Talk:Taiwan Strait

Blog reference

The reference to a blog for the justification of the line "However, some have argued this to be untrue" [1] seems ridiculous if you read all the author did was infere that the prolonged distanced using the Taiwan Strait did not justify its strategic importance. I don't think it can be taken as a reliable source, and if no one objects i propose to remove that line. Sprafa 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

"Further reading"

is generally a mistake, given that no one usually curates these things and they just bloat and do no one any good. Kindly restore these to the article as they are used to improve it with citations and additional information:

• Bush, R. & O'Hanlon, M. (2007). A War Like No Other: The Truth About China's Challenge to America. Wiley. ISBN 0-471-98677-1
• Bush, R. (2006). Untying the Knot: Making Peace in the Taiwan Strait. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0-8157-1290-1
• Carpenter, T. (2006). America's Coming War with China: A Collision Course over Taiwan. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 1-4039-6841-1
• Cole, B. (2006). Taiwan's Security: History and Prospects. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-36581-3
• Copper, J. (2006). Playing with Fire: The Looming War with China over Taiwan. Praeger Security International General Interest. ISBN 0-275-98888-0
• Federation of American Scientists et al. (2006). Chinese Nuclear Forces and U.S. Nuclear War Planning
• Gill, B. (2007). Rising Star: China's New Security Diplomacy. Brookings Institution Press. ISBN 0-8157-3146-9
• Shirk, S. (2007). China: Fragile Superpower: How China's Internal Politics Could Derail Its Peaceful Rise. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-530609-0
• Tsang, S. (2006). If China Attacks Taiwan: Military Strategy, Politics and Economics. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-40785-0
• Tucker, N.B. (2005). Dangerous Strait: the U.S.-Taiwan-China Crisis. Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-13564-5
• Turin, D. (2010). The Taiwan Strait: From Civil War to Status Quo. Student Pulse. Vol 2., No. 6. The Taiwan Strait: From Civil War to Status Quo
• Thies, Wallace J.; Bratton, Patrick C. (December 2004). "When Governments Collide in the Taiwan Strait". Journal of Strategic Studies. 27 (4): 556–584. doi:10.1080/1362369042000314510.

If it's thought necessary to have a further reading section, kindly annotate these "sources" and explain how and why they are important or useful for Wiki readers. — LlywelynII 08:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@LlywelynII

OK, but there should not be exclusively USAnian sourced be cited, as in your list above. L.Willms (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

"Economy"

I am going to delete the "economy" section of the article. My reasons are: (1) the proposed construction of transit lines under the Taiwan Strait are nowhere close to being realized; they've only been proposed by China and are not even being discussed in Taiwan, (2) even if they were totally constructed, they don't really have to do with the Taiwan Strait as an economic resource, (3) the language used in the section is not neutral and is speculative.

Though there isn't a problem with the sentence about fishing, it currently contains almost no information. For example, it's not clear how important the strait is as a shipping lane how whether it is a particularly abundant fishing resource.

DrIdiot (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Going to re-up this. The cross-strait tunnel project was proposed 18 years ago and no ground has been broken. It has nothing to do with the "economy" of the Taiwan Strait either; if it existed, one could perhaps include it under a "transit" section. Until actual progress is made on it, including it in a general article like this gives it undue prominence under WP:NPOV. DrIdiot (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

What is appropriate for this article?

This article is not the place to cover cross-strait politics; this is covered in Cross-Strait relations. I've removed discussions of cross-strait politics and added a link to the main article. I think the "history" section could be pruned as well, since a lot of the history in there is really part of Taiwan history and doesn't strictly have to do with the strait itself, though I'm not exactly sure where to draw the line.

DrIdiot (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Also re-upping this. I'm going to remove this entire section:

The US Seventh Fleet patrolled the strait both to protect the island from Communist assault and to prevent the Taiwanese from beginning international incidents through assaults on the mainland expected to be fruitless. Chinese assaults led to "Taiwan Strait Crises" in 1954 & 1955 and 1958 that were ended by threat of war with the US; Chiang Kai-shek's plans for China's reconquest were mostly abandoned after a failed landing at Magong in 1965. Hopes for immediate military reunification of China gave way to a One-China Policy espoused by both Chinas and the international community; most international recognition switched from the Republic of China to the People's Republic of China in the 1970s. A third Taiwan Strait Crisis occurred in 1995 & 1996 and cross-Strait relations remain strained, with a strengthening PRC economy also strengthening its military and deployments on the straits.

