Talk:Foreign relations of Taiwan/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kosovo issue

I suggest Kosovo be excluded from the list of countries that have diplomatic relations with ROC because Kosovo itself isn't recognized by UN. It should be placed separately from the other countries.77.122.111.141 (talk) 17:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo should at least have a note because while Taiwan recognizes Kosovo, Kosovo does not recognize Taiwan. Can such a one-way recognition be called a relationship? The lack of UN recognition is minor issue. The UN doesn't convey legitimacy, it is one opinion amoung many. Readin (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree Kosovo should have a note. All I say is that it shouldn't be placed in one line with such countries as Tuvalu or Saint Lucia 77.122.111.30 (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Name of article

I am moving this article from foreign relations of Taiwan to foreign relations of the Republic of China. This will mean that the title is inconsistent with political status of Taiwan, but that is okay because the two articles address different concepts: the article foreign relations of the Republic of China addresses the international affairs of a state or state-like entity that both others and itself calls the Republic of China, while the article political status of Taiwan (which is named correctly) addresses the disputed political status of an island. In fact, foreign relations of Taiwan is a POV title, because it implies that Taiwan is a sort of state entity (and thus sanctioning the proposed Republic of Taiwan), which neither the PRC nor the ROC (at least officially) claim. Reading this article, the article is not about the foreign relations of a "Republic of Taiwan", but rather the foreign relations of a "Republic of China" (indeed, "ROC" is the preferred term to "Taiwan" throughout the article). States who are dealing with the entity described in this article name the entity they are dealing with the "Republic of China"; even the PRC calls the entity the "Republic of China", even if the PRC does not recognize it as a legitimate government. (Yeah, I realize the above paragraph has some stilted speech, but I am trying to write a paragraph that is NPOV and doesn't take any of the various positions on this issue.) —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:07, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article makes it clear that "Republic of China" refers to the government that is currently based in Taiwan, not the government based in mainland China. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Concerning Vanuatu's Recognition

According to this BBC link, Vanuatu has reversed its decision to recognize the ROC as a country after the government there changed. -anon

Grenada's switch

This BBC story says that Grenada switched its diplomatic recognition. I'm not the person who reverted the changes but here is the link to back his/her decision. -anon

ROC: an illegitimate government of China

From 1949 through 1971 PRC was an illegitimate government of China. ROC was recognized by most states in the world as the sole legitimate government of China during that period, although the number was decreasing by years. UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 recognized PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. Since only one government can represent a UN member state(in this case, China) at the same time, ROC was replaced by PRC.

There is a clear evidence for this: check out UN website:

http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm

According to this table, there was no member state expelled from UN since its foundation. ROC was replaced by PRC as a government representing China as a UN member state in 1971.

According to international law regarding succession of governments, ROC has been succeeded by PRC in all it's rights, possessions and obligations, including Taiwan since 1971.

Siyac 18:54, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

there was a discussion about the name ROC on TV in Taiwan, it amused me abit so i thought i share it. the commentator make the ROC case very simple: "the name ROC cannot be use in PRC, US or any other nation EXCEPT within Taiwan! Despite the taboo, neither US or PRC will allow the name ROC to be drop; the simple reason for keeping ROC it to imply the civil war was not over and Taiwan is not a country but a seperatist state" ROC maybe illegitimate, yet you cannot change it because that would be even MORE illegitimate... they ended it with "how are you going tell the kids in school what Taiwan is?" (-_-") Akinkhoo 12:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Pre-1970s foreign relations of the ROC

