Talk:Republic of China Armed Forces/Archive 1

Sovereignty
I would like to point out that most people consider taiwan to be part of China, and not a nation of it's own. AND there are no legal documentations whatsoever that declares Taiwan an independent nation. Therefore it is rude to call taiwan the "Republic Of China". --Primexx 03:28, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * quite the opposite. That's we call it the "Republic of China" instead of "Taiwan": "The Republic of China (ROC) maintains a large military establishment..." instead of "Taiwan maintains a large military establishment..." This is an issue for naming conventions (Chinese). --Jiang 03:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The so called "republic of china" does not exist, because it is part of The People's Republic Of China. --Primexx 23:10, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * there's a government in Taipei claiming to be the Republic of China. Therefore it exists whether in de facto or de jure form. Please see our NPOV policy. --Jiang 02:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

if you are not biased, then you wouldent say that it is a nation.


 * i didnt call it a nation. it is a de facto sovereign state. the debate is over whether it is de jure, not whether it exists at all. --Jiang 05:50, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * A sovereign state that cannot proclaim it's sovereignty in fear of total dismantling? Yes, very sovereign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Dracula (talk • contribs) 03:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Most states face limits on what they can do without encountering resistence from their neighbors. Taiwan faces a particularly large and unreasonable neighbor and makes its own decisions about how to adjust its policies to deal with that neighbor.Readin (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * One of the ironies here is that Beijing would much rather deal with a group of people calling themselves the Republic of China than a group of people calling themselves Taiwan. There have been quite a number of recent articles in the People's Daily complaining that Chen Shuibian wants to use the name Taiwan instead of the Republic of China.  Also its pretty clear that if the government in Taipei formally changes it name to Taiwan and formally abolishes the ROC, then the PRC will take military action.


 * Roadrunner 06:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

well thats news to me....i wish they wouldent take military action though... --Primexx 05:55, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Some people would say that attempting to govern a group of people without their consent is rude. Anyway, even if people don't officially recognize the Republic of China (Taiwan) as an independent country, it acts independently from the People's Republic of China, and that's worth noting. - Shaheenjim 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not really, since it is limited in what it can and can't do by it's larger neighbour. For example, if it were to acquire weapons of mass destruction, it would be attacked and dismantled. If it were to announce it's sovereignty, it would be attacked and dismantled, if it were to step too far out of line in general, it would be attacked and dismantled. Thus it is only sovereign on it's own territory, it's foreign conduct is more akin to that of a satellite/client territory. Taiwan is basically an autonomous region of china, it is so economically dependent on the mainland that if it rocked the boat, the umbilical would be cut and the regime on the island would be dismantled with force in about 3 days. If the us were to intervene in what is an internal chinese matter, it would face the costliest war since ww2, and one it wouldn't necessarily win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlad Dracula (talk • contribs) 03:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, since it is limited in what it can and can't do by it's larger neighbour. If by "larger neighbor" you mean the United States of America, you have a point. Taiwan relies on the U.S.A. for protection from China and because of that has become something of a satellite of the U.S.A., adjusting its policies to suit the desires of the U.S.A..  One desire of the U.S.A. is to have good relations with China, so the U.S.A. tells Taiwan to avoid doing things that China will get upset about.  But it is the U.S.A. that Taiwan is listening to.  Even so, Taiwan still sometimes thumbs its nose at the U.S.A. as when recently they held a democratic referendum that the U.S.A. objected to.  Taiwan faces an unusually hostile international environment and must adjust to that reality, but Taiwan still independently decides how to adjust.Readin (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Category structure
I've removed some recently added categories which are redundant or do not apply: When adding categories please take care to add only nonredundant and categorizations under the correct context. Thanks. -Loren 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Military of the Republic of China is already filed under Category:Republic of China, which itself is filed under Category:China, making the latter two circular and redundant.
 * The military is an institution of the state (the ROC), so Category:Taiwan does not apply here.
 * Category:History of the Republic of China should be placed on an ROC military history article. This article provides a general overview not limited to history.
 * Category:Armies does not apply here as this deals with all branches. Unlike the PLA, the ROC Military as a whole is not referred to as an army. That distinction is left to the ROC Army which is already categorized there.
 * Category:Military deals with general military topics, not individual militaries which are listed under Category:Military by country. Category:Military of the Republic of China is already listed there.

