Talk:Cross-Strait relations

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

Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
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
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just modified 1 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131204053130/http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081108/wl_nm/us_taiwan_police_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081108/wl_nm/us_taiwan_police_1

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212234058/http://www.cna.com.tw/CNA/TodayTopicNews/TodayTopicNews.aspx?NewsID=200810070260 to http://www.cna.com.tw/CNA/TodayTopicNews/TodayTopicNews.aspx?NewsID=200810070260
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010072015/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2008/new/oct/8/today-fo3.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2008/new/oct/8/today-fo3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205141202/http://www.iadialog.org/PublicationFiles/Erikson-Chen-1%20%282%29.pdf to http://www.iadialog.org/PublicationFiles/Erikson-Chen-1%20%282%29.pdf

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925110920/http://www.nanzao.com/tc/hk-macau-tw/14eae073a42244a/liang-ge-nv-ren-di-zhan-zheng-lu-tai-guan-xi-di-wei-lai-zou-dao-le-shi-zi-lu-kou to http://www.nanzao.com/tc/hk-macau-tw/14eae073a42244a/liang-ge-nv-ren-di-zhan-zheng-lu-tai-guan-xi-di-wei-lai-zou-dao-le-shi-zi-lu-kou
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080525092217/http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2008/new/apr/19/today-p3.htm to http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2008/new/apr/19/today-p3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081109064853/http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NATS6/4590841.shtml to http://udn.com/NEWS/NATIONAL/NATS6/4590841.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227182412/http://www.mac.gov.tw/big5/mlpolicy/pos/9711/971109b.pdf to http://www.mac.gov.tw/big5/mlpolicy/pos/9711/971109b.pdf

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

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

Merge from 2016 Chinese meme war on Facebook
I am going to start this. Pinging User:Snuge purveyor, whose draft from the AfD I will try to adapt. Thanks for any help, and please feel free to revert me if I am doing this wrong. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Non-neutral IP?
Hi, IPs 114.187.134.153, 41.39.39.61, 60.37.147.243 and 2600:8801:2e00:1da0:e810:d5ea:5dd:4cbe, please can you explain your changes to the article per the bold edit, revert, discuss cycle on Ingenpedia. I feel the changes are some what pointy, undue and add unnecessary details. Please explain why I am wrong. Pinging recent editors User:Oshwah, User:DoctorHell, User:Fizikanauk and User:Lasersharp to comment. Apologies if I am doing this wrong. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted again. IP, please comment here. To be honest, I think making clearer PRC=Mainland China and ROC=Taiwan is a good idea, but this issue and your other edits are major changes that need discussion. Please explain what you are trying to do. Thank you for helping on this, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

