This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removed
The statement "The PRC does not recognize the legitimacy of the Taiwan Relations Act as it is viewed by them as 'an unwarranted intrusion by the USA into the internal affairs of China.'" is NPOV on its own because the statement is attributed to the PRC. It is even quoted (though I don't know where this quote was pulled from." One's opinion is entirely irrelevant. The PRC does not act based on some random Taiwanese guy's opinion. It acts on what it believe and asserts, and that is what we are trying to show. By quoting the PRC position, we are definately not agreeeing to it. Please note the difference.-- Jiang 05:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- From the view of PRC, issue of Taiwan is an unfinished business of Chinese Unification by the PRC after 1949, given the fact of PRC Anti Secession Law which was drafted in 2005.
- There is no such thing as "unfinished business of Chinese Unification" since the ROC, formed in 1911 (as opposed to PRC, formed 1949) is a separate entity and itself does not recognize the legitimacy of PRC, and obviously something formed at a later date cannot RE-UNITE something that it has never owned, in this case, Taiwan. Therefore, PRC's "anti-Secession Act" is a show for its own people and a joke for those who matter, as PRC had itself seceded from the ROC, and has no right to claim ROC territories, unless, of course, that we replace "unification" with a term more suitable of describing what the PRC is doing against the ROC: coup d'etat. My suggestion is that we should keep PRC's opinion out of the TRA article itself, and organize it into a separate page so people don't mistake a nation's military aggression for global political consensus.
-- PRC opinion on TRA is important since TRA is about chinese territory. while US does not accept PRC interpretation of one china, it does govern itself to the principle of "one china", mind you that one china was originally a ROC policy. imagine if China has a law about native american, will US opinion about that law not be included? of course not, US has the right to defend it sovereignty and so does China. saying PRC "ceded" from ROC make no sense, PRC declare itself as the sole representative of China, adopting the one china policy created by ROC in the 1920s against the warlords. why would you recognise ROC if you think PRC cannot succeed ROC, because by that logic ROC can't even exist since Beiyang was effectively annex by Japan in WWII and ROC never rule the government that rule China in 1911... this ROC is not the same ROC as that lead by Beiyang in Beijing, this is the Nanjing regime. so know your history before you even want to question it. lol. as to why PRC is the legit government with regard to this document? because this is a US document and US recognise PRC as a country and ROC is not recognised as a country by US... Akinkhoo ( talk) 11:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This website is somewhat crankish... If someone thinks this is notable enough to warrant an article then it should be a separate article.
Roadrunner 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
TRA defines Taiwan as a state, but does that mean Taiwan is only and would becoming like a state under TRA (recognized as ROC before the formation of TRA)? Since TRA is an act passed by the American Congress, so does that mean Taiwan is a puppet state under US control?
If the US merely acknowledges PRC's position to Taiwan, why does the US decides not to have diplomatic tie with Taiwan and establish embassy there in exchange with the AIT?
The act does not have intervention wordings so it is more like a foreign assistance act, if so, why does the US not to give unconditional support on the arms and weapons as Taiwan needed?
- Yes, and I don't see how these questions contribute to the discussion, please stop nonsensical speculations and stick to the facts and the articles included by the TRA.
To sum up, this act is formulated for the balance of US in Asia and US interest across the Taiwan Strait, not for either side of the Taiwan Strait.
Why does the article go to great lengths to deny that american forces will defend taiwan in the event of an armed assualt by China? This is totally false and is in contrast to the act itself as well as the interpretation of every major media outlet. Looks like this article has been cleansed by the PRC.... Macutty ( talk) 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The TRA states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities” . I think this pretty clearly states that American forces are obligated to defend Taiwan, in the face of an act of aggression by the PRC or any other state. As such, I am going to edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.172.71 ( talk) 23:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
"The US position that Taiwan's legal status is yet to be determined and that Taiwan is not part of China is the very foundation of the Taiwan Relations Act. If a majority of the people on Taiwan decide that the ROC does have sovereignty over Taiwan and/or that Taiwan is part of China (either the ROC or PRC), then the TRA will be abrogated, since the US cannot intervene in the domestic affairs of foreign nations.[5]"
These sentences are lifted directly from the editorial on Taipei Times. I believe it should be marked as such and attributed to the author. I do not know this topic well and whether this is a neutral enough statement so I will leave it for someone else. Tagging original editor @ Hmortar:. Trishmapow2 ( talk) 05:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, I can't find any other reference that states that's the case. Briefly looked over the original Act as well. Decided to remove the statement until there's some source that isn't opinion, and would love there to be some source to the quote! Jevon ( talk) 07:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removed
The statement "The PRC does not recognize the legitimacy of the Taiwan Relations Act as it is viewed by them as 'an unwarranted intrusion by the USA into the internal affairs of China.'" is NPOV on its own because the statement is attributed to the PRC. It is even quoted (though I don't know where this quote was pulled from." One's opinion is entirely irrelevant. The PRC does not act based on some random Taiwanese guy's opinion. It acts on what it believe and asserts, and that is what we are trying to show. By quoting the PRC position, we are definately not agreeeing to it. Please note the difference.-- Jiang 05:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- From the view of PRC, issue of Taiwan is an unfinished business of Chinese Unification by the PRC after 1949, given the fact of PRC Anti Secession Law which was drafted in 2005.