The ROC came into existence since 1912. Why the pre-1970s history is not mentioned at all in this article? That part of history is currently not covered by any article. — Instantnood 19:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Simply because this article was once about Taiwan, and not on the ROC. Aggresive attempts to change the titles and so on seem to be unaccompanied by work to update the page content itself. Meanwhile, mind explaining this edit, which switches the spelling of Macau [1] to Macao [2]?--Huaiwei 15:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Prior to my edit there was only one occurance of the word "Macau", that I did not notice. When I typed I usually typed -o. Please help standardise within the same article when it's necessary and appropriate. As for the scope of this article, I found no record that this article was ever moved from foreign relations of Taiwan to the present title. — Instantnood 16:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC) I've found the move record. Although some may not agree that foreign relations of the ROC on mainland to be included in this article, I believe the foreign relations of the ROC in the 1950s to the 1970s should be included. — Instantnood 18:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

At this point in time, I dont think I want to bother pondering whether I should give you the benefit of the doubt over your claims of ignorance, given the impressive track record you have. I would think you need better explaination then that, before I start massively un-doing your unabating exercise in using wikipedia to advance your agendas and viewpoints. And I am certainly glad that you found out how to read the edit history page. For someone who has been fighting to use ROC over Taiwan and wanting to mass rename pages, I would expect you to then make the effort to add ROC-related information here instead of complaining that information is missing.--Huaiwei 04:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I was using special:logs to look for the move, and surprisingly there was no record there. As for pre-1970s foreign relations, I asked here before going ahead, since some people might strongly oppose to include pre-1949 stuffs. As a matter of fact I have already started the history section two days ago. — Instantnood 06:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I dont see why you need to be so adventurous when something as simple as the edit history can be equally useful for this purpose. Thank you for finally introducing content two days ago, considering your first complain was made three months ago. Meanwhile, I am slightly concerned over your introduction of content over relations with the PRC. I do hope you exercise great care in writing on an issue as sensitive as this.--Huaiwei 07:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Agree it's sensitive, nevertheless it's still the external relations of the ROC. Same for the relations between the ROC and Mongolia, that whether it's truly "foreign" or not is debatable.... — Instantnood 07:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"generally excluded"

I put the word generally before excluded about the applicability of the mainland area law to HK. There are (article 60 is the most explicit) places in the law that deal with mixed HK/MO/Taiwan/mainland dealings (citizenship, various passport holders, taxes on income earned through the regions, investment, mixed partnerships, two hop travel, etc) when the other laws Taiwan has about the mainland need to be looked at. HK is excluded from the definition of "mainland area" but the non-applicability of the mainland law is not that cut and dried. SchmuckyTheCat 21:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Article 60 talks about what if any part of the law is suspended. There's no situation prescribed in the statute that Hong Kong and Macau are considered part of the "Mainland Area". The applicability of the "Statute Governing the Relations Between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area" is limited to situations when residents, organisations or other institutions of the "Mainland Area" is involved. That does not mean Hong Kong and Macao are included in the "Mainland Area" in those situations. If you read what I've written in the article carefully, you'll know I actually wrote "Hong Kong and Macao are excluded from the "Mainland Area".". — Instantnood 16:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

ROC to PRC transition

It is interesting witch states of these that recognised PRC have had relations with ROC before 1949 and for how long (for example USA from 1912). Currently very few have such notes. Alinor 07:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Bhutan? This contradicts Foreign relations of Bhutan. Do you have a source? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, seems strange to me too, but Bhutan is not here: Dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and also the article that you mention: Foreign relations of Bhutan - reads the following: "Bhutan has no diplomatic relations with its northern neighbour, the People's Republic of China". It says also that Bhutan has consulates in Hong Kong and Macau, but nevertheless - no relations with PRC itself. Strage, realy... I will put Bhutan back in the list of no ROC/PRC relations, agreed? Alinor 11:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh well Fine with me. It's nice to get a source so articles don't contradict one another or themselves... -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Micronations

Are there any majior micronations that recognise the ROC? -Dr.-B 08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

micronations are.....????????????????????????????/ ....? Chocokake5057 (talk) 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Mongolia

The claim that all 24 nations with relations with the ROC recognize its claim to Mongolia seems most bizarre; I do not believe that the United States did, even before 1973. At a minimum, it requires a source; and an official ROC source should be menitoned in the text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the US only started diplomatic relations with Mongolia in 1988 or so. Of course that does not necessarily mean they did recognize Taiwan's claims. The Holy See has diplomatic relations with Mongolia as well as with, according to the article, the Republic of China. So I guess the statement is wrong. The article also fails to mention that the previous government has made certain statements re. Mongolia's independence. Yaan (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

States Recognize the ROC as the Sole Legitimate Government of China?