It has (1) basically no citations, (2) is not really relevant to the geographical strait, (3) contains a lot of editorializing. DrIdiot (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Also removing:

• Early modern Taiwan was a haven by Chinese and Japanese pirates.
  • Reason: Needs to establish a connection with the strait. This isn't a "history of Taiwan."
• During and after the Chinese Civil War, uprisings and peaceful dissent against the Nationalist government of the Republic of China were met with martial law and brutal repression now known as the "White Terror".
  • Same as above, not a history of Taiwan.

DrIdiot (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Too much detail

I think there is too much detail in the geography section. In particular, it's probably not important to most readers what the exact boundary is between the South China Sea and East China Sea (this isn't even in the main article for the SCS!), and also the exact boundaries of the Taiwan Strait. Interested readers can always check out the reference. I propose to delete the following text (left here for posterity):

, whose northern boundary runs from Cape Fugui (the northernmost point on Taiwan) to Niushan Island to the southernmost point of Pingtan Island and thence westward along the parallel 25° 24′ N. to the coast of Fujian Province.

On the North:

A line joining the coast of China (25° 42′ N - 119° 36′ E) eastward to Xiang Cape (25° 40′ N - 119° 47′ 10″ E), the northern extremity of Haitan Island, and thence to Fugui Cape (25° 17′ 45″ N - 121° 32′ 30″ E), the northern extremity of Taiwan Island (the common limit with the East China Sea, see 7.3).

On the East:

From Fugui Cape southward, along the western coast of Taiwan Island, to Eluan Cape (21° 53′ 45″ N - 120° 51′ 30″ E), the southern extremity of this island.

On the South:

A line joining Eluan Cape northwestward, along the southern banks of Nanao Island, to the southeastern extremity of this island (23° 23′ 35″ N - 117° 07′ 15″ E); thence westward, along the southern coast of Nanao Island, to Changshan Head (23° 25′ 50″ N - 116° 56′ 25″ E), the western extremity of this island; and thence a line joining Changshan Head westward to the mouth of the Hanjiang River (23° 27′ 30″ N - 116° 52′ E), on the coast of China (the common limit with the South China Sea, see 6.1).

On the West:

From the mouth of Hanjiang River northeastward, along the coast of China, to position 25° 42′ N - 119° 36′ E.

DrIdiot (talk) 20:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Detail is useful. Given this is an article on a geographic area, possible borders of that area seem quite useful. CMD (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, putting it back but will reformat it. DrIdiot (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Mention minimal depth

Mention the minimal depth, or the "shortest snorkel tube needed" for a hike from one side to the other.

mere 25 m deep at its shallowest near the centre of the strait’s southern mouth – the ‘Taiwan Shoal’ or ‘Taiwan Banks’. [1]

Jidanni (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Mazu

Removing this from "History" section until citation can be found. Needs to establish the Mazu has ties to the strait.

A Fujianese shamaness named Lin Mo is said to have drowned in the strait while rescuing members of her family in the 10th century; by the 12th century, her story had given rise to the cult of "Mazu" still celebrated on both sides of the strait.

Also, probably doesn't belong under "history" since it's a legend. DrIdiot (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, Mazu is a legendary figure not a historical one. The relation to the strait is also tangential, its more trivia than anything else. I support removing this even though its easily sourced because at best it is trivia. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Avoiding political terms

There have been edit wars in the past regarding political terms, e.g. Taiwan, China, mainland China. The issue with "mainland China" is that it's not a geographical term, since it excludes parts of Hong Kong that are part of the geographical mainland. I'm proposing that we use "island of Taiwan" and "mainland China" to avoid these issues, where we link mainland and China separately. I.e. however you define China, it has a geographical mainland. DrIdiot (talk) 16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Seems like the easy way around is to say that it separates the island of Taiwan from the continental landmass of Asia. The whole “mainland” conception is hopelessly muddled in the Taiwan Strait (even more so than normal), for example if someone on Kinmen talks about the “mainland” they mean Taiwan. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll change it to continental Asia with continental linking to mainland. DrIdiot (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

The Taiwan strait appeared at the start of the current warmer period

The Taiwan strait appeared at the start of the current warmer period.

