Talk:Four Noes and One Without

This sentence sounds little strange: The "four noes" are that provided the People's Republic of China does not attack Taiwan, the his administration would not: . I mean the structure. --FallingInLoveWithPitoc 17:06, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I've paraphrased it a little. --Menchi 23:35, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Move?
The ROC government translates it as Four No's plus One in its websites. eg --Jiang 02:36, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, difficult question. First, is it that the ROC government officially translates it that way, or is it that whoever's working on the website translates it that way? (Sadly, I've seen various English stylistic and grammatical errors on the ROC website before--which is not something unique to ROC websites; it seems to plague foreign embassy websites in general to some extent.) In any case, the ROC website, at least, definitely seems to prefer "plus" over "and," so maybe we should make that change (on the other hand, the phrase in Chinese is "si bu yi mei you," not "si bu jia yi mei you," making the "plus" questionable). If we were to make that change from "plus" to "and," that leaves the question of whether we should capitalize "plus." The ROC government seems not to want to capitalize "plus"; however, under standard English style rules, "plus" should be capitalized as it is not one of the small words like "for," "the," or "a." Also, should we use "noes" or "no's"? (I think "noes" is the form advanced by style guides as the generally correct usage, but on this point, I could be wrong.) Then, there's the question of "without." With a few exceptions, such as, most websites seem to leave off the "without." Yet, clearly, either "four noes and one without" or "four noes plus one without" is a better literal translation for "si bu yi mei you" than "four noes plus one." So I'm not really sure what we should do with this; I just thought I'd lay out the above points for people to think over. --Lowellian 20:47, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Problem Solved?
''The "four noes" are that provided the People's Republic of China does not attack Taiwan, the his administration would not:. I mean the structure. '' was rectified to

Provided that the People's Republic of China has no intention to use military force against Taiwan, Chen's administration promises not to do the following things (the "Four Noes"):

so the first problem was solved, since the second discussion, is only focused on the title therefore I recommend that the self contradiction be removed.

--Raraa 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Chen didn't "step down" in 2008
Chen has revealed he planned to draft a new constitution, which many conjectured would be pro-separatist, before he stepped down in 2008.

Um, it's only 2009 right now? What happened to the new Constitution for Taiwan?? 210.71.3.188 (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)