regardless of naming conventions
it seems to be, at the very least, disingenuous to have military of taiwan redirect here. there are instances of military capacity on the island – the IDF being at least one facet thereof, submarines being another – which have nothing to do with PRC's military. perhaps a little reality to go with by-the-book policy. 66.92.170.227 22:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2651458&C=asiapac

Navigational templates
These should not be used, see User talk:Privacy. --Ideogram 17:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Explain here yourself. Don't bring unrelated matters to my talk page. - Privacy 17:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Grand Marshal rank
Wikipedia's article on the rank of Grand Marshal says that the Republic of China has a military rank called Hai Lu Jun Da Yuan Shuai that is like a Grand Marshal. This article makes no reference to that. Did that rank used to exist, but it was discontinued? If so, when was it discontinued? Same question about the rank of Generalissimo, since the article on Grand Marshal implies that the Republic of China had a military rank of Generalissimo. - Shaheenjim 22:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The military underwent a major reorganization sometime in the 60s and 70s, adopting a system closer to that of NATO. I suspect the ranks you mentioned were discontinued around then. -Loren 07:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can anyone cite a source that confirms this (specifically for the Hai Lu Jun Da Yuan Shuai rank)? Thanks. - Shaheenjim 00:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions
Please note that we use "Republic of China (Taiwan)", not "Republic of China" as the former indicates the official name but at the same time making reference to the geographical location (i.e. the island) that everyone knows. This is the official naming convention in regards to Taiwan.

Furthermore please do not remove the flags without explanation. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edits by anon editor
The anon IP editor 219.78.29.103 has made a number of edits to the article. In doing so he or she appears to be trying to down-play or remove references to Taiwan as being a separate entity from China, as well as the ROC's sovereignty. Regardless of the politics in the China-Taiwan relationship, for the purposes of the modern aspect of this article they are separate. Furthermore incorrect assertions have been made, such as how the Taiwanese government under the DPP has been "Chinese nationalist". Clearly this is not correct.

Thus I have reverted the edits to an earlier stable version. I would suggest to the IP editor that they not attempt to restore these edits. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That user made dozens of changes, and you reverted all of them. I restored 3 of them, since I think those 3 were good, but I'm ok with the reversion of the rest. - Shaheenjim (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I reverted all of them because I didn't agree with them, the user hadn't left an edit summary nor had used the talk page. But I'm not going to cause a stink about your partial reversion. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:ROC Military Police Seal.jpg
The image Image:ROC Military Police Seal.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:Rocn.png
 * File:Rocmc.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --03:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Requesting consensus discussion on addition of China Army flag


Discussion welcomeArilang1234 (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not relevant to the modern armed forces - leave it for the historical organisation on its page. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I should point out though that all the forces flags are displayed in the top right already. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Request consensus discussion on addition of Chiang Hai-shek
Discussion welcomeArilang1234 (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how it's especially relevant. He was a political leader - save it for a political article. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Political leader?


 * (1)First commander of the Whampoa Military Academy

He is the heart and soil of the ROC. His picture deserves a place on this page.Arilang1234 (talk) 12:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * (2)served as Generalissimo (Chairman of the National Military Council)
 * (3) To end the Warlord era and unify China, Chiang led nationalist troops in the Northern Expedition
 * (4)led China in the Second Sino-Japanese War
 * (5)fought the communists during the civil war
 * (6)Serving as the President of the Republic of China and Director-General of the KMT, until 1975 when he died.