The article states that "The 25 states which have official diplomatic ties with the ROC all recognize it as the sole legitimate government of the whole of China including Mongolia," yet when St. Lucia recently restored ties with Taiwan the government explicitly announced that "This action should not be construed as a severance of the relationship with the People's Republic of China". See this link.

This seems to suggest to me that St. Lucia does not recognize Taiwan as the sole government of China, since it still recognizes the People's Republic. As a result, I have reworded the quoted statement to read "Nearly all of the 25 states... recognize it as the sole legitimate government of the whole of China including Mongolia."

Konekoniku 01:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Saint Lucia

Regarding the previous concerns of user DDTing, Saint Lucia's restoration of ties with Taiwan has been confirmed by the government; see http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2007/04/26/2003358246

Konekoniku 01:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to That-Vela-Fella for making the corrections earlier. However, the latest news reports confirm that the restoration of ties has been finalized: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/01/asia/AS-GEN-Taiwan-China-St.-Lucia.php http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/news/article_1298587.php/Taiwan_and_St_Lucia_sign_communique_on_resuming_ties Thus I have reverted the changes, as the notes & qualifications are now unnecessary.

Konekoniku 05:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Does seem that the one who changed it now again looks to be correct with the article here: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-05/05/content_865879.htm That-Vela-Fella 22:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What I mean is, St. Lucia offered to maintain ties simultaneously with both governments (see various links above, other news reports on the issue), it was the PRC who declined. Thus I don't believe St. Lucia recognizes Taiwan as the sole government of all of China – otherwise it would make no sense to offer to continue recognizing the PRC – and making an absolute statement like "all" should require certainty on our part. Konekoniku 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the statement as no evidence has been provided that any of the states have made such a recognition, certainly not ALL of them. I looked around to see what I could find and here's a book that says pretty explicitly that the claim is false "the+republic+of+China"&hl=en&ei=tLctTqOWIdDSiAL82b2vAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&sqi=2&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=diplomatic relations with "the republic of China"&f=false. Most of these tiny countries maintian relations with the ROC due to the PRC's refusal to maintain relations, if they could have relations with both they almost certainly would. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

+886 TEL prefix

The article doesn't say how one would call Taiwan from China then. Also mention if postal codes, and highway numbers are reserved. Jidanni 01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The ROC in the Pacific

This article could do with a section on the ROC's diplomatic involvment among Pacific Island nations. There is a constant diplomatic battle there between the ROC and the PRC, which small Pacific nations have come to use to their advantage, switching their diplomatic support to the side which offers them the most infrastructure and development aid. This has attracted fairly significant levels of media attention, and I've been collecting news articles on the topic for the past few months. When I have time (sigh), I'll write a section about it. Aridd (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Map

The map shows the countries with official diplomatic ties to Taiwan. The article mentions that many countries that do not officially recognize Taiwan maintain unofficial ties through de facto embassies. A map showing these countries, or showing them on the same map as the official ties but in a different color, would be informative. Readin (talk) 15:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Split

This article should be split into pre-Civil War and post-Civil War articles. The Republic of China's relations with the Soviet Union and the United States, for example, changed completely once it lost it's mainland teritory. This would also help to organize realted articles by time frame. This is smilar to what we've done for Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941), Soviet-German relations before 1941, or Japanese–Soviet relations and Japan-Russia relations. - Kevlar67 (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea, mainly because the pre-1949 section would be so short and the post-1949 section wouldn't see any significant decrease in length, and the article isn't overly long anyway. If we were to separate it because of the changes of 1949, wouldn't the same logic apply to the 1970s then Chiang's representatives were kicked out of the UN and many countries stopped officially recognizing the ROC, arguable a far more significant change to ROC's foreign relations? Readin (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

List of countries that maintain unofficial relations with the ROC

Anyone know where to find a list of countries that maintain unofficial relations with the ROC? For example, the US has an unofficial embassy in Taiwan called AIT with an official ambassador called the AIT Chairman. What other countries have similar relations? A table showing the name of the country and the names of the unofficial embassies would be informative. Readin (talk) 20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Double negation

In the "Relations with the United States" section:

Fortunately, all of the parties in this issue are not dissatisfied by the current situation [...]

Ugh, a double negation. I changed "not dissatisfied" to "satisfied", but surely that's not right?! Hairy Dude (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A Minor Issue

A current statement of this article says:-

"It declared "that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations" and thus do not regard the Republic of China as legitimately representing the whole of China."

I changed it to:-

"It declared "that the representatives of the Government of the People's Republic of China are the only lawful representatives of China to the United Nations" and thus do not regard the Republic of China as a legitimate state."

I made the edit because the UN does't regard the ROC as legitimate as all. In other words, the original statement doesn't exclude a possible misinterpretation that the UN recognises the ROC as a legitimate government for Taiwan but not for the whole of China. The fact is, the UN doesn't recognise the ROC as a legitimate state at all.

My edit was reverted twice and the reason was that the statement was already clear. I don't quite understand the reasoning. I am sorry. Would the reasoning be elaborated please?--pyl (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Placement of "controversy" within cross-strait relations

The "controversy" is nowadays a government-opposition debate. In an article about a country's foreign relations, the question of domestic politics is of fairly minor importance. It makes sense to describe the official position first, and any domestic objections to that position later on. This makes logical sense as well. Looking at how other Wikipedia articles treat analogous situations, we see well nigh no mention of domestic opposition to a government's external relations policy. See, for example, Serbia re Kosovo, or Australia (previously) re East Timor. Foreign relations of Israel doesn't even mention Palestine, which is as it should be, given the UN does not recognise Palestine as a current existing state - and this really should be the preferred position here, too, on a question of strict logic - but of course we are not dealing with questions of strict logic here.

I appreciate that the domestic controversy in Taiwan in relation to mainland China is a much bigger issue than ordinary matters of foreign policy in other countries, which is why I am in support of retaining the paragraph, but only after the government position has been described first. This article is about foreign relations, not politics. Domestic political opposition is almost irrelevant to describing a country's foreign policy. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"The "controversy" is nowadays a government-opposition debate." It is not unusual to start a section with a little bit of history. In this case the history is about the statements by the Presidents of the nation. Further, the controversy belongs as intro to the section.

However, if editors strongly believe that the relations are simply between two governments and the controversy is unimportant, than it is not necessary to start the section by talking about how the governments currently see it as not between countries, and it is not necessarily to dwell on those details. Making such statements and dwelling on those details while postponing the mention of disagreeing POVs violates NPOV. Readin (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have comments to make at this stage in relation to the placements of the paragraphs. I would like to raise a related issue which so far has been overlooked. It is important to note that despite what Lee and Chen said, whether it is "state-to-state relations" or "one country on each side", in their official capacity as presidents, they never departed from the one China principle.

Mainland Affair Council's jurisdiction was never moved to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. They never sought international recognition for Taiwan as a state, instead they sought recognition for the ROC as sole representative for China, which includes both mainland China and Taiwan. They never sought legislative amendments to stop recognising Chinese people outside Taiwan as "ROC citizens". To this end, most Chinese citizens in mainland China are still ROC citizens, and there are about 1.3 billion of them. ROC passports are still available to all ROC citizens meeting relevant requirements. Furthermore, instead of having direct official talks between the ROC and the PRC, it was Lee set up the semi-official SEF first before mainland China set up their counterpart. Lee even set up National Unification Council and Guidelines for National Unification.

All of these things are relevant but have so far not been mentioned in the main text. I don't think it is terribly neutral to just mention the "pro-independence" aspects of the presidents. We should give the readers a more global view. If "Statements by Presidents of the nation are relevant", then I think the behaviour and the actions by the Presidents are even more relevant.--pyl (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to add information about how KMT domination of the legislature combined with pressure from the United States prevented attempts at reform, feel free to do so.

In an article about a country's foreign relations, the question of domestic politics is of fairly minor importance. I have to disagree with this for two reasons.

First, the main article linked to from this section is Cross-strait relations. In that article's discussion page, User:PalaceGuard008 argued persuasively as follows:

The article has enough politics to establish the background, I think. I think what it needs more of are:

• actual relations: cross-strait marriages in recent years; defections, visits, whatever, in earlier years;
• cultural exchanges, other types of collaboration, etc.
• investment, economic co-operation, cross flow of money.

Your opinions? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

and later

I think the common sense meaning of the word "relations" is broad enough to encompass both official and non-official relations.

That article now contains an entire section devoted to "Informal relations".

Secondly, Taiwan's domestic politics do have an important impact on relations between Taiwan and China. Domestic actions like referendums, domestic elections, attempts to reform the constitution, etc. are watched carefully by China and often cause China to react with hostility, putting pressure on third nations such as the United States to reprimand Taiwan and even going so far as to conduct missile tests near Taiwanese waters.Readin (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Pyl has a good point about not providing enough information. We've said nothing about the missiles China continues to build and point at Taiwan. We've said nothing about China's pressure on international organizations to prevent Taiwan's participation. We've said nothing about the melamine scandal. We've said nothing about China's preventing normal sources of medical information being routed to Taiwan during the SARS epidemic. We've said nothing about violent theft and destruction of RoC flags by Chinese at sporting events for children and young adults. We've said nothing about missile tests near Taiwan during Taiwanese elections. We've said nothing about the downturn in relations that occurred when Taiwan started having democratic elections. We've said nothing about the 40 years when saying that China was "foreign" would get you thrown in prison or killed. We've left out a lot of information. Readin (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If you would like to add information about how KMT domination of the legislature combined with pressure from the United States prevented attempts at reform, feel free to do so. I am not sure why you said this as a response to what I said.

If you feel that the issues you raised are related to the foreign relations of the Republic of China, I think you should add them. I think some of the things that you mention that we said nothing about, have actually been mentioned in this article.

The issues that I raised are directly related to the former presidents and their attitude towards the issue of whether mainland China is considered as a foreign country though. Except for the things that I said would otherwise require legislative amendments, nothing in the issues that I raised above would require that. They can be done by the presidents alone. If there is any evidence that the US is behind this matter, I think we should also mention that with footnotes.--pyl (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

President Lee said directly that he relations with China are "special state-to-state". For you to look at the other policies and conclude that he was lying technically violates WP:OR. The reason I mentioned pressure from the U.S.A. and KMT dominance of the legislature is that the actions you describe would require legislative approval and would likely draw ire from the United States. Without trying to do WP:OR, we have to recognize from a purely objective standpoint that not seeking legislative amendments could simply represent strategic decisions to exert effort where it has the best chance of success with least cost and least chance of annoying the U.S.. This applies even to acts that don't require legislative approval because the President still has to get legislative approval for other things he considers important so he has to weigh costs and benefits before annoying the legislators.

On the Talk:One-China_policy page, Pyl wrote in defense of quoting Ma's "Special non-state-to-state relations" statement as policy, that

I believe under the Constitution of the ROC. The President is empowered to make policies in relations to foreign affairs, cross-strait relations and defence, while the rest of the policies are made by the Executive Yuan. Please correct me if I am wrong.

The President's policy in these three subjects is the official policy of the government.--pyl (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

For your convenience, I found this quote which says what I said above, but in Chinese.

