Talk:Taiwan–United States relations

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Taiwan High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I placed the POV tag when creating the article because it is pasted from a US government website. Because this comes from a US govt source it may not be neutral, but I don't have the expertise to judge. (Hopefully others that know more will simply remove the tag if they think the article looks okay.)

• "However, Chiang did not like the Americans, and was suspicious of their motives." Pg. 412 does not mention his dislike for the Americans, but does mention his suspicions.
• "Chiang ordered the plotters executed." The plotters, or the CIA did not get directly involved. Those who did carry out the plans were considered "rebels" in the book and thus were the ones executed.
• "Earlier, he had been involved with the Blue Shirts Society, a fascist inspired paramilitary group in the Kuomintang, which wanted to expel Western and Japanese imperialists, crush the Communists, and eliminate feudalism.[12]" Does not really have anything to do with ROC-US relations. Overall, I feel the history part is too biased Chiang8mm (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article was renamed without discussion. One problem is that officially the U.S. has no relations with the "Republic of China", it has unofficial relations with "Taiwan". Just one example of this is that the law governing the relations is called the "Taiwan Relations Act", not the "Republic of China Relations Act". Readin (talk) 22:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If moving without discussion is offensive to you in this case. I apologise. I didn't think it would be a problem.

The Act is called "Taiwan Relations Act" because the US doesn't recognise the "Republic of China".

The article is about the "Republic of China", not Taiwan. Taiwan, according to the NPOV naming policy, is a geographic location. The US cannot have any interaction with a place, it is having interactions with a state which it does not recognise. That state is "Republic of China".--pyl (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response to Pyl

Uh, so what about RoC-US relations prior to 1970? I'm fine with not referring to the Republic on China as Taiwan (even though it's wrong), as long as we don't make everything else confusing. Now it certainly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.89.219 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/nearly-half-the-us-senate-urges-obama-to-authorize-f-16-jet-fighter-sale-to-taiwan/2011/05/26/AGRzqJCH_story.html

Does not seem to be quite noteworthy enough. Hcobb (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe someone can clarify what this means: "On 24 August 2010, the United States State Department announced a change to commercial sales of military equipment in place of the previous high provide Foreign Military Sales (unclear) in the hope of avoiding political implications (please specify). [22] --Lacarids (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-American Children's Verses from Taiwan David K. Jordan Western Folklore Vol. 32, No. 3 (Jul., 1973), pp. 205-209 Published by: Western States Folklore Society Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1498385

21:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I read above that this was moved to Taiwan-US relations and simply ignores RoC-US relations prior to 1949 (or 1970ish, in which such relations still had official existence). This page is now confusing to me. Where can I find info about RoC-US relations that are not centric to RoC during its relocation to Taiwan (either before or after there were still historical relations that were officially seen as RoC-US?) Is this some attempt to rewrite history? 24.14.89.219 (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Eisenhower visits Taiwan (June 1960).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't even know how to edit it because I am not even sure what it is trying to say. It's a massive run-on sentence, but it becomes a grammatical disaster almost immediately. SlackerInc1 (talk) 20:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the opening paragraph (not just the first sentence) needs to be revised substantially. Per MOS:LEADREL and MOS:FIRST it is overly loaded with information not directly related to the subject of Taiwan-US relations and does not appear necessary to include here - the topics it touched on has been elaborated in other articles. W9793 (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]