Talk:First Taiwan Strait Crisis

Khaliwarriors I won't claim to be an expert on this topic, I also understand something such as "who won?" can be a divisive issue when it comes to armed conflicts of ongoing disputes. My understanding however is that while the PRC backed down, they still retained sovereignty over the Yijiangshan and Dachen Islands. If that was the case, then the result of the conflict was at least a nominal PRC victory, though some may argue it was also a ROC/KMT strategic or geo-political victory. Irregardless, "status quo ante bellum", would not be correct as the PRC gained and maintained control over territory it did not hold prior to or "ante-bellum". Once again I won't claim to be an expert on this specific event and apologize if I'm incorrect regarding the course of events. My sources include: http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/archives/2020/01/12/2003729106 http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2014/06/16/2003592902 OgamD218 (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Khaliwarriors unless you or any other editors have anything you would like to add, I am going to go ahead and revert the edit back to an outcome of PRC Victory.OgamD218 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The islands seized by the PRC in 1954-55 were of no strategic value. The remarkable "result" of the crisis was that both sides showed restraint and a major war was avoided. Declaring a "winner" of the conflict detracts from what both sides achieved.Brushkoff (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

An edit on 05:55, 18 April 2005 deleted significant content and created a new chronology of events. The edit also changed the initial actor from the PRC to the ROC. The cited reason was: "Two different versions of the Strait Crisis existed, PRC version and ROC version." I am unaware of the version of events advanced by that edit, and neither of the article's cited sources contain that chronology. The result of the edit is also counterintuitive, as one sentence states that the ROC moved soldiers to Jinmen, and the next states that they shelled it. Further, the resulting version does not include the original timeline at all. Asymptopia 00:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

There were no objections, so I removed the sentence that altered the chronology of events from that listed in the sources. Asymptopia 17:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

"There are strong indications that Mao used the crisis in order to provoke the United States into making nuclear threats. He used these threats to pressure Stalin into giving PRC the atom bomb technology it needed to become a major world power."

Since Josef Stalin died on the 05.03.1953 whereas the crisis developed in 1954 this kind of motivation seems to be impossible. That's why I delete this passage from the text. --Shao (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The almost complete absence of reliable sources means that the logical thing to do would be to delete unreferenced content, leaving a stub. Copy editing prose that may never be referenced is a waste of time. Hence I have added the GOCE template to this page to say I had a look, removed copyedit template from article page, but left in place the references needed template. Regards Peter S Strempel | Talk 10:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that the map doesn't go far enough north (by about 30 to 35 miles or so) to show Taizhou, the Jiaojiang River, and the islands that were seized / abandoned. FeatherPluma (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Taiwan Strait Crisis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041222130347/http://www.formosa.org:80/~taiwanpg/chap20.htm to http://www.formosa.org/~taiwanpg/chap20.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 19:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Taiwan Strait Crisis. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623065908/http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/taiwan_straits.asp to http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/taiwan_straits.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 14:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply