Talk:Republic of China Army

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protected[edit]

Due to a revert war this article has been temporarily locked. Please discuss edits on the talk page and avoid reverting articles. -Will Beback 21:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Taiwan Army" as the common name?[edit]

I searched on google and got this:

  • 16,500 for "Taiwan Army"
  • 783 for "Republic of China Army"

I know we definitely shouldn't move the article because it's the official name, but shouldn't we also include the common name in the article?--Jerry 23:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation already exists in the first paragraph and Taiwan Army redirects to Republic of China Army. -Loren 23:50, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant was that we should add it so it'll look something like this:Republic of China Army, commonly known as Taiwan Army...--Jerry 00:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the disambiguation pretty much covers that issue already. No need to be redundant. -Loren 00:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that JerryPP772000 is pushing his POV for Wikipedia. This should not be done. Navality 05:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TingMing (posing as "Navality"), I think you need to go see a psychiatrist - it's obvious you have some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder with editing wikipedia, given you keep making sockpuppets to try to get around your ban. John Smith's 08:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A report has been filed against TingMing/Navality. Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 10:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you are not the sole body to judge whether one is pushing a POV or not, especially given your only-worsening status quo. Vic226說 17:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling in the article....[edit]

Just avoid an editing war, what type of English should we use? Commonwealth English or American English? I'd like to hear you thoughts on this. Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 03:39, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's not the focal point, so both of them should be fine.--Jerry 18:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
okidokie :D Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CM-31 6x6 vehicles question[edit]

I'd like to inquire on whether they were produced for the ROC army or not in the 1990s. Ominae (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a prototype for a project that wasnt given the go ahead - the CM32 took over instead (read this article). Next time please don't add to the article like that if you just have a query. 82.32.19.175 (talk) 09:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to do an article about this in the future and I'm asking for clarification only. Thanks. Ominae (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upper or lower case and general style[edit]

In the tables that list the various aircraft, missiles, etc and anon-IP editor has changed upper case descriptions to lower case ones. For example "maritime patrol aircraft" instead of "Maritime patrol aircraft". I personally prefer upper case, so unless anyone has strong objections I will change them over when I have the time. Otherwise please leave your views here.

Furthermore I'm not happy with the current layout of the tables - I also don't like the colour. if there are no objections I'll look into combining some more and changing the colour when I have the time. John Smith's (talk) 20:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions[edit]

Please note that we use "Republic of China (Taiwan)", not "Republic of China (ROC)" 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. Most people don't know what the ROC is - they think of China. So please don't change this. John Smith's (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 24.85.227.16‎[edit]

This editor has been removing wikilinks from all three ROC military pages with no explanation. I have reverted his latest changes as vandalism - please be on the look-out. If he does it again, please report him. John Smith's (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CM-31[edit]

I think that the IP user 71.185.193.245 may be accessing out-of-date information. The CM-31 design was discontinued - read the following.

Globalsecurity report

It has been replaced by the CM-32 - no CM-31s were ordered from what I know. So I have changed the article accordingly. John Smith's (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags, etc[edit]