 * You have to be kidding. He was a ruthless dictator who caused untold misery for the people of Taiwan. He should have never left China. In any case, if his picture should be anywhere it's the main ROC article. This page is better left non-political. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Renaming the article?
Shouldn't the article be called Republic of China Armed Forces? It seems to be the name used by the Ministry of National Defense? Laurent (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. You get a lot more google hits for the current title. Best thing would be to get some feedback from Taiwanese as to what the title translates into English as. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess the reason why there are so many results for "Military of the Republic of China" is because this is how the Wikipedia article is called, and so all the mirror sites used the same name. However, official documents seem to be using "Republic of China Armed Forces". For example, this is how it is called in the National Defense Act and it's also how the Office of Military History calls it. Laurent (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Common name of "Republic of China"
Apparently there's an issue of whether or not the ROC is commonly known as the "ROC" or as "CHINA". What's makes you so sure that the ROC isn't commonly known as "China" or ROC? The name of the ROC is obviously ROC, so obviously it is also commonly known as "Republic of China". Maybe not in your area or community, but certainly in other communities. There are a lot of people who also call the ROC "China" as well. Doesn't mean that if you're ignorant of these people mean that this does not exist. You want a good example? Fine, nations that officially recognise the ROC as the sole and legitimate "China". In those nations, "China" refers to the ROC. Are you saying that the people of the 23 such nations don't commonly call the ROC "China" and even if they do that their communities and way of speech don't count simply because you are ignorant and fail to see them in your views? Even in the Chinese populations and communities, and if you live in the ROC, you should know FULLY WELL that there are still A LOT of people who still refers to the ROC as "China". Are you saying that them calling the ROC "China" or "ROC" is not a common thing? Liu Tao (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The accepted compromise on Wikipedia is that we don't use "China" to refer to a state or a country because it's ambiguous - some countries consider that the PRC is China, while others consider it is the ROC. Also I would think that the POV supported by these 23 countries, although respectable, is not widespread and so should not be given undue weight. In that case, this POV should not be used to make the first sentence of the article ambiguous because if we write "also commonly", people won't know what we're talking about, and we would need to disambiguate and write that it's "also" commonly known as China, Taiwan, Formosa, etc. To be honest, I would have no problem with writing either "also known as Taiwan" or "commonly known as Taiwan", but "also commonly" is just confusing. Laurent (talk) 09:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And it's also an accepted compromise that "Taiwan" and the "ROC" are NOT the same things simply because it's not, so technically speaking, the "commonly known as Taiwan" stuff shouldn't even be in this article. If it should be in any article, it should just be in the ROC article because that would be the only place it is relevant to the topic.  Also, it ITSELF is a POV, that I can think on the top of my head, that more than 1.3 billion people, which is 20% of the world's population, DO NOT accept.  So you're saying that even though more then 20% of the world's population who does not support this POV that they are not to be taken into consideration because "their numbers are so small"?  You want the common viewpoint?  The commonly accepted POV?  It's that the ROC doesn't exist AT ALL, and Taiwan is just a rebellous province of the PRC that's trying to become independant which all of us know is BS.  Also, based on the link you've provided, it supports the view that the ROC IS referred to as China or as the ROC.  Actually, it's not a viewpoint, it's a fact.  There ARE a lot of people who refers to the ROC as China OR as the ROC.  You want people?  Let's see...  24 nations including the ROC, that give us what?  Roughly 100 million people?  Wow, you got 100 million people who refers to the ROC as either "China" or "Republic of China", officially speaking.  Sure, they're a minority, but also significant.  And that's only in those nations, god knows how many people in other nations also refers to the ROC as "China" or "Republic of China".  Also, if you don't insert the "also" in, then it implicates that "Taiwan" is the ONLY common reference to the ROC, which you know as well as I do is not true.  This is not a weighing of which view has more support, this is not about any viewpoints at all, this is about what is fact.  Is "Taiwan" the only common reference to the ROC?  No, so we add the "also" in.  It doesn't confuse anyone, and if you're confused, then it means you can't speak English correctly or you have poor English comprehension skills, which is not anyone's problem at all.  Liu Tao (talk) 12:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Here we go again... Liu Tao, we need to write the article in such a way that it makes sense to everybody. When you put "also commonly", it no longer does because most people don't know that a minority of people call the ROC "China". On the other hand, I'm 100% sure that those people who call the ROC "China", know for a fact that the ROC is commonly known as Taiwan, and most likely they also use "Taiwan" to refer to the ROC. So by adding "commonly known as Taiwan", it's clear for everybody what we are talking about. Also we are writing for English-readers, and people in English-speaking countries call the ROC "Taiwan", not "China". Laurent (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, please note that the phrase "...commonly known as..." does not imply correctness. It does not take a POV that the usage is correct, it simply states that people use the term that way.  In fact, if anything, it slightly implies that the usage is incorrect, because if the usage were correct we would likely say "...also known as..." rather than inserting the word "commonly". Readin (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Liu, it is commonly accepted that the ROC is Taiwan. The ROC used to be the official name for China. Now it is the official name for Taiwan, something that would have been changed had it not been for Beijing's threats about war if it did so. When we talk about the ROC military we are talking about Taiwan's military. So when we say "commonly known as Taiwan" we are telling readers that we're talking about the military of Taiwan.