There is a lot of confusion about the People's Republic of China (PRC) vs. Republic of China (Taiwan), most people in the world don't understand that both countries have major differences in their culture especially since the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) underwent a disruptive Cultural Revolution which effectively erased 9,000 years of ancient Chinese culture from the modern Chinese people. What you see when you go to communist China is a modern day 50 year old culture that combines elements of communism, Marxism, Socialism with bits and pieces of ancient Chinese culture that the Communist Party of China finds compatible with their communist one-party state political system, any kind of cultural tradition originating from ancient China that is deemed incompatible with modern Chinese communism, socialism, marxism is effectively erased from the public consciousness of the people in the People's Republic of China through their public education system. Alot of the original ancient Chinese architecture was destroyed by the communist Red Army during the Cultural Revolution this is why the modern day communist Chinese people call their country "New China" in reference to the relatively new 50 year old communist Chinese culture and their 50 year old simplified writing script that exists in China. Where in contrast, Taiwan has continued to preserve 9,000 years of ancient Chinese culture in it's original unchanged form while being a modern technologically innovative country in much the same way that modern Japan preserves their 2,000 year old ancient Japanese cultural traditions while continuing their technological innovation. The point of clarifying this distinction on the article is that in modern day communist People's Republic of China (PRC) there is concerted effort to promote their version of Communist Chinese culture and pass it off to Europeans, Africans, Americans and the rest of the world as the default standard of "Chinese culture" and the communist simplified Chinese writing characters as the default standard of "Chinese writing" when in fact both are merely a 50 year old synthesis that originated from the mind of Chairman Mao Zedong and his communist Chinese officials and scholars. And many uninformed people worldwide actually believe that the communist Chinese culture, and the 50 year old simplified Chinese script, are actually the original 9,000 year old ancient Chinese culture that is practiced in Taiwan and to some degree in Hong Kong, although Hong Kong is already a territory of the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) and it is only a matter of time, perhaps in 20 years, that Hong Kong's ancient Chinese culture will gradually be replaced with the communist Chinese culture that is being enforced upon the people in Hong Kong. As we speak now, there are efforts by the communist Chinese government in Beijing to actively promote the 50 year old simplified Chinese writing system and eliminate the 8,000 year old ancient Chinese writing system that most Hong Kong residents use with the exception of the growing numbers of communist Chinese immigrants who are moving into Hong Kong to live permanently. So eventually Hong Kong will lose their ancient Chinese culture as the public school system transitions to the 50 year old communist simplified Chinese writing script and eliminates the original 8,000 year old ancient traditional Chinese writing script. Whereas Taiwan is the only cultural sanctuary where the original 8,000 year old ancient Chinese script is still used as well as the only country that still continues the ancient Chinese traditions that date back thousands of years. A good example would be to look at the recent celebration of Chinese Lunar New Year in both China and Taiwan, any foreign visitor like myself who has traveled to both countries before would notice a striking difference and contrast in how the communist Chinese celebrate vs. how the Taiwanese celebrate the Chinese Lunar New Year. In the communist People's Republic of China (PRC) it's been transformed into mainly a family reunion with CCTV and other communist Chinese television shows promoting communist/socialist/marxist ideals embedded within their Chinese New Years TV specials. Whereas in contrast, the Taiwanese celebrate in the ancient Chinese way with people engaging in ancient Chinese rituals as well as visiting Taoist temples, Ancient Chinese Religion temple and making offerings to the ancient Chinese Gods for good luck and fortune for the new year of the dog. General readers of Ingenpedia should understand that there are two different versions of Chinese culture, now as you can see from the previous edits, I'm not taking any sides in the conflict between China and Taiwan, I have made fair edits for both China and Taiwan without any biases. The only purpose of these edits are to clarify any confusion that people will have regarding the differences in the 50 year old communist Chinese culture of China vs. the unbroken continuation of 9,000 years of ancient Chinese traditions that are still being practiced in Taiwan. Additionally general readers need to know the differences in the political government systems of both countries with China being a communist one-party state and Taiwan being a liberal democratic state. And since both countries are still effectively at war with each other in much the same way as North Korea and South Korea it is necessary to write about the military preparations that both countries have made in recent years. China has been trying to take over Taiwan for the past 70 years and has never succeeded in large part due to the constant improvements and war preparations that Taiwan has made, essentially creating a balance of power between these two countries in the Taiwan Strait. The original edit was confusing as it did not touch upon the reality that both communist China and democratic Taiwan are two very different countries with two very different versions of "Chinese culture," one 50 year old communist Chinese version and the other 9,000 year old Ancient Chinese version. The only culture these two countries have in common is their spoken language of Mandarin Chinese which is mutually understandable in both communist China and Taiwan despite differences in the spoken accent and usage of words (i.e. the word of chopsticks is different in China vs Taiwan since Taiwan uses the original ancient Chinese term for chopsticks that was used thousands of years ago), this is analogous to the difference between American English vs. British English. But aside from the spoken Mandarin Chinese, general readers need to be informed and made aware of the differences in the two very different versions of "Chinese culture." Thank you! 112.221.153.91 (talk) 15:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, IP 112.221.153.91, and thank you for agreeing to discuss these changes. I agree with most of the points you are making, but I am not sure this emphasis on cultural differences is suitable for an article about diplomatic relations between them.