I've changed the flags to read "Taiwan", as that's much clearer to someone who doesn't understand the relationship between the ROC and Taiwan. I've also clipped the reports of the arms sales, as a lot of things weren't relevant to the Army. John Smith's (talk) 18:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The names should be changed back to reading 'Republic of China'. To refer to the RoC as 'Taiwan' is POV as the RoC is NOT Taiwan. The RoC comprises of more territory then just 'Taiwan' (Kinmen Matsu). Saying that the Republic of China is the Republic of China is not POV at all, it's as clear and straightforward as it gets. Liu Tao (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Republic of China is only recognised by a handful of countries - there is an argument that it is not a valid nation. It is a highly controversial topic. The flags only refer to the origin of the weapons - you're not suggesting the KF-6 was made on Matsu, are you? It's less controversial to refer to the island of Taiwan that no one disputes exists. It's not a political reference. John Smith's (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, but it's also the consensus amongst Wikipedia that the Republic of China exists, and there is also an undeniably large amounts of supported evidence that there is a Republic of China which still is in existence and operates. If the RoC doesn't exist, what is the government currently administering over Taiwan Kinmen and Matsu? You gave me the NPOV article, well, now I'm giving you the this article. Read what it says for RoC naming conventions. As far as I know, my usage of 'Republic of China' is legit, I'm referring to the state of the RoC just as the rest other parts of the article refers to the United States, France, and Israel. Those articles names the states, I am doing the same to maintain consistency. The Island of Taiwan exists alright, but it's just an island. It's not the island that develops the weaponry, it's the state administering the island that develops the weaponry. Even if you win your argument with using Taiwan instead of the ROC, you cannot use the flag to represent Taiwan. That is the flag of the Republic of China, not Taiwan. Plus the fact that the links link to the RoC page, which means that the 'Taiwan' you are using is not referring to the Taiwan Island, it is referring to the RoC, which is even more controversial than the existence of the RoC. If you want to use Taiwan, first you're gonna have to remove the flags and fix the links, see how that will play out, which I don't think will end well as many more other issues (eg consistency) will pop up. Liu Tao (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's consensus on Wikipedia that there should be an article on the ROC. There is no judgment of the "Wikipedia court" that the ROC is officially recognised. As for the government, it's the government of Taiwan and its outlying islands. It's certainly not the government of China as the ROC claims to be.
I don't agree that there's a problem using the ROC flag next to Taiwan. John Smith's (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The government of the Republic of China is the Government of the Republic of China, simple as that, just as the government of the United States is the Federal government of the United States. I didn't say anything about its claims in the mainland. This has to do with state and politics, not geography. It's the same government that governs Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu as the government that claims jurisdiction over mainland China and Outer Mongolia. To use the flag next to 'Taiwan' as I've said would be to say that the Republic of China is Taiwan, and as I've already pointed out is even more controversial than the existence of the RoC. Plus the fact that the link links to the RoC page itself says that Taiwan is the RoC. Either remove the flag and change the link, or you've got no stand in this discussion. Liu Tao (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case we can change the links to Taiwan. I don't have a problem with doing that. But there's no reason to get rid of the flag. We've had Taiwan and the flag for almost two years without a problem. John Smith's (talk) 19:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now you do. I've given you the reason why the flag must go, because it's not the Flag of Taiwan. That is the flag of the Republic of China, to use it to represent Taiwan would be to say that it is the flag of Taiwan, which is untrue and of a highly controversial subject. Liu Tao (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem, you have a problem. If you want to change things and you can't agree with my position you can ask on the Taiwan project for some more comments. John Smith's (talk) 18:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about Taiwan Project, they've got nothing to do with me. They hold no administrative powers over Taiwan-related articles. I do my own policing and edits, maybe give my inputs every now and then to something, but they've got nothing to do with me or this article. I've given you my arguments, now address the points and continue this discussion. Liu Tao (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is the use of Taiwan or RoC a "policing" matter? I don't think it is. And you misunderstand my comment, I was offering you an avenue to get some more opinions by asking on the Taiwan Project. When two editors have a disagreement the first way of getting past it (if they can't agree between themselves) is to seek more comments. Why are you opposed to getting outside views? John Smith's (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I get more opinions from the Taiwan Project? Why don't you? I've got no problem with what's happening now, I see no need to get other people's opinions. Plus the fact that Taiwan Project's probably the last place I'd go to look for an opinion, the place is littered with Greens, who will obviously support your viewpoint of equating the 'RoC' with 'Taiwan'. I've got every reason NOT to go to Taiwan Project for opinions or help. If I need help (which I don't), I'll go somewhere else. In fact I'm still waiting on your rebuttal to my last point, which I will repost again here exactly as stated before: I've given you the reason why the flag must go, because it's not the Flag of Taiwan. That is the flag of the Republic of China, to use it to represent Taiwan would be to say that it is the flag of Taiwan, which is untrue and of a highly controversial subject. Liu Tao (talk) 14:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't know what other project would be best placed to deal with an article like this. You say "greens" as if it means they're incapable of having a fair view - that's not nice. Also, who says that they're all politically biased? That's just your opinion.