Please do not use some sort of "Chinese people win all arguments 'cos there're more of them than your kind" position. That's not helpful and also ridiculous, because this website is designed to cater for English-speakers. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 13:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The Associated Press and Reuters, which together write most newspaper articles, use "Taiwan" to refer the island, the country, and the state. These are the news articles most people read.  They are the source of information about the ROC and/or Taiwan for most people.  This by itself makes the usage of "Taiwan" common.  The other popular news sources such as the TV network news and cable news channels use "Taiwan".  The usage is common.  It is this common usage that makes it noteworthy - to clarify that the topic being mentioned is most likely known to the reader as "Taiwan", without taking a position on whether "Taiwan" is a correct name.
 * As for diplomatic usage, very few people in the world are diplomats. You mention the ROC.  Even in the ROC, "Taiwan" is commonly used. You can't claim that all 23 million Taiwanese regularly use "Jungguo", "ROC", or "Junghuaminguo" over "Taiwan because I've been there and heard the talk.  Not only that, but even if they did, the term in question is the English term, and most of those 23 million Taiwanese don't regularly use the English word "China" or the English letters "ROC".
 * As for the other 23 nations that recognize the ROC, do you have evidence that "China" is commonly used in those countries to refer to the ROC? I know that occasionally you hear about some embarrassment where the use of "Republic of China" confuses the protocol people and they commit some faux paus like displaying the wrong flag or playing the wrong national anthem.
 * I won't argue with you about whether there are a few communities that use "China" to refer to the ROC. There may be some heavily Chinese nationalist communities where it happens.  Those communities are unusual in that regard, not common.  You need some evidence to show the common usage if you want to assert it. Readin (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to argue that the ROC is commonly known as "ROC" or as "China", I'm trying to argue that "Taiwan" is NOT the only common reference towards the ROC. And evidence?  Okay, very simple, common everyday speech.  There are still a lot of communities and people who DO NOT refer to the ROC as "Taiwan", but distinctify between the 2, therefore "Taiwan" is NOT the only common reference towards the ROC.  You want evidence?  What about your evidence?  Do you have evidence that the ROC is commonly referred to as "Taiwan"?  I don't see any evidence, mind telling me why you're demanding for evidence whilst you don't have any yourself?  Liu Tao (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And as I've stated before, the fact that "also" is not inserted suggests that "Taiwan" is the ONLY common reference towards the ROC. You know as well as I do that that is not the case.  And confuses people?  Bah, if people are confused then it means they don't have their facts straight and don't know enough about the subject of the matter.  It's like trying to read a Calculus Textbook when you've only learned Arithmatic.  I'm not American, nor am I from Southern Taiwan.  From where I'm from, the people who I talk with, they make a DISTINCTION between Taiwan and the ROC, meaning they would NEVER "commonly refer" to the ROC as Taiwan.  And officially and legally speaking, ROC and Taiwan are 2 different things, if these are 2 different entities, there's bound to be a ton of people who "commonly refer" to the ROC as something OTHER than "Taiwan".  Want a very obvious example of what they refer to the ROC as?  It's very simple, clear, straighforward, and obvious: "Republic of China".  The fact that there's another "common name" to the ROC disproves the fact that "Taiwan" is not the only "common name" of the ROC.  Liu Tao (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So is anyone going to address this issue or not? It's been three days since I've last made my points.  If nobody is going to address them, I might as well as change as of.  Liu Tao (talk) 00:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We're still waiting for you to address our points. You wrote two paragraphs, but didn't respond to what we said. Your two paragraphs were repetitions of your earlier statements without taking account of our responses to those statements.
 * When you say "evidence? Okay, very simple, common everyday speech.", well, I've never heard common everyday speech that referred to the ROC as anything other than "Taiwan", and you didn't provide any evidence that the everyday speech you speak of exists.
 * You say "...suggests that "Taiwan" is the ONLY common reference towards the ROC. You know as well as I do that that is not the case. "  Actually I believe that IS the case, that the only common reference used for the ROC is "Taiwan".  Only in the specialized area of diplomat-speak making official statements, and on Wikipedia, do I ever see or hear the ROC regularly called anything other than "Taiwan".
 * You say "What about your evidence? Do you have evidence that the ROC is commonly referred to as "Taiwan"?  I don't see any evidence, mind telling me why you're demanding for evidence whilst you don't have any yourself?", and you say this after I already pointed out that most English news routinely call the ROC "Taiwan", and that this is where English people learn about the ROC.  I gave specific examples of news services that do this.  I can provide links if you like.
 * But I have yet to see any evidence from you other than claims that you know of mysterious communities somewhere where some other name is commonly used. Readin (talk) 01:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My paragraphs does address your points. If what I'm saying is repetitious, then it means that you haven't addressed my points either.  You say that you believe that it is the case, then in that case, I'm going to ask you this very simple question.  Have you ever considered seeking out Chinese audiences instead of English news?  If you do, you know perfectly well that there are tons of people who NEVER address the ROC as "Taiwan", they either as the "Republic of China" (same with in English), or more and more less common, "China".  And common use, okay, you want common?  How about common sense?  Legally and technically speaking, the ROC and Taiwan are different entities, so there are bound to be people who differentiate between the two, and how do they differentiate?  Simple, they don't call the ROC "Taiwan", this shows that "Taiwan" is NOT the only name used to address the ROC.  You want evidence, lets' try some news and how about stepping out of your house and asking a couple of lads if they make the distinction between the ROC or not.  Of course, if you don't live in a Chinese community, it's going to be hard, but actually it is not.  You can do so in English communities too, just ask them the question in English.  Of course, the most possible condition you'd get is people who either think the ROC is the PRC, or they have no idea what the ROC is.  In this case, then it means that they are reffering to the ROC as "Taiwan" because they are ignorant, the same towards newscasters and journalists.  If you want "accurate" evidence, I'd suggest you find sources coming from people who know exactly what the ROC and Taiwan is.  You can't deem an evidence "accurate" if it comes from someone who is ignorant in what they are talking about.  Liu Tao (talk) 01:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you have not addressed these issues in a way that comports with Wikipedia standards and philosophy. Your arguments boil down to:
 * Chinese people use other names'
 * I addressed this earlier. And this is an English Wikipedia.
 * Common sense says people should call it...
 * Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Wikipedia tells how things are, not how they should, and not how they would be if everyone were perect.
 * People who refer to the ROC as "Taiwan" are ignorant.
 * Again, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive. Even if all the people who refer to the ROC as "Taiwan" do so out of ignorance, the fact remains they do so, and we are correct to state that they do so.
 * Readin (talk) 13:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, then what about the non-ignorant people then? Those who makes the distinction between the ROC and Taiwan and never refer to the ROC as Taiwan but call the ROC "Republic of China" instead of "Taiwan"?  You know for a fact that there are A LOT of people in the English speaking world who does NOT refer to the ROC as Taiwan.  And where in the Wikipedia manual does it say that the articles should be written only in par with the sense of English Speaking people?  And it's not just Chinese people who uses other names, people who knows the difference refer to the ROC as something other then "Taiwan" as well.  You are correct that the ROC is commonly known as "Taiwan", but you are not correct in the fact that the ROC is ONLY commonly known as "Taiwan".  Liu Tao (talk) 14:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying other editors are liars isn't productive, is uncivil, and is highly offensive. Readin (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying other editors are liars isn't productive, is uncivil, and is highly offensive. Readin (talk) 18:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never said that other editors are liars, for your information. Where exactly did I call other editors "liars"?  And even if I did, saying that people and communities don't exist or they don't matter in things are offensive, uncivil, and not productive as well.  Anyways, back on track, are you going to reply to my statement or not?  Liu Tao (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You know for a fact that there are A LOT of people in the English speaking world who does NOT refer to the ROC as Taiwan.
 * When you say that after reading my statements, especially the one I made 13:41, 15 June 2009, you are clearly implying that you believe I'm being dishonest in my discussion here. As a matter of fact, the only people I know of who do not refer to the ROC as Taiwan are yourself and people who work in diplomacy.  I'm sure there are a few others but I doubt that there are "a LOT".