 * Other relevant articles such as Culture of the People's Republic of China and Culture of Taiwan may be more suitable for this information. However, please note that Ingenpedia should provide neutral information, not make a point (however valid that point may be), because of the guideline Ingenpedia:Do not disrupt Ingenpedia to illustrate a point.


 * Also, if you want to add a proper paragraph on this idea, it should be referenced to reliable sources, as we need content to be verifiable, not just true, which means we cannot just rely on your own experience. If you need help on how to so that, see Help:Referencing for beginners. I am a new user myself, so I learnt how to do this just a few weeks ago.


 * In summary, I understand your point, but I am not sure this is the correct article on Ingenpedia for your content, and I also think what you have written really needs to be referenced and more neutral. If you like, I can help you with this. Does all of that make sense? Sorry for bombarding you with information, and I hope this helps you. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * P.S: If you create an account, it will be easier to communicate as your IP address keeps changing. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


 * A country's diplomatic policies are a direct result of the country's culture which impacts the pscyhological mindset of the government officials that are governing their respective country. So it is first and foremost very necessary to at least touch upon the subject of cultural differences between China and Taiwan as both countries have been separated from each other for over 70 years now. Because what communist China refers to as "Chinese culture" is NOT the same culture that Taiwan refers to as "ancient Chinese culture" which they sometimes, for simplicity's sake, refer to as "Taiwanese culture." The edits previously made are all neutral and completely supported by reliable reference sources. Please state what you believe is not neutral? 106.247.28.104 (talk) 09:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had typed a detailed reply, but I lost it when my internet crashed. Briefly, you emphasise certain points of difference too much, making a point about the contrast in a way not directly relevant to the subject. Perhaps this information should be in the article (under comparisons?), but not in the lead in my view. Sorry I lost all that detail, will try to add more on what I think soon. Thanks GreyGreenWhy (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The... changes are so sweeping here, and the giant wall of text so giant and wall-like, that it's difficult to really even tell what the central dispute here is. It looks like most of the edits are just about whether Taiwan is called a country or not. It's not clear at all what differences in culture have to do with the proposed changes to the article.  G M G  talk   21:24, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * No we are not talking about whether or not Communist China believes Taiwan is a country. As of now, it is an indisputed fact that both China and Taiwan are governed separately and independently of each other. Both countries have their own separate presidents, their own separate govenments and their own separate military forces and whether or not China or the so-called United Nations believes that Taiwan is or is not a country is not the point of this article. And quite frankly it doesn't matter whether people or the United Nations believes or refuse to believe that Taiwan is a country because with all due respect Taiwan is currently fully functioning as a sovereign independent country with their own democratically elected president and protected by their own military forces and until the day that communist China succeeds in taking them over, it will still be a functionally independent nation-state, these are the indisputable facts, regardless of what communist Chinese people want to believe. It is highly recommended that all people go on a vacation and visit Taiwan and take a look, the only flags you will see flying there are Taiwan's national flag, with the exception of some communist Chinese protestors at tourist hot spots in Taipei trying to make a scene. A case in point, 32 United Nations member countries currently do not recognize the country of Israel and have no diplomatic relationship with Israel. Does Israel care that these 32 UN countries don't recognize them and refuses to have diplomatic relations with them. No, not really, the country of Israel continues to just effectively function as a sovereign nation-state protected by their powerful military like in Taiwan's situation.  Additionally, the new country of Kosovo is not recognized by Serbia and Serbia currently has no official diplomatic relations with Kosovo but they are still functioning effectively as a country. So we are not going to talk about recognition of countries in this article. And then we get to the case of why the country of Pakistan seceded and separated from the country of India several decades ago. The reason? Primarily cultural reasons is what precipitated the split between Pakistan and India with religious differences (which anthropologists classify as a type of "culture") being the most significant reason why they split. Both India and Pakistan share a common mutually understandable spoken language, Indians speaks Hindi while Pakistanis speak Urdu which is mutually understandable in it's spoken form. Additionally, both India and Pakistan have a similar culinary culture with the same types of Masala dosa, chutneys, currys and breads. On the other hand, Pakistan is fiercely muslim and their strong cultural belief in Islam and their subsequent psychological belief that Islam is incompatible with the culturally different Hindu religion of India is what precipitated and caused the riots, the protests and eventually the warfare that led to the split of India and Pakistan into two separate countries. Equally the same, China and Taiwan originally split because of differences in their political culture with China being communist and Taiwan being the KMT nationalists that eventually became democratic. Keep in mind that political mindset is a type of culture as defined by anthropologists.  So cultural differences in the minds of these people in their respective opposing countries are what causes the friction and conflict between the two countries. It is thus logical to conclude that if they had the same culture, they would already be one unified country but they are not because they had political cultural differences 70 years ago, and add to this the fact that they've been separated from each other for over 70 years with no official contact, no mutual airline flights, no direct postal deliveries until the past few years have resulted in the divergence and development of major differences in the separate cultures of both China and Taiwan similar to the above mentioned countries. This article is primarily about the diplomatic relationship, or lack of, between China and Taiwan and, as a result, a good discussion about the cultural differences between these two countries is necessary, would you talk about diplomatic relations between North Korea or South Korea without touching upon the issue of cultural differences. Or how about talking about the diplomatic relationship between the countries of Serbia and Croatia that were both previously at war with each other and have now split into two countries. Like China and Taiwan, both Serbia and Croatia share a similar spoken language while other cultural differences exist which were very important reasons that catalyzed the split between these two countries in the first place.  The perception of cultural differences in the minds of Serbians and Croatians are what caused the conflict and split during the breakup of Yugoslavia in the first place, so it is very important to talk about the cultural differences between the two countries. If you just listen to the biased non-neutral communist Chinese propaganda on their state media outlets they make it sound like both China and Taiwan have the "same" culture which to any educated scholar who has studied the history of these two countries is complete illogical nonsense. If they were the same culture, there would never have been a Chinese Civil War in the first place, there would not have a been a split of any kind and China would not have undergone a culturally destructive Cultural Revolution which was intended by Chairman Mao to eliminate and replace ancient Chinese culture and ancient traditional Chinese writing script with the new communist Chinese culture and the new communist Chinese simplified writing script. Culture, defined by anthropologists is a set of inventions or traditions that are passed down from one generation to another successive generation, and is the psychological driving and motivational force that causes people to behave in certain ways that influences their government policies which in turn influences the way that they manage their diplomatic relationships with other countries. So any proper encyclopedic article cannot effectively educate the public on the issues of Cross-Strait diplomatic relations between China and Taiwan without first covering the cultural differences between these two countries that initially caused the rift and conflict between them in the first place. 2600:8801:2E00:1DA0:7800:7E44:40BE:E34D (talk) 03:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * What?  G M G  talk   03:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Anon, if you want a productive discussion you're going to have to condense this down to something that is digestible without an IV drip of coffee (i.e., not lengthy digressions into unrelated geopolitics), and suggest specific changes to the article based on sources that meet Ingenpedia's standards for reliability.  G M G  talk   11:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I disagree, Ingenpedia is not a children's book and does not need to be "condensed" or simplified in any shape or form. If you think this article is complicated why don't you take a look at the Standard Model of Physics article for comparison. It is much more complicated than this article, why don't you go suggest that we simplify and condense that physics article also??? If you want something more simple to read then please go read the article in alternate Simple English Ingenpedia which is simplified and condensed and very easy to read and does not convincingly support your edits . In contrast, the article on this regular version of Ingenpedia should be expanded to include more information so as to improve the article and further educate the general readership in the public. And as for reliability and verification, I have provided reliable reference sources after every sentence in the edit to back up everything. Thank you!180.35.226.33 (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


 * GMG's issue is not that the large paragraph is too complex, but rather that it is not presented in a concise and organised way. Very long discussion does not necessarily mean that it is complex or coherent discussion. The paragraph GMG is responding to is a single, very long chain of ideas that digresses very frequently - like a spoken rant in text form. The content of the paragraph is actually simple and not hard to understand if you can get through it - but it is very hard to read. If you want to have meaningful discussion, you have to at least organise your ideas and reduce irrelevant fluff.
 * I'm going to try to address the paragraph first assuming you wrote it (despite the onus being on you to present it better): I think where you are getting at is that cultural differences help qualify mainland China PRC and Taiwan ROC as separate countries in all contexts. The problem is, that when discussing formal situations as diplomatic relations, this is not really relevant. Whether it should be relevant is a matter of everyone's own philosophy. You give some historical examples where cultural differences result in different countries, but that does not imply that cultural differences equate to different countries. In fact, I can provide counterexamples from within one of the examples you used (India) where internal differences in culture do not necessarily result in different countries. Take a look a the equivalent page for Korea: the article does not push that ROK is the "true Korea", but discusses in a objective and neutral tone the political situation. China PRC and Taiwan ROC are separate countries only definitively in the de facto sense (the literal control-of-territory situation), but in the de jure sense, this is disputed whether you or I like it or not, and you need to be cognizant of this distinction when making your edits and discussing this topic.
 * As for your (I think they are yours; your IP keeps changing) edits, they do seem highly editorialised and not neutral. And this is coming from someone that personally agrees with many of your viewpoints. Actually, the fact that I could recognise your viewpoints just from your edits strengthens the case that your edits are too editorialised. This is an article about the rigid geopolitical aspects and formal aspects of the PRC-ROC relationship. I will start with some edits that are okay but perhaps need more discussion:
 * You keep adding (Taiwan) to the end of ROC, and "mainland" or "communist" in front of "China" when referring to the PRC. I think adding "mainland" in front of China is fine in this context. Adding "(Taiwan)" at the end of ROC is also fine, but I think if it is mentioned in the beginning of the article that the ROC means the government administering Taiwan, it may not be necessary so long as it is consistent throughout the article - especially as we are mostly referring to the governmental entity and not the country as a whole.
 * Some of the other edits are rather questionable. I will provide a non-exhaustive list:
 * Mass replacement of "side" or "state" with "country". In a de facto sense the PRC and ROC are both separate countries. But this article pertains to more a more formal discussion and the de jure situation should be considered, whether it be from the PRC's or ROC's point of view. The word "side" is used as it more correct in more situations and does not imply "non-countriness", while using "country" requires you be more careful of the context in which you are using it.
 * You don't have to add "National" to "Capital", it is implied. You are just adding unnecessary fluff.
 * In the table comparing governments, you add a ton of extra adjectives to both the ROC and PRC government descriptions where they are not necessary and conflate rigid government organisation (unitary state, presidential republic) with more other concepts regarding the current status of the country such as the level of democratisation and development. The fact that the ROC is a developed country or that the PRC is a "superpower" has nothing to do with the rigid description of the government.
 * The same can be said about the descriptions of Traditional and Simplified characters. Are your descriptions true? Perhaps (though oversimplified). But that is really not relevant in this context, and it looks like someone pushing their position, and readers can find out more about the difference in their respective articles in a greater and more nuanced detail.
 * Under "Interpretation of the Relations", you added the description of Ma's remarks that it was "his own subjective personal belief". Of course it is - it says right before he was asked for his views, you do not to say that separately again. Doing so just makes it look like you are pushing a point.
 * Your edits to what happened in 1949 is a bit messy. At the time, the capital being moved to Taipei was provisional; the KMT intended to take back the mainland at that time. In addition, the way you reworded what happened with the PRC is messier than what it said before.
 * Although some of your sources for your added detail about the ROC military are legitimate, you did cite clickbait, such as top 10 lists. This really doesn't help your claims of credibility.
 * The following edit is outright incorrect.
 * The Entry and Exit Permit issued by the ROC is not a visa, and the ROC does not claim it is a visa. The ROC still technically claims the PRC as its territory even with Tsai in office, and de jure is is a special travel document.
 * I could go on, but ultimately the onus falls on you to defend your changes, which are quite significant and quite editorialised, in a rigorous and organised fashion. You really need to do better than write a speech superficially making comparisons to other unrelated situations in a wall of text. The onus also falls on you to provide reliable sources for your discussion on this talk page. T.c.w7468 (talk) 05:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC) minor edit made T.c.w7468 (talk) 06:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you T.c.w7468 for doing the research and taking the time to give a detailed response to the IP. I agree with everything you have said. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 20:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Chinese phrase discussion in header section
In a similar vein to the discussion above on correct usage of "mainland" and "Taiwan" vs. "PRC" and "ROC", it seems that in the bullet points ending the header section, "pro-PRC" would be clearer and more appropriate than "pro-China." Current version: "There is also no commonly used Chinese language phrase equivalent to the latter two phrases, although "Mainland–Taiwan relations" is occasionally used by pro-China sources." Proposed version: "There is also no commonly used Chinese language phrase equivalent to the latter two phrases, although "Mainland–Taiwan relations" is occasionally used by pro-PRC sources." Kmva (talk) 01:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sino-Russian relations since 1991 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan replaced with ROC entirely?
What is going on with this article? The last |edit was constructive, but it also blanked nearly all references to the name "Taiwan" as well as references to the PRC being communist. Considering the actual article for the country is called, you know, "Taiwan", isn't that breaking NPOV? (That article unambiguously refers to Taiwan as a state as well) I don't know how this even be perfectly neutral, does this article have a major NPOV problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PapaMichael (talk • contribs) 13:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As a Taiwanese, I would say Taiwan and ROC are interchangeable. Because PRC insists that it is the sole representation of China, Taiwan is preferable to ROC. -- It's gonna be awesome! ✎ Talk♬ 18:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Politics Table Layout
The current layout is this:

I think it looks nicer without the table, but then the horizontal timeline is too long and there's a huge amount of whitespace on my browser. So if anyone can fix these to appear correctly on the right, I think it would be beneficial. Wqwt (talk) 06:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

"Bilateral" box
This reasoning by Fizikanauk is at best a flimsy application of IN:OSE.
 * 1)   (purple for PRC; orange for ROC) already provides a similar, and arguably far better, map as to the Infobox's   (green for PRC and orange for ROC, along with global inset) . Why is the former far better? It provides detailed overview (by individual coloration) of the South China Sea islands (such as Pratas) and lesser islands in the Taiwan Strait, whereas the latter does not at all; at the default resolution, the latter map barely registers the island of Taiwan at all. Nor does the latter map locate the two respective seats of government, Beijing and Taipei. In addition, the delineation of the global inset has terrible contrastwith the rest of the "zoomed-in" map.
 * 2) The flags are already present in Infobox Chinese (and soon I will add an explicit caption ) as well as " ".
 * 3) The infobox did not exist on this page until 13 August 2013 Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The bilateral map has been existing almost five years as you provided and it provides more scales on where the two states exist in the world. The existing figures only zooms at East Asia and provide no information about the location in the world, article like Mexico–United States relations also has maps with multiple scales.Fizikanauk (talk) 15:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Except Taiwan Strait has an entire gallery titled The geo-location of Taiwan Strait placing the strait in perspective with the rest of the world. And Infobox bilateral relations was meant to be used with the, , used, as is the case with Mexico–United States relations, Canada–United States relations, etc.
 * If this remains intransigent (and I believe it will be if only Fizikanauk and I are "involved"), I think a IN:RfC will be required. Caradhras Aiguo (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The diplomatic mission entry was there before this edit. I oppose this change for articles like North Korea–South Korea relations also lists the non-mission bilateral relation handling authorities as the de facto missions. The bilateral box without missions are common among those countries with bad relations, for example North Korea–United States relations, Iran–United States relations, even for countries with out articles for their missions France–Germany relations. Fizikanauk (talk) 18:46, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I concede the diplomatic mission point. However, having just looked at both Inter-Korean relations and Franco–German relations, neither article's  has a global scale. So the claim that   is better because of other relations articles having a global scale, is even weaker. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 19:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I did not say  by itself is better. I said the two figures together give the reader a better multi-scale knowledge of this bilateral relations.   serves as an overview of the relations, there is no reason this article should be an exception. Adding back the diplomatic information before this edit will provide additional information compare to the territory figure. Fizikanauk (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Both Inter-Korean relations and Franco–German relations do not have a global scale, and all four states mentioned therein are orders of magnitude smaller in area than the PRC. Linking to both East Asia and Taiwan Strait should suffice (as is already done with or without this useless infobox). Per IN:NOTGALLERY, there is no reason for this facetious redundancy turning the lede into an image repository to satisfy, just admit it, someone's partisan fantasies.
