan under the Chen Shui-bian administration, and the Phoenix TV satellite channel has had its landing rights revoked, all on the bases that they were "pro-China" (in the sense of supporting the concept of the legitimacy of the PRC as the government of all China) in stance. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between "Pro-China" and "from China". What what I've read, pro-China media and publications are very common in Taiwan due to the ownership of much of the media.Readin (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Also, for information on the status and extent of formal censorship laws in Taiwan (as opposed to informal measures like refusing landing rights, discussed above), see the US State Department Human Rights report here, e.g.:
"The GIO, which requires that any publications imported from mainland China be sent to the GIO Publications Department for screening before sale or publication, has the authority to ban importation of publications that advocate communism or the establishment of united front organizations, endanger public order or good morals, or violate laws. Nevertheless, a wide variety of mainland China-origin material was accessible through the Internet as well as in retail stores. Cable television systems were required to send imported material to the GIO for screening or to convert subtitles from the simplified characters used in mainland China to traditional characters before broadcasting."
"The law prohibits teachings, writings, or research that advocate communism or communist united front organizations, which endanger the public order or good morals, or violate regulations or laws. The authorities did not otherwise restrict academic freedom or cultural events." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The reports on China, Hong Kong, and Macau, including details of their respective censorship policies (or lack thereof) is here. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Taiwan has a lot of laws on the books left over from when the authoritarian Kuomintang ruled a one-party state. While the DPP captured the Presidency for a while, they never gained control of the legislature to the point that they could overturn all those laws. The question isn't whether the laws are on the books, but to what extent they are enforced.Readin (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, what's your point? It's a fact that the "democratic" Chen Shui-bian regime banned Xinhua, People's Daily, and Phoenix TV -- and the GIO continues to exercise its censorship powers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that Chen banned the reporters from those news organizations, not the news from those organizations. My point? I just think when we talk about literature exchanges between the countries we should also accurately mention the censorship either or both countries engage in.Readin (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
"Landing rights" means the right of a satellite channel to be received in an area: revoking Phoenix's landing rights means that the channel could not be seen in Taiwan without some innovative tweaking of one's hardware. Incidentally, mainland China has now done the same to Phoenix's news channel -- apparently not pro-PRC enough. On the question of cross-Strait politics, my impression is that both sides are quite ruthless with the censoring button - the main difference is that the ROC does not censor its internet while the PRC does so with abandon.
You said when we talk about literature exchanges between the countries we should also accurately mention the censorship either or both countries engage in
I agree with that. It's all quite rough at the moment. Perhaps we can add the details from the US human rights report as appropriate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

more facts please[edit]

The new section on informal relations has a lot of weasal words and opinions. Sentences like "There are regular programs for school students from each side to visit the other." don't really say much. Many country have such programs. Saying "Frequent interactions occur between worshippers of Matsu, and also between Buddhists." would be better numbers or examples were provided.Readin (talk) 18:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree completely on the point of lack of specific details - though I don't think there are any weasel words in the section. I was writing off the top of my head just to flesh out the bare headings a little. Hope to add verifiable facts as soon as possible. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Original Research!!!!! Delete!! j/k. Though imo, there really isn't any way to put any details into this politically charged relation. For example, if they put something about TsuZi from taiwan helping out recovering from disasters in China, then someone can easily make some shit about how that sounds one-sided and they don't mention how china helped taiwan or whatever blah blah blah. Where as if it's vague and sounds mutual, it's less likely to have conflicts. /shrug This is where humanity is its greatest obsticale in what humanity is attempting to achieve. haha. Ssh83 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, there are verifiable sources... I just haven't had the time to dig them up. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

English sources[edit]