"即國防、外交、與兩岸關係是直屬總統權責的三塊" 1

He used this as justification for saying

"The One China policy is a current policy of the Republic of China government".

If a simple statement by Ma determines policy, then statements by Chen and Lee equally determined policy. In fact we should strengthen the wording from saying that Lee and Chen "described" the relations as "special state-to-state" to saying that "special state-to-state" was official policy. Or, if a simple statement by the President of Taiwan is not enough to determine policy, we should fix the article.One-China_policy. Readin (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure how you got the impression that I deny Lee's 'special state-to-state relations' and Chen's 'one country on each side' as official government policies at the time. They were government policies, and I never deny that. You might have noticed that I actually mentioned them a lot lately to draw comparisons between these policies and Ma's 'special non-state-to-state relations'.

I don't think I was trying to say that they are lying. I don't think a president can only have one policy in relation to mainland China, the issues that I mentioned above also represent their policies. Their language left so much room, they can do many things which aren't necessarily inconsistent with what they said. Chen in 'four noes and one without' in 2000 promised that he would not abolish the 'National Unification Council'. In 2006, he said the council would 'cease to function'. He then argued that cease to function is different from an abolishment, while the US government didn't buy his justification. You can read more about it in those articles. Having saying that, a government can also have a change of policy.

I also don't understand why you would think what I mentioned above can constitute original research. I don't think it would be difficult to find footnotes to establish that they did the things that I mentioned. I just don't have the time to add them at this stage.

I am also confused why you quoted those paragraphs of mine. I am guessing you are trying to show that I am biased against the pro-independence presidents. I am not. I just raised the issues so we can think about the policies of these former presidents from a more global perspective.--pyl (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you think it is appropriate to emphasise the policies of those former presidents, do that, and we can discuss if there are any issues.--pyl (talk) 01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I quoted the other discussion to show that you have argued that statements by the President are "official policy". This conflicts with the statement that despite what Lee and Chen said, whether it is "state-to-state relations" or "one country on each side", in their official capacity as presidents, they never departed from the one China principle. Clearly saying in their official capacity as presidents, that the relationship with China is "state-to-state" or "one country on each side" is a departure from the "on-China principle".

I see what you mean now. Sorry I should have been more careful with my wording. What I meant was, despite what they said, what they did never departed from the One China Policy. I can't personally think of any act by them that had the actual effect of moving Taiwan towards de jure independence. And the issues that I mentioned above were relevant to them as presidents. As I said above, I don't believe it is terribly neutral to just mention what they say. We should also mention what they did, including the issues I raised above. I don't have the time right now, but I will get onto it when I can.

The point of the first paragraph is to address the naming issue - why are we putting relations with China into an article on "foreign relations". This placement implies that China is foreign. For that reason we let the pro-"non-foreign" side go first, stating the view of the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese Kuomintang whose authoritarian rulers wrote the constitutions of the current governments. Next we present the views of the first two democratically elected presidents of Taiwan who have been presidents for 16 of the last 18 years. The point is still to show the conflict, not to present official policies. You seem to have a strong preference for treating legality as reality so in deference to you we've limited the demonstration to the governmental sphere. This is fine as there are plenty of other articles that go into the details. I think the paragraph is well balanced at this point in time. Readin (talk) 13:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with PalaceGuard008, I think we talk about politics too much in the articles. I don't have any issues that we talk about Lee and Chen, but as I said we should also talk about what they did during their presidency. If we can find the footnotes, we can talk about what they tried to do to depart from the One China Policy but they were strongly discouraged by mainland China and the United States.

I changed the order of the sentences a bit so we can show things in a better time sequence. Lee talked about the relations being special and when Chen got into presidency, he talked about the relations being nothing special at all. The relations were just like any other foreign relations.

