This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
I placed the POV tag when creating the article because it is pasted from a US government website. Because this comes from a US govt source it may not be neutral, but I don't have the expertise to judge. (Hopefully others that know more will simply remove the tag if they think the article looks okay.)
Mangostar (
talk)
05:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)reply
I edited after previewing the sources that I could preview (google books limits).
"However, Chiang did not like the Americans, and was suspicious of their motives." Pg. 412 does not mention his dislike for the Americans, but does mention his suspicions.
"Chiang ordered the plotters executed." The plotters, or the CIA did not get directly involved. Those who did carry out the plans were considered "rebels" in the book and thus were the ones executed.
"Earlier, he had been involved with the Blue Shirts Society, a fascist inspired paramilitary group in the Kuomintang, which wanted to expel Western and Japanese imperialists, crush the Communists, and eliminate feudalism.[12]" Does not really have anything to do with ROC-US relations. Overall, I feel the history part is too biased
Chiang8mm (
talk)
15:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)reply
rename without discussion
This article was renamed without discussion. One problem is that officially the U.S. has no relations with the "Republic of China", it has unofficial relations with "Taiwan". Just one example of this is that the law governing the relations is called the "Taiwan Relations Act", not the "Republic of China Relations Act".
Readin (
talk)
22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)reply
If moving without discussion is offensive to you in this case. I apologise. I didn't think it would be a problem.
The Act is called "Taiwan Relations Act" because the US doesn't recognise the "Republic of China".
The article is about the "Republic of China", not Taiwan. Taiwan, according to the NPOV naming policy, is a geographic location. The US cannot have any interaction with a place, it is having interactions with a state which it does not recognise. That state is "Republic of China".--
pyl (
talk)
14:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)reply
response to Pyl
Uh, so what about RoC-US relations prior to 1970? I'm fine with not referring to the Republic on China as Taiwan (even though it's wrong), as long as we don't make everything else confusing. Now it certainly is. 鈥斅燩receding
unsigned comment added by
24.14.89.219 (
talk)
00:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Maybe someone can clarify what this means: "On 24 August 2010, the United States State Department announced a change to commercial sales of military equipment in place of the previous high provide Foreign Military Sales (unclear) in the hope of avoiding political implications (please specify). [22] --
Lacarids (
talk)
02:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Strong oppose, not having agreed with the renaming of the
Republic of China article, it is my view that the official names of both claimants of the name China should be used, least one claimant be given
preferential weight regarding the issue. I can understand a Merge & Redirect of this article to the Sino-American relations article, with two seperate sections for the
People's Republic of China and Republic of China's relations with the United States of America, but to rename this in order to favor one party in the
One China issue is a violation of
WP:NEU IMHO.--
RightCowLeftCoast (
talk)
02:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Support. Even if there was a POV issue, the child articles should follow the parent article at
Taiwan, as we need consistent style. But in fact there isn't really a POV issue. The English-language press in both China and Taiwan generally call this country "Taiwan," just like everybody else. The Taiwanese constitution was amended 20 years ago so that Taipei no longer claims to be an alternative government of China. Check out the map on the
presidential website. The
Taiwan Relations Act is pretty clear that the US has relations only with "the people on Taiwan" and "Taiwan," and not with the ROC.
Kauffner (
talk)
16:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)reply
Support per Kauffner, this article should follow the lead articles, in this case Taiwan and the United States. This is not the proper location for another round of Republic of China vs Taiwan.--
Labattblueboy (
talk)
01:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Anti Americanism in Taiwan
Anti-American Children's Verses from Taiwan
David K. Jordan
Western Folklore
Vol. 32, No. 3 (Jul., 1973), pp. 205-209
Published by: Western States Folklore Society
Article Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1498385
21:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
RoC - US relations
I read above that this was moved to Taiwan-US relations and simply ignores RoC-US relations prior to 1949 (or 1970ish, in which such relations still had official existence). This page is now confusing to me. Where can I find info about RoC-US relations that are not centric to RoC during its relocation to Taiwan (either before or after there were still historical relations that were officially seen as RoC-US?) Is this some attempt to rewrite history?
24.14.89.219 (
talk)
00:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
I wouldn't even know how to edit it because I am not even sure what it is trying to say. It's a massive run-on sentence, but it becomes a grammatical disaster almost immediately.
SlackerInc1 (
talk)
20:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I think the opening paragraph (not just the first sentence) needs to be revised substantially. Per
MOS:LEADREL and
MOS:FIRST it is overly loaded with information not directly related to the subject of Taiwan-US relations and does not appear necessary to include here - the topics it touched on has been elaborated in other articles.
W9793 (
talk)
21:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Transcription
Since one of the official languages of Taiwan is Taiwanese (Hokkien/Southern Min), shouldn't the transcription for the Taiwan-United States relation be in 闂藉崡璇 (southern min) instead of 骞夸笢璇 (cantonese), or we can retain cantonese and add the southern min transcription
2406:3003:2002:2D79:2C76:BDA2:E642:CD49 (
talk)
13:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)reply