 * This is Wikipedia. You aren't expected to trust me, nor am I expected to trust you, but we are expected to be civil and not disparage each others character.  Readin (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is not about trust. And I'm not implying that you're being dishonest, I'm implying that there are some things you forgot about or did not come up in your mind whilst discussing.  Anyways, cut the crap and get back to main point, IS or IS IT NOT that "Taiwan" is the only common name used to refer to the "Republic of China"?  And if you want more people, it's simple, take a crack into the forums and stuff.  I've also told you to talk to some historians who has extensive knowledge of the History of East Asia/China since the past century.  You could also take a shot at those who were borne before the early 1960's, the older the better.  Plus, if in diplomacy the name "Republic of China" is used so often, then that means "Taiwan" is NOT commonly used to refer to the "Republic of China" by some in the English speaking world, you just proved my point that "Taiwan" is not the only common reference towards the ROC in the English Speaking world.  By the way, you've still've yet to churn out the wiki-policy that says the articles must be written to be in par with the common speech of the English Speaking World.  Liu Tao (talk) 13:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I still haven't seen any evidence that the nation is "commonly" referred to as "Republic of China". Diplomat are an elite group, as are "historians who has extensive knowledge of the History of East Asia/China since the past century".   Even if you are right about the historians, you haven't addressed the issue of common usage.
 * Nor have you addressed the issue of why there is a need to include an extra word. The current wording does not apply that their aren't other common names.  The point of the parenthetic note is simply to alert readers to the fact that they are reading an article about the state containing 23 million people, not the state containing a billion people that most will assume when they see the word "China"; it is not supposed to give a detailed explanation of all names and their relative usages.  We used to have simply "Republic of China (Taiwan)" but someone objected, and I still can't understand why - so it was expanded.  We should still keep it as concise as possible rather than trying to make it the bulk of the article. Readin (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Common usage... People who makes the distinction between the two would "commonly" NOT refer to the ROC as "Taiwan".  They may refer to the ROC as something else, but whatever it is, it is definitely NOT Taiwan.  And also, I've yet to see evidence that the ROC is commonly referred to as "Taiwan" either.
 * And I have addressed the issue, "Taiwan" is not the ONLY common usage, which is why the word "also" should be inserted. Without the word "also", you are saying that "Taiwan" is the ONLY common reference towards the ROC.  Liu Tao (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Liu Tao, I thnk you will find that people will call the ROC "Taiwan". The ROC is the nation's official name, but Taiwan is the cornerstone of it. User:John Smith& (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do find people calling the ROC "Taiwan", but that's not the point I'm trying to make. The point that I'm trying to make is that "Taiwan" is NOT the ONLY common reference used to refer to the ROC.  Liu Tao (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So what exactly is the problem now? You guys chicken out and retreat from this debate, but say that a consensus has been reached when it CLEARLY shows that none has been reached.  You guys refuse to continue discussion even though after multiple complaints and pleadings from to continue, now you are saying that what I'm doing is wrong.  Just because you stopped responding to my arguments and that there's more of you don't make you right nor does it make you the ones who have won.  Have some level of humility please.  Now, either continue to discuss, or don't say that a consensus has been reached in your favour.  Liu Tao (talk) 20:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Liu, for the last time if you want to remove text that is long-standing in an article it is you who must gain consensus. Gaining consensus is not a game where the last person remaining in a debate "wins". If we end the discussion because we're going around in circles and feel we're wasting our time with you, it's our choice and has no bearing on how the article goes forward. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it means that no consensus was reached, and if no consensus was reached, then how come you get to remove text I have added? You removed text from the article despite not having a consensus, but when I do so because you did NOT have a consensus to put up the text in the first place, you criticise my actions.  Things are going in circles because you guys refuse to attack and debate against my main point, which was that "Taiwan is not the ONLY common reference towards the ROC" whilst keeping on relaying the same thing over and over again.  You think I like playing circles with you guys as well?  No, I do not, and I am SICK of you guys treating me like a villain when it is YOU who are the ones who REFUSES to debate, not me.  If you've became tired of debating, then that means you've lost, simple as that.  You have no right to edit if you refuse to debate and discuss against issues brought against your edits.  