Are the current SEF-ARATS meetings getting reported anywhere in the English media? I saw no mentions in the couple of newspapers that I keep an eye on (e.g. London Daily Telegraph, Sydney Sydney Morning Herald)? It would be good to have some English sources rather than relying almost exclusively on Taiwanese sources. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about language or country of origin? The Taipei Times is a good English language source but it is from Taiwan.Readin (talk) 02:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, good question. I guess I'm thinking both language (English) and place of origin (Western countries). Taipei Times and China Post are both valuable sources from Taiwan, and China Daily and English Xinhua give the mainland perspective. So far I've been using mainly China Times from Taiwan, which is Chinese language. My concern about the sources listed above are 1) English language newspapers from Taiwan do not offer a very different perspective to what is already in the article, while 2) the mainland sources are very slow with the news, basically rehashing "confirmed" and "approved" news releases.
I was hoping, however, that more "traditional" Western media would have some reports. I've found an article from the BBC and also one from Voice of America. Still nothing on the print media front, though. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Try the search capability at the Washington Post. Search for "Taiwan" because that is the common name for both the country and the government. Readin (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Title Issue[edit]

Why is it accepted that the phrase "Cross-Strait relations" should directly relate to China and Taiwan? Maybe, more specificity such as, "Cross Taiwan Strait Relations" or "China-Taiwan relations" would make more sense for the layman. Couldn't the reader make the mistake of assuming this phrase may mean something like Gibraltar-Morrocco relations? --Edwin Larkin (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I did a search for "cross strait relations" at Washington Post and another at Google and the top 10 hits at both sites were all about relations between Taiwan and China. You'll have to find another phrase if you want to talk about Gibralter-Morrocco relations without confusing people. Readin (talk) 19:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. --Edwin Larkin (talk) 20:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Image[edit]

I know that particular template is the norm for country-country relations, yet perhaps an image that only shows East Asia would be more appropriate? It is difficult to see little Taiwan and discern it's importance compared to the monolithic PRC. Comparing the two on the world scale is unnecessary, distracting people from seeing both sides clearly. Bah, I could've been clearer... Crazy (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree.Readin (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree that the current map is pretty useless. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Was the arrow added before or after these suggestions? My first instinct upon realizing it was an arrow was that this came from Uncyclopedia. Peacekeep (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Please anyone good with map editing replace this with zoomed in map of China and Taiwan showing the Taiwan Strait also. --Mistakefinder (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC) {{helpme}}

You might want to go ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps for assistance. Josh Parris 04:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thawing of relations (1979-1998)[edit]

This secton seems to ignore the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis, which was a major effort by the PLA (as distinct from the CCP or PRC) to interfer in Taiwan's internal affairs. Jiang Zemin's January 1995 Eight Points were an effort by the civilian leadership to rein in the armed forces. At a minimum, there should be a section on the 1994-98 period. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you add some references for that interpretation to the article? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"mainland side" and "taiwan side" in flights agreement[edit]

In the section on cross-straight flights, the term "side", prefixed with "Taiwan" or "mainland" is often used. I suspect the official agreements use these terms, which is why they are repeated here. However, those terms are not very accurate. The agreement was signed by the governments called the PRC and ROC. Rather than saying "the Taiwan side" agreed to something, we should just say the ROC agreed to something. Readin (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The agreements aren't signed by the governments, as they don't recognise each other. They are signed by two semi-official organisations - SEF and ARATS, which are authorised by their respective governments to negotiate and sign agreements. In respect of the terminologies of "Taiwan side" and "mainland side", I have no opinions on them. They are common terminologies used in Taiwan and I suspect that they are the original terminologies used in the agreements, although I am not privy to the original text.--pyl (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "mainland side" and "Taiwan side" would be more precise and neutral than "PRC/ROC" in this context. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I've raised the question in Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese)‎, particularly as it relates to what Wikipedia should call Taiwan in other government-to-government relations. Readin (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

New main article for 2008 meetings?[edit]

The material on the 2008 meetings have accumulated to a fairly large size. Should we make a new article for "ARATS-SEF meetings" or perhaps "2008 ARATS-SEF meetings"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 00:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is a need because it has been announced that there will be a meeting approximately every 6 months. The series of meetings will take up too much space.--pyl (talk) 01:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll make a start at User:PalaceGuard008/ARATS-SEF meetings. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The first meeting should be a separate article just like what you said above ARATS-SEF. The second meeting should just be linked to Chen Yunlin and APEC2008. Once you split the page, I think I can help you put this page in a more chronological order. Benjwong (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Dire Straits[edit]