I reject your argument because the use of Taiwan is to make it easier for people to work out what we're talking about. The RoC is a very under-used term, and most people refer to Taiwan. It isn't to say that the flag is the "flag of Taiwan" but it is the flag that Taiwan uses. John Smith's (talk) 21:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say all, I said 'littered', which implies they're everywhere but not all, notice my selection and use of terminology. And as I've said, I don't need help and I don't need other's opinions at this time. If you want a 3rd opinion, go find one yourself, don't tell me to do it.
Taiwan as an Island is nothing but a hunk of rock and geographic region, Taiwan as the Province is the political region that uses the RoC flag, there's a big difference.
Based on the Wikipedia naming conventions, when the need of 'disambigulating' the meaning of the 'Republic of China', it should be put down as Republic of China (Taiwan). And based on the naming conventions, it only needs to be done once, it specifically states not to repeatedly add '(Taiwan)' after the first initial Republic of China, instead to just leave '(Taiwan)' out of the remaining 'Republic of China's. So according to the policy, the flags should all be labeled  Republic of China as the 'Republic of China' has already been 'disambigulated' as 'Taiwan' in the beginning of the article. Liu Tao (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand how you know that the majority of over 80 people are "Greens", nor why their opinions are irrelevant/they cannot come to a fair view on a subject like this. Were you suggesting that you would only seek comments from people you know would take your side?
I didn't "tell" you to do anything - I made a suggestion. If you don't want to follow that it's your choice, though I still suggest that seeking alternative views might be helpful.
Which naming conventions? Could you refer me to the relevant text? Thanks. John Smith's (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say 'majority', 'littered' just means that they're everywhere, it does not say anything about being a majority or minority. And enough with Taiwan Project, stop bringing them up, they've got nothing to do with this. If you want their opinions, fine, get them, I don't care, but I'm not. I'll get opinions when I feel that I need others' opinions, and right now I don't.
Naming conventions for Chinese here. I can't believe you've never read this. Says specifically: When referring to the state in article space after appropriate disambiguation has been given (Do not replace all instances of "Republic of China" with "Republic of China (Taiwan)" unless explicitly part of the official title.). That was the part talking about when to use the link Republic of China. Liu Tao (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say I had never read it? I have. But it was some time ago, and "the naming conventions" is too vague. In any case, the bit you've quoted doesn't seem to address the point in question as we haven't replaced RoC with "RoC (Taiwan". It's about the use of Taiwan instead of RoC, and I'm not sure why the naming conventions supports your position. It doesn't say that Taiwan cannot be used. John Smith's (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Naming conventions specifically says to use 'Republic of China' when referring to the state in article space after appropriate disambiguation has been given. The link links to the RoC page, therefore it is referring to the state and is in conflict with the NC. Of course it didn't say that 'Taiwan' cannot be used, it says specifically where 'Republic of China' should be used, and this is one of em. I don't need to tell you not to refer to me as 'Tao' if I've already explicitly told you to refer to me as 'Liu Tao'. Liu Tao (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not a reference to the state, it's a reference to the geographical location where the systems were built. And as I keep saying, we can link it to Taiwan and not RoC. I'm happy to do that if you will allow me.
Where have I called you "Tao"? o_0 John Smith's (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're linking it to Taiwan, then you're referencing the Island, which is aye, a geographic entity, which means that you will have to remove the flag as well. The island is a geographical entity, it uses no flag. It is the Province that uses the RoC flag, not the island, there is a very distinct difference between the two. Geographical entities are just a place and region, a pile of rocks and dirt. If you want to refer to the Island, you cannot use the RoC flag as the Island is not a political entity.
The 'calling me "Tao"' is just an analogy. Liu Tao (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Liu I just don't accept your point, I don't see why the island cannot use the flag. But it's clear that we can't agree, so for the moment I've linked Taiwan in without a flag simply so we can move on from this discussion. I do not agree to your POV. Perhaps we (i.e. the PROJECT) need a wider discussion about how to use the flags. John Smith's (talk) 20:53, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've got 2 good reasons why:
1. It's not the flag of the Taiwan Island, as I've said multiple times, it is an island, not a political entity, no flag represents the Taiwan Island.
2. Wikipolicy on flags says so. Liu Tao (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New infobox[edit]