But one cannot tell from the image when! Jidanni (talk) 00:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong: "separating the island of Taiwan and the Asian continent"

The island of Taiwan is also part of the continent Asia, not e.g part of the African or the American continent.
Correct would be "connects the [Chinese] island of Taiwan with the Chinese mainland". L.Willms (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

If you would like clarity we can change it to "separating the island of Taiwan and continental Asia" but your proposed addition appears to introduce a number of errors. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back which errors? Pls explain! L.Willms (talk) 06:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

For example the insertion of "Chinese" before island, whats that doing there? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Illogic of your theory of “Taiwan is also continental Asia”, it’s itself an island means it doesn’t form part of mainland Asia. For example, also in the topic of Great Britain, it stated the country/island “located off the Continental Europe”, doesn’t mean the UK is not Europe, this is a purely geographical description, nothing more.

Conversely you tended to add [Chinese] island of Taiwan as addition to your proposal, which has shown your real intention to introduce a political solution instead of the current version. and that’s another issue to be further discussed with general consensus. Sheherherhers (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sheherherhers Saying that an island is located "off the coast" is a pleonasm. OTOH, what is your intention by denying that the Chinese island Taiwan is part of the continent Asia? plz explain. Cheers, L.Willms (talk) 06:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If your intention is to change the status of Taiwan “a Chinese island”, be direct. Don’t keep putting the controversy as disputing on Island vs Continent. I know that’s not the real reason you try to approach your version of story.

As I said, same criteria apply to all similar topics, if your edits were about political change, followed by the Wikipedia policy, it requires general consensus for making such a move, which means you cannot disregard other editors’ stance on this issue. Otherwise any change without genuine reason will be reverted, simple as such. Sheherherhers (talk) 07:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sheherherhers

The British isles including the island Great Britain ARE part of the European continent, not of e.g. Africa, Asia or America. Same applies to the island Taiwan in regard to the continent Asia. And it is correct to call Taiwan a CHINESE island — how else could the Emperor of China have ceded this island to Japan by the uneven treaty of Shimonoseki in 1995 (or when ever this treaty had be signed)? And that it then fell back to China, but was separated from the mainland when the Kuomintang retreated to the island Taiwan, to where Mao tse Dong's Red Army could not follow because of the lack of sea and air forces.

History does not follow simple paths... L.Willms (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The Kuomintang forces ruling the Republic of China from Teipeh, limited to the sole island Taiwan (and some smaller islands immediately on the mainland and being the focus of a lot of crises in the 1950ies) but represented all of China in UNO including occupying China's permanent seat in the Security Council including the power to veto any majority decision. This changed only when USA found out that they could not defeat Vietnam and tried to muster the People's Republic of China against Vietnam — and dropped the Kuomintang's Republic of China on Taiwan.

++---- L.Willms (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Your explanation really made me mind-blowing and I wonder that you never try to comprehend what other people were actually talking about... If saying that Britain is located "off the Continental Europe" is a "pleonasm" , then why is on the contrary for saying that Taiwan is located "off the Chinese mainland" is not a pleonasm by your perspective? If you view that Britain is part of Europe a common sense and considered the sentense a "pleonasm", how come the "Chinese island" of Taiwan by your logic has to be emphasised the island is "off the Chinese mainland" and not considered by you as a "pleonasm"??

Please explain as I don't really understand... Sheherherhers (talk) 11:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You dont need to repeat all that historical lesson to me again, as I assume the majority of editors who concern such topic have a more comprehensive knowledge and full understanding than you are in this topic. Taiwan defined as a sovereign state directly inherited from the former Chinese Republic, As a nation in its own right that is existed long before the establishment of communist China (PRC) and the island was never placed under the PRC rule in history, therefore no one would actually consider Taiwan as a PRC province or a breakaway province seceded from the PRC, despite being asserted by the communist regime as such. The ROC on Taiwan was also a former UN member state between 1945 and 1971, its statehood is lasted without intermission for the past 113 years.

The cross-strait relations are basically two rival states vying for their legitimacy of "China", so it's in fact more similar to the current situation of Two Koreas, in which both Koreas are regarded as "countries" as well, and simultaneously they have been claiming the legitimacy over entire Korean peninsula in their respective constitution that is similar to the contemporary PRC-ROC relations. Sheherherhers (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)