 * there is no reason this article should be an exception The reason being A) one of the states has limited recognition AND B) neither state recognizes the other. The Cross-Strait situation has no equivalent elsewhere. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 06:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Both articles you provided contains a single picture in the . From this convention of similar bilateral relations pages and IN:NOTGALLERY, the second map should be deleted. Fizikanauk (talk) 17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, the locator map is completely redundant and does not show any islands other than Hainan or Taiwan, and, as there is no way to provide a caption, the infobox should be deleted. And, as I noted, the Cross-Strait situation is not similar to bilateral relations pages. Pretending it is is a distortion and nakedly pushing POV. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 21:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The consensus of Ingenpedia community regarding bilateral relations is obvious. This article is the main article of Category:Cross-Strait relations, and the category is a subcategory of Category:Bilateral relations of China (PRC) and Category:Bilateral relations of Taiwan (ROC) since it was created. Thus,  has a reason to stay. A broader discussion would be required if you want to challenge this long standing consensus. The maps are not redundant as they are in different scope, there are also other articles show maps that emphasize minor islands in separate maps, like France–United Kingdom relations. Fizikanauk (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Speak for yourself as to what is "obvious to the Ingenpedia community"; there is no Manual of Style or IngenProject guideline mandating the usage of infobox, or else you would have referenced it by now. The boilerplate map is redundant to the text, as I have repeatedly stated, and vastly inferior to the islands map. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 22:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Infoboxes serve as the summary of key features of the page's subject. In other articles, almost all information contains in the infobox can be found elsewhere in the article, this is the purpose of the infobox and not a redundancy. As no wikipolicy forbid or enforce the use of infoboxes,  are designed for articles on bilateral relations, this is a good reason for this article to include this  . Aside from the image issue,   can also include diplomatic missions that was deleted by this edit. Regarding the image,   provides a larger scope of the relations on earth. This information is not included in the second map, the locator it is neither redundant nor inferior to the islands map. Given the two images provide complementary information to each other, the two images together give the reader broader knowledge on cross-Strait relations than only one image. Fizikanauk (talk) 08:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

The template should be deleted from this article
The template shows the two parties' map at the top, the two parties' names in the middle, and the two parties' diplomatic missions at the bottom. The latter two are so controversial and biased in this article because they prefer to support Taiwan independence by listing the two parties' so-called common names "China" and "Taiwan", and their so-called "diplomatic missions". However, it makes a big mistake. (1. Only Taiwan independence supporters claim "Cross-Strait relations" as "China–Taiwan relations". 2. Taiwan Affairs Office and Mainland Affairs Council are the agencys founded by the government of the People's Republic of China and government of the Republic of China respectively, dealing with the affairs about the regions controlled by opposite sides. In other words, they are the agencys to deal with regional affairs, instead of diplomatic affairs. For the diplomatic affairs, People's Republic of China and Republic of China have their own "Ministry of Foreign Affairs" respectively. However, the two regimes never recognize each other). It seriously disobeys the One-China policy obeyed by most countries of the international community. In addition, "Cross-Strait relations" is so ambiguous and controversial, because it can refer to the relations between the two regions: Chinese mainland and Taiwan area, or between the two regimes: People's Republic of China and Republic of China. However, the template can't show the two relations at the same time. Besides, it is obviously accepted by everyone to use the neutral term "Cross-Strait relations". In conclusion, due to the dispute on political status of Taiwan, the template isn't appropriate for this article. Thus, it should be deleted from this article.