Republic of China Army
ROC Army Flag
Active1924-present
CountryRepublic of China
Size130,000 (2008 est.)
Insignia
Insignia[[Image:Roca.png|70px|Insignia of the ROC Army]]
Aircraft flown
Attack helicopterBoeing AH-64D Apache Longbow Block III Bell AH-1W SuperCobra
Observation helicopterBell OH-58D Kiowa
Utility helicopterBell TH-67A Creek AIDC UH-1H Iroquois

Here is a proper infobox for use on the article. Please add other available info. I'm not sure about including the aircraft section, it might be bad for an army article?

Note: Remove the <nowiki> tags from roca.png when placing it on the article. It is commented out as using it here is not 'fair use'. --Wanders1 (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History Section[edit]

John, The ROCA was defending the ROC, not Taiwan, in those combat operations. None of them involved Taiwan; Kuningtou and the 2nd Crisis both involved Kinmen and the 1st Crisis involved minor islands that are now part of Zhejiang Province, PRC. The PLA has never made it to Taiwan, and so the ROCA has never fought "in the defense of Taiwan."Erik-the-red (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that China was trying to take control of Taiwan - it wasn't attacking the islands for fun, they were a prelude to a larger invasion. Alternatively we could change it to just referring to where the fighting took place. John Smith's (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right; the combat operations were a prelude to a larger invasion. But the ROCA was desperately trying to defend what little mainland Chinese territory the ROC still held, and it won decisively at the Battle of Kuningtou on Kinmen. That's the point I'm trying to make; on Kinmen, the ROCA was trying to defend Kinmen. During the 2nd Taiwan Strait Crisis, it was again trying to defend Kinmen. (During the 1st Crisis, it was trying to defend islands that were never part of Taiwan Province but have always been part of Zhejiang Province, be it Chekiang, ROC or Zhejiang, PRC.) I am in favor of your suggestion to change it to where the fighting took place, though. What kind of wording do you have in mind?Erik-the-red (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I thought we were talking about battles on the islands and not China? John Smith's (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are. But all the battles mentioned (Kuningtou, 1st Taiwan Strait Crisis, 2nd Taiwan Strait Crisis) involved islands that are officially part of mainland China. Kinmen is not a part of Taiwan, nor has it ever been a part of Taiwan; it's always been a part of Fukien / Fujian. The Dachen Islands that the PRC seized from the ROC in the First Crisis were not a part of Taiwan, either; they've always been a part of Chekiang / Zhejiang.
Yes, "Taiwan" includes not only the large island of Taiwan itself but also several minor outlying islands. I stress that the islands in question (viz. Kinmen and Dachen) are not part of those 'several minor outlying islands.' That is why I disagree with the wording, "In defense of Taiwan,..." It really ought to be "In [the] defense of [the ROC],..."Erik-the-red (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ballistic Missile information missing[edit]

This article is missing any information on the Republic of China's Ballistic Missile Program.

See http://www.scienceandworldaffairs.org/PDFs/Kurosaki_Vol1.pdf (table on page 17) And http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hticbm/articles/20110501.aspx

The Republic of China has at least two, possible three different operational Short or Intermediate Range Ballistic Missles (SRBM or IRBM). One is called Ching Feng (Green Bee), one called Tien Chi (Sky Spear). There isn't enough information to determine if the second linked article is referred to the Ching Feng missile, or a third entirely different type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.76.27 (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the SSM/SRBM/IRBM program doesn't belong to ROC Army. It belongs to ROC GHQ.....Ching Feng retired before entered service, since its range is only about 100 mile. Tien Chi is converted TK-2 SAM, range about 200 miles. Sky Horse of early 1980s and whatever follow on missile program is the SSM/IRBM that's the big unknown.... Bryan TMF (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M114 155mm Towed Howitzer still in service with ROC Army?[edit]

Heard about it recently but can't confirm it yet. It's not on the list here, but ROC Army does still have those M59 Long Tom 155 mm Towed Howitzer.....Bryan TMF (talk) 01:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Republic of China Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading usage of "Taiwan"[edit]

The text includes the following sentence: "An estimated 80% of the ROC Army is located on Taiwan" - here, the usage of "Taiwan" refers to the Island whereas the underlying link refers to the state "Taiwan" .... --DAsia (talk) 07:30, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Republic of China Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Republic of China Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Republic_of_China_Army&oldid=1210017399"