Rename the article to indicate which of the many straits on Earth it's all about please. Hcobb (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I concur. Although "cross-strait" means "China-Taiwan" to anybody who cares about international affairs at the present time, if any significant happen across any other straits, this title would become confusing. I suggest, Cross-Strait Relations Between China and Taiwan. -- Masamunecyrus(talk)(contribs) 02:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Need more info on this section: Humanitarian actions[edit]

It is stated that both have provided support to each other on several occasions, however there's only 1 example of such. Surely someone can add more examples? Children of the dragon (talk) 09:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Surface to air missiles[edit]

China's surface to air missiles are China's surface to air missiles. There's no reason to use an acronym when we can simply use the name of the country, the name used by both sources currently cited too. CMD (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"There's no reason to use an acronym when we can simply use the name of the country..."—There's no reason to break from the completely neutral terminology when the rest of the article (which happens to cover a sensitive issue) uses it. BTW, I can never cease roaring in laughter at the stupidity of what you write on Wiki. GotR Talk 19:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
It is completely neutral, and is the way the sources describe the situation. Your continued personal attacks don't help your arguments along. CMD (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
"It is completely neutral"—a flaming lie, and not when it implies that Taiwan is separate from China (which Wikipedia, much less you, has no right to decide upon). Sources use "mainland" in great proportion, too, and according to Shrigley's logic, because this article is something that originates directly from the original KMT–CCP struggle, terminology ought to be precise. I should remind you, for the googolplex-th time, that NPOV applies fully in article text—you are manipulating policy solely to your ends. GotR Talk 01:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I think PLA works fine for describing who the missile belongs too. "Fujian, China" might be a good compromise between simply saying "Fujian" or simply saying "China". This is a topic were NPOV needs to be approached carefully. The famous "three admin" decision for renaming the China and Taiwan articles said that the decision applied to the names of the articles, not necessarily to the text. We still need to be careful about the text and if we can easily avoid NPOV issues we should try to do so.

Explaining how this ongoing issue actually has anything to do with WP:NPOV - rather than simply asserting it - might be a start. As noted ad nauseam, and above, most serious sources are fine with juxtaposing "China" and "Taiwan" in a modern geopolitical context. Indeed, the vast majority of them do it the vast majority of the time. Our articles finally made it to those names as well and have been there for a while now - and guidelines suggest we should follow that in text, even if the admin decision did ask for people not to go nuts over it ("necessarily" is the key word above). Here's the news - Taiwan is separate from China as commonly understood in a geopolitical context in 2012 (even if not in a wider historical, cultural or broader geographical sense). WP is not trying to "decide" anything by following that. By contrast, we have one WP editor trying to decide that they alone know better how to describe things than nearly every serious real-world reference source. That's the real problem. N-HH talk/edits 09:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Not all sources juxtapose "Taiwan" and "China". And some that do try to achieve neutrality by bouncing between terms (for example by using "China" and "mainland" in a single article). There are places where attempting to tread the fine line of not endorsing either side of the debate on whether Taiwan is part of China results in unnecessary verbosity and a lack of clarity and in those cases it is fine to simply say "Taiwan" and "China". However this is not one of those cases. Using other terms like "PLA" don't reduce the clarity of the article here. Readin (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps not all sources do, but the vast majority do so (in their text too, not just their titles). For example, every single source cited in the section including this picture, including the one hosted by globalsecurity.org but apparently taken from the ROC Central News Agency. Compared to "China", "PLA" is a little known acronym. Captions should be succinct and understandable. This whole semantic issue over the implication of Taiwan being in China or not simply doesn't exist in most English sources. CMD (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
As Readin implied above, a significant proportion of sources consider the juxtaposition to have POV implications to use "mainland" and "Taiwan" versus simply juxtaposing "China" and "Taiwan", so stop marginalising it as if it were the same (or even similar) proportion of usage between "PRC" and "China" or "ROC" and Taiwan".
There is no valid excuse to not use the "Fujian coast", especially when it is the most precise and accurate descriptor of the western coastline in that map, and it avoids the clear NPOV issue with saying "Chinese coast" or "coast of China".
I am still perplexed by the failure of the two in the opposition (CMD and N-HH) to explain the juxtaposition in the rest of the article—bluntly put, I am shown that all the two are intellectually capable of is coming up with a "one-size-fits-all" approach. I won't go on about N-HH's continued solo-editor attacks, because I will be RUDER about it. GotR Talk 14:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
To repeat - "Explaining how this ongoing issue actually has anything to do with WP:NPOV - rather than simply asserting it - might be a start". You keep claiming it is a POV issue, and are now claiming that you know this is why some sources use different or differing terminology, despite your having no evidence whatsoever for that claim. Plus, I haven't the faintest idea what "solo-editor attacks" means, or what it even might refer to. Nor have I ever said that every mention has to be in the China-Taiwan form, here or elsewhere. As you well know, I support the use of PRC-ROC where context demands it; and am also happy for variation even where it is not formally needed, including use of "mainland", simply on the basis that good English writing tries to avoid mindless repetition (which, of course, is as likely to be the actual reason for variation within sources much of the time).
However, most of the time we should follow common usage of simple China-Taiwan, per reliable sources, where it fits the context and where the context in turn shapes and clarifies the meaning of the terms (clue: this is how the English language works - something, to be frank, you don't seem to understand). The majority of sources do prefer that use most of the time, as proven in the page moves and elsewhere. WP does not have to bow to your idiosyncratic aversion to the use of the terms "China" and "Taiwan" and bizarre reasoning as to what problems supposedly exist in using them. That's something you've got to work out for yourself. Meanwhile, please drop the crusade here on every single page the issue comes up. N-HH talk/edits 15:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
The majority of neutral, reliable sources from qualified commentators in the field use "mainland" vs "Taiwan", or "mainland China" vs "Taiwan". A million ignorant fools do not make the truth (except sometimes on Wikipedia, but they shouldn't). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