- There is no such thing as "unfinished business of Chinese Unification" since the ROC, formed in 1911 (as opposed to PRC, formed 1949) is a separate entity and itself does not recognize the legitimacy of PRC, and obviously something formed at a later date cannot RE-UNITE something that it has never owned, in this case, Taiwan. Therefore, PRC's "anti-Secession Act" is a show for its own people and a joke for those who matter, as PRC had itself seceded from the ROC, and has no right to claim ROC territories, unless, of course, that we replace "unification" with a term more suitable of describing what the PRC is doing against the ROC: coup d'etat. My suggestion is that we should keep PRC's opinion out of the TRA article itself, and organize it into a separate page so people don't mistake a nation's military aggression for global political consensus.
-- PRC opinion on TRA is important since TRA is about chinese territory. while US does not accept PRC interpretation of one china, it does govern itself to the principle of "one china", mind you that one china was originally a ROC policy. imagine if China has a law about native american, will US opinion about that law not be included? of course not, US has the right to defend it sovereignty and so does China. saying PRC "ceded" from ROC make no sense, PRC declare itself as the sole representative of China, adopting the one china policy created by ROC in the 1920s against the warlords. why would you recognise ROC if you think PRC cannot succeed ROC, because by that logic ROC can't even exist since Beiyang was effectively annex by Japan in WWII and ROC never rule the government that rule China in 1911... this ROC is not the same ROC as that lead by Beiyang in Beijing, this is the Nanjing regime. so know your history before you even want to question it. lol. as to why PRC is the legit government with regard to this document? because this is a US document and US recognise PRC as a country and ROC is not recognised as a country by US... Akinkhoo ( talk) 11:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
This website is somewhat crankish... If someone thinks this is notable enough to warrant an article then it should be a separate article.
Roadrunner 03:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
TRA defines Taiwan as a state, but does that mean Taiwan is only and would becoming like a state under TRA (recognized as ROC before the formation of TRA)? Since TRA is an act passed by the American Congress, so does that mean Taiwan is a puppet state under US control?
If the US merely acknowledges PRC's position to Taiwan, why does the US decides not to have diplomatic tie with Taiwan and establish embassy there in exchange with the AIT?
The act does not have intervention wordings so it is more like a foreign assistance act, if so, why does the US not to give unconditional support on the arms and weapons as Taiwan needed?
- Yes, and I don't see how these questions contribute to the discussion, please stop nonsensical speculations and stick to the facts and the articles included by the TRA.
To sum up, this act is formulated for the balance of US in Asia and US interest across the Taiwan Strait, not for either side of the Taiwan Strait.
Why does the article go to great lengths to deny that american forces will defend taiwan in the event of an armed assualt by China? This is totally false and is in contrast to the act itself as well as the interpretation of every major media outlet. Looks like this article has been cleansed by the PRC.... Macutty ( talk) 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The TRA states that "the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities” . I think this pretty clearly states that American forces are obligated to defend Taiwan, in the face of an act of aggression by the PRC or any other state. As such, I am going to edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.51.172.71 ( talk) 23:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
"The US position that Taiwan's legal status is yet to be determined and that Taiwan is not part of China is the very foundation of the Taiwan Relations Act. If a majority of the people on Taiwan decide that the ROC does have sovereignty over Taiwan and/or that Taiwan is part of China (either the ROC or PRC), then the TRA will be abrogated, since the US cannot intervene in the domestic affairs of foreign nations.[5]"
These sentences are lifted directly from the editorial on Taipei Times. I believe it should be marked as such and attributed to the author. I do not know this topic well and whether this is a neutral enough statement so I will leave it for someone else. Tagging original editor @ Hmortar:. Trishmapow2 ( talk) 05:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, I can't find any other reference that states that's the case. Briefly looked over the original Act as well. Decided to remove the statement until there's some source that isn't opinion, and would love there to be some source to the quote! Jevon ( talk) 07:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)