For the short description, in order to show the two meanings of "Cross-Strait relations", it should say, "Relations between the two regions: Chinese mainland and Taiwan area, or between the two regimes: People's Republic of China and Republic of China." This article's short description in Wikidata says, "Relations between the People's Republic of China (Mainland China) and Republic of China (Taiwan)", which should be changed as my suggestions, because the Wikidata version prefers to support Chen Shui-bian's Taiwan independence opinion: One Country on Each Side.

For the map File:China Taiwan Locator.png, it can be used alone in this article, with the map caption "Territories controlled by PRC (green), territories controlled by ROC (orange)."

For the section "Comparison of the two states", considering the dispute on political status of Taiwan and keeping the neutralism of this article (in other words, avoid any words can imply Taiwan independence), 1. The section should be renamed as "Comparison of the two political entities". 2. Only use the two political entities' official names (in other words, delete the two political entities' so-called common names with the same reasons for deletion of the template, especially avoiding Chen Shui-bian's Taiwan independence opinion: One Country on Each Side). 3. For the issue "Area", it is better to add the template to the area of the Republic of China, says, "It is only the area of the Free area of the Republic of China, the sole region de facto controlled by Republic of China". 123.150.182.179 14:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your position on the de jure status of Taiwan, they have, de facto, common names and diplomatic missions. This infobox doesn't represent a IN:NPOV error. Furthermore edit summaries calling it "treasonous" do not engender much hope this is motivated by Ingenpedia's values. Simonm223 (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I had already provided other arguments which Fizikanauk simply ignored ( unlike you, I will leave it to others to infer his motives ), and the "common name" argument applies to article titles only. In a specialized context such as Cross-Strait relations, precision is required by IN:NC-CN. The clumsy infobox template as it stands  won't allow for it (note how in both versions the mainland/PRC half of the infobox only displays as "China"). Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've reviewed your previous argument. I do agree with you that there's absolutely no requirement to have any infobox (honestly I generally dislike the things) and I also concur that there's no requirement nor particular benefit in the global scale element of the map. However I do think having a link to the diplomatic missions and a map is generally a net-positive to the article. What I'd propose would be to move the row on diplomatic missions to below the current purple and orange map. If we do that, I'd be happy to see the redundant infobox gone. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to work on in-sandbox tests of your suggested row implementation if I have the time later today. Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 16:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Simonm223 (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Section "Interpretation of the relations by sitting leaders"
I added to this section because previously it only contained the interpretation of *one* of Taiwan's leaders to now contain interpretations from various leaders through history. But I think there's significant overlap between this and the "history" section, and it should probably be merged in. I'll leave this here for discussion and do it some time later if there are no objections. DrIdiot (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I think the "2008 meetings" sections can also be merged in with "history"; don't quite see the rationale for having it separately. DrIdiot (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hong Kong?
The section "Cultural, educational, religious and sporting exchanges" contains a few references to Hong Kong. Should Hong Kong be included in this article? I would argue no, since TW has long maintained a relationship with HK independently of PRC and today still treats it rather differently. In particular I think number of HK students in Taiwan doesn't reflect anything about ROC-PRC relationships and should probably not be here (maybe in a TW-HK relations article). DrIdiot (talk) 07:50, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

2016 meme campaign section
I think this section should be removed. First, it doesn't reflect "public opinion" -- it was a campaign waged by a specific group of organized actors. Secondly, those actors are not official, so why does it belong on this page? I think it's worth having a section that discusses public opinion in the PRC if we can find some RS for it, but I suspect this would be difficult. DrIdiot (talk) 07:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

West Taiwan
Fueled by various happening in 2020, Taiwan-supporting netizens have started adopting the term to refer to mainland China. Should it be noted? News mention in English: https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3858643 14.248.108.247 (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)