I notice a bit of toing-and-froing on the lead recently. I restored it to the old version because that reflected the consensus reached through heated and prolonged discussion several years ago. If anyone feels that the article would benefit from, for example, long sentences pointing out the ROC coes not exist, or a long table replicating demographic data for the two sides, or misusing zhuyin as if it was romanisation or ruby text, please discuss and seek consensus. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see any reason to delete the comparison table, they are very common in the bilateral relations pages in Wikipedia. I have restore the table and now it is fully referenced. The original lead should be rephrased to use terms like PRC and ROC, Cross-strait relations is not limited to mainland China and Taiwan after Hong Kong and Macao was returned to China. The original wording is definitely wrong in contemporary use. For the info box, zhuyin usage is the right one, this can be easily checked on the online source, such as MOE dictionary 68.181.51.107 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

You misunderstand my objection to inclusion of zhuyin. Zhuyin is not a romanisation system, and the inclusion of zhuyin in a language box is, except in rare situations, inappropriate. I doubt very much you genuinely think adding zhuyin will help users navigate the article, you are doing this to score political points, and that's inappropriate.
No doubt you see no reason to delete the comparison table. The problem is simple: this article was not originally an international relations article. It discusses the complex relationship between the two geographical areas and/or their ruling political entities, neither of which actually treat their relations as "international". It is for this reason that I object to the inclusion of a comparison table that is, as you say, quite usual for our articles on international relations. I maintain this objection. However, on the basis that this article has already turned in many ways into something similar to an international relations article, I will not delete it. But the heading needs to be accurate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A bit of toing-and-froing in the lead again. I restored it to the old version for the same reasons cited by PalaceGuard008 a couple of years ago. Please discuss here before re-re-re-reverting my restoration. Phlar (talk) 02:14, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I have made a couple more changes. "China-Taiwan relations" (中台關係) is still a non-neutral and minority usage, adding one example of that usage does not change that. I have moved the reference down to the paragraph that discusses alternative terms.
The dab link to Anglo-French relations is just bizarre. The two countries are separated by the English CHANNEL, it would be extremely odd for the English Channel to be referred to as a "Strait", or Anglo-French relations to be referred to as "cross-Strait relations". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Links[edit]

>> Taiwan announces landmark China visit >> China and Taiwan hold historic talks (Lihaas (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)).

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank[edit]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/01/us-asia-aiib-taiwan-idUSKBN0MS36G20150401

Is this notable yet, or only after the application is made? Hcobb (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cross-Strait relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cross-Strait relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cross-Strait relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)