Liu Tao (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Liu Tao, perhaps you should just let it go. You are the only one who wants to make this change and so far you haven't convinced anybody that doing so would improve the article. Also you can't be serious when you say that we refuse to debate given the size of the discussion above. Laurent (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It hasn't convinced anybody because none of you refuse to look me in the eye and just say how my edits won't improve the article. All you've said is that by adding the word "also", it makes it confusing and people can't understand it.  I'm not a native English speaker, and English is m'second language, so if I can understand it, then I'm thinking that native english speakers would be able to understand it.  And as for how it can improve the article, it can, by simply stating that "Taiwan" is not the only common reference towards the ROC.  And the article you've linked, it talks about in the case one wins or loses.  Problem is, this issue isn't over, as shown by the continuous edits of adding and removing the "also".  Liu Tao (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
Military of the Republic of China → Republic of China Armed Forces &mdash; It seems to be the correct name as indicated on the Ministry of National Defense website, the National Defense Act and this book by the Office of Military History. Laurent (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Wikipedia convention would seem to support this: In a quick check I found articles on United Kingdom Armed Forces, Soviet Union Armed Forces and United States armed forces (why no caps for the U.S., I'm not sure). Ed Fitzgerald t / c 10:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact, we do have a lot of articles that use "Military of X". See Category:Military by country for examples. Jafeluv (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Aren't those categories, though? For instance, I find in that list "Military of the United Kingdom" and "Military of the United States", whereas the articles are as listed above. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just did another quick spot check: "Military of Botswana" and "Military of Uganda" both redirected, but "Military of Albania" was an article name. I wonder why the two different systems of naming, and if there is any reason behind the dichotomy? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 19:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now. The official use may be "Republic of China Armed Forces", but Wikipedia policy prefers common names to official names. There's no recommendation that I can find at the style guide of the military history project for names of armed forces, but they do suggest "Military of X" for category names, at least. I would advise sticking to "Military of the Republic of China" unless someone can show that the proposed title is much more commonly used. Jafeluv (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there doesn't seem to be a convention on Wikipedia regarding the names of armies. I think we should go with the official name if there's no ambiguity. For instance, the German army article is called Bundeswehr, the Italian one is called Military of Italy but I think that's a mistake since the article then starts with "The Italian armed forces are...". There's also Austrian Armed Forces, Polish Armed Forces. Also there is a problem of consistency here as the article is named "Military of the Republic of China" but the infobox says "Republic of China Armed Forces". Laurent (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of leaving a note to the military history project with a link to this move discussion. Let's see what they have to say on the matter. Jafeluv (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed to support. According to people at the military history project: "If we know the actual name, we use it. If we don't, we use Military of X." (Summarized from original comment) Here we know the actual name, and it's Republic of China Armed Forces. Jafeluv (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I've moved the page from Military of the Republic of China to Republic of China Armed Forces. Laurent (talk) 19:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Personnel
What is the relevance of the reference to the US in the sentence: "officer corps is generally viewed as being competent, capable, technically proficient, and generally pro-U.S. in outlook, displaying a high degree of professionalism". The officer corps is no doubt very professional. If it could be regarded as pro-US, rather than loyal to the ROC government, it would not be professional, but politicised and loyal to a foreign power.JohnC (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if it's not cited, you're welcome to remove it... Plus the fact that it's a bit POV.  Liu Tao (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Appears all updates are done in ROC Air Force, Navy, Army and Marines, after working on it for about 6 months.
Before, the info on those pages were at least about 5-10 years outdated, where globalsecurity.org and fas.org info on Taiwan military doesn't help too much due to they were also very old and outdated in that regard. So all are updated and good for another few years before major updates. So guys, finally I can go to back to hibernation and sleep for few years, or just become a lurker again. Will check in from time to time, whenever I got the time and when new weapons sales or military news regarding Taiwan pops up. Good to work with you guys, and haven't see many communists interferences for the last 6 months, which is good.

