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)
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. — Insta ntnood 23:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The article has enough politics to establish the background, I think. I think what it needs more of are:
Your opinions? -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 02:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
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:
Your thoughts? -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 06:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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}}
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
>> Taiwan announces landmark China visit >> China and Taiwan hold historic talks ( Lihaas ( talk) 15:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)).
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)
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)
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)
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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia. 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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
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)
What is going on with this article? The last [1] 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)
The current layout is this:
{|align=thumb
|valign=top|{{Politics of China}}
|valign=top|{{Politics of Taiwan}}
|}
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)
This reasoning by Fizikanauk is at best a flimsy application of WP:OSE.
File:China map.png
(purple for PRC; orange for ROC) already provides a similar, and arguably far better, map as to the Infobox's File:China_Taiwan_Locator.png
(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.#Comparison of the two states
".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)
The geo-location of Taiwan Straitplacing the strait in perspective with the rest of the world. And {{ Infobox bilateral relations}} was meant to be used with the
{{{mission1}}}
, {{{envoytitle1}}}
, {{{envoy1}}}
used, as is the case with
Mexico–United States relations,
Canada–United States relations, etc.locator map.svg
has a global scale. So the claim that China_Taiwan_Locator.png
is better because of
other relations articles having a global scale, is even weaker. CaradhrasAiguo (
leave language)
19:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
China_Taiwan_Locator.png
by itself is better. I said the two figures together give the reader a better multi-scale knowledge of this bilateral relations. Infobox 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)there is no reason this article should be an exceptionThe 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. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 06:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Infobox Bilateral relations
. From this convention of similar bilateral relations pages and WP:NOTGALLERY, the second map should be deleted.
Fizikanauk (
talk)
17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Infobox Bilateral relations
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)
Infobox Bilateral relations
are designed for articles on bilateral relations, this is a good reason for this article to include this Infobox Bilateral relations
. Aside from the image issue, Infobox Bilateral relations
can also include diplomatic missions that was deleted by
this edit. Regarding the image, China_Taiwan_Locator.png
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 {{ Infobox bilateral relations}} 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 {{ Infobox bilateral relations}} 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 {{ Infobox bilateral relations}} 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 {{ Infobox bilateral relations}}, 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 {{ ref}} 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. — Insta ntnood 23:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The article has enough politics to establish the background, I think. I think what it needs more of are:
Your opinions? -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 02:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
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:
Your thoughts? -- PalaceGuard008 ( Talk) 06:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
"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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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}}
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
>> Taiwan announces landmark China visit >> China and Taiwan hold historic talks ( Lihaas ( talk) 15:22, 28 January 2014 (UTC)).
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)
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)
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)
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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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 Wikipedia. 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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
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)
What is going on with this article? The last [1] 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)
The current layout is this:
{|align=thumb
|valign=top|{{Politics of China}}
|valign=top|{{Politics of Taiwan}}
|}
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)
This reasoning by Fizikanauk is at best a flimsy application of WP:OSE.
File:China map.png
(purple for PRC; orange for ROC) already provides a similar, and arguably far better, map as to the Infobox's File:China_Taiwan_Locator.png
(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.#Comparison of the two states
".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)
The geo-location of Taiwan Straitplacing the strait in perspective with the rest of the world. And {{ Infobox bilateral relations}} was meant to be used with the
{{{mission1}}}
, {{{envoytitle1}}}
, {{{envoy1}}}
used, as is the case with
Mexico–United States relations,
Canada–United States relations, etc.locator map.svg
has a global scale. So the claim that China_Taiwan_Locator.png
is better because of
other relations articles having a global scale, is even weaker. CaradhrasAiguo (
leave language)
19:09, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
China_Taiwan_Locator.png
by itself is better. I said the two figures together give the reader a better multi-scale knowledge of this bilateral relations. Infobox 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)there is no reason this article should be an exceptionThe 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. CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 06:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Infobox Bilateral relations
. From this convention of similar bilateral relations pages and WP:NOTGALLERY, the second map should be deleted.
Fizikanauk (
talk)
17:50, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Infobox Bilateral relations
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)
Infobox Bilateral relations
are designed for articles on bilateral relations, this is a good reason for this article to include this Infobox Bilateral relations
. Aside from the image issue, Infobox Bilateral relations
can also include diplomatic missions that was deleted by
this edit. Regarding the image, China_Taiwan_Locator.png
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 {{ Infobox bilateral relations}} 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 {{ Infobox bilateral relations}} 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 {{ Infobox bilateral relations}} 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 {{ Infobox bilateral relations}}, 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 {{ ref}} 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)