Anyway, happy Chinese/Lunar New Year, and take care.Bryan TMF (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

national space organisation, military?
isn't ROC's space program civilian like the coast guard? i don't think it is under the military in peacetime. Akinkhoo (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye, it's a program ran and operated by civilians, but I dunno if it can be incorporated under the military. I just know that they do some military defence research and that they're under the Executive Yuan's supervision, that's all the relationship I know of between the Organisation and the Military.  Liu Tao (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's more. The sounding rockets are based on the TK-2, and the whole project really paving the way for Taiwan's IRBM research project, ie the tracking of sounding rockets, payload section's tracking, predicting ballistic path, re-entry, and recovery.Bryan TMF (talk) 03:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Aye, but military technological research and develop does not mean that it is run by the military. Unless the Military themselves oversea or run the place directly, it's not part of the Military.  Liu Tao (talk) 18:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Launch location, tracking radars, command post, tracking personnel, and pretty much everything is belong to ROC/Taiwan MND. Even those "civilians" do have years of military background or connect with CSIST, and might be just "on loan" to the "space program"Bryan TMF (talk) 20:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Belonging and controlling are two different things. Liu Tao (talk) 22:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The agency's former name is Tien Ma missile office---in charge of launching nuke tipped IRBM/ICBM and as the means to launch satellites into space as its cover. Exist since early 1980s..... Bryan TMF (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Very expensive tactical missiles
http://defense-update.com/wp/20101224_atacms.html As for the pricing, unless the ‘launcher modification kits’ are made of gold, the extremely high cost of several million US$ per unit for the missiles, raises a big question mark on this official announcement.

Include this? Hcobb (talk) 17:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest not including this given it is very new information. There are also many other things Taiwan is buying and there could be hidden costs not taken account of. Or the notification could simply be wrong. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Why is 2010 military contracts to Taiwan wiped out?
Seems like user 68.96.245.221 had been wiping out all the contracts.....Bryan TMF (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want you can bring them back - though I would just summarise what was ordered in a few sentences. I think it was a bit too long, spelling everything out with dates, etc. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems
The Taiwanese military faces serious problems.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MC18Ad01.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.21.212.187 (talk) 16:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)