I have issues with the word "repudiate" to describe Ma's policy. I don't think he repudiated anything as there was no contract to repudiate with. His policy departed from the positions of the former presidents.--pyl (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I kind of agree with PalaceGuard008, I think we talk about politics too much in the articles. I don't have any issues that we talk about Lee and Chen, but as I said we should also talk about what they did during their presidency. The major reason for including Lee and Chen's comments is to show how the the issue of calling the relations "foreign" is controversial. Providing the details you described earlier would not help, nor would providing details about other policies Chen's efforts to rename institutions to use "Taiwan" rather than "China" add much. This section is a brief introduction to the main article Cross-strait relations. It shouldn't go into great detail on each subject.

Changing the word "repudiated" is fine. Readin (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

history of relations with China

The sentence The relations between the two sides have changed from open war in the late 1940s and through the 1950s, to growing exchange and contact since the 1980s. Direct exchange of people and goods are gradually growing. is certainly useful but doesn't seem to fit anywhere. Should we have a subjection to briefly cover the history of the relations (leaving details to the main article) or should we perhaps get rid of the sentence? Readin (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I removed it as I don't think they are particularly related to the *foreign* relations of the ROC. That section's focus was more about whether the PRC was considered foreign, not about the development of such relations. But if the author wishes to put the paragraph back, I wouldn't object. The paragraph isn't offensive to me. It is just not concise.--pyl (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead trim

The masses of sentences in the lead describing the so-called controversy concerning cross-Strait relations were problematic. They give undue weight to a set of relations which do not properly fit within the ambit of this article. I have trimmed it down to one sentence, more details being available further down in the article.

On another point which has been discussed above, the "controversy" over the "foreignness" of Taiwan-mainland relations is and has always remained at the level of propagandic slogans. No mainstream politician in Taiwan now or in the past would ever rationally sit down and argue that "mainland China is a foreign country". It is simply not part of the discourse. It is misleading to elevate sloganeering pronouncements by either Chen or Lee into advocacy of such a position. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 07:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your general position. I think there is a undue weight favouring politics over the actual system. It is the government which conducts the relations, not the politics per se. I also agree with you that there is a undue weight favouring what Chen and Lee said over what they did during their presidency. I think there was an attempt to do a 50-50 POV balance, which in my view was incorrect. The fact is legally and officially, the ROC doesn't treat the PRC as a foreign nation, because the ROC doesn't recognise it. Politically, there is a 45 (foreign) / 55 (not foreign) ratios based on the basic voting pattern of the Taiwanese public. If that ratio is argued to be incorrect, there should be about 50/50 balance.

If other people don't get a chance to do it first, I will add more later when I have time about what Chen and Lee did during their presidency. I think then there is a better balance. It is absurd to me to just focus on one aspect of the presidency. It also needs to be told that, despite what Chen and Lee said, no administrative changes were made to alter ROC's consistent government structure not to treat the PRC as a foreign country.

It is incorrect though to say that 'No mainstream politician in Taiwan now or in the past would ever rationally sit down and argue that "mainland China is a foreign country"'. It is being done on a daily basis in the pan-green camp. For example, Liberty times, the main pan-green propaganda machine which has a heavy influence on pan-green politicians, always treats the PRC as a foreign country and mainland China as foreign land. Liberty times now represents one of the many mainstream POVs in Taiwan.—pyl (talk) 08:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I will add more later when I have time about what Chen and Lee did during their presidency. Be sure to say what they did rather than what they didn't do. If we start listing everything they didn't do, it will take a very long time. They were Presidents, not absolute dictators. Reading their views based on what they didn't do is sheer speculation. In a democratic system presidents have to consider what they can reasonably expect to get passed and what they can't, and where they should invest their political capital. This is especially true when faced with a legislature controlled by an opposing party.

Bush II hasn't done much about abortion - he hasn't proposed a constitutional amendment - but no one claims he's pro-abortion or that he thinks Roe v Wade was ruled correctly.

While Chen and Lee were limited by pressures from the United States, threats of invasion from China, and the difficulty of pushing new laws through a hostile legislature, they took many steps at change and reform. They pushed hard to reinforce their idea of Taiwan as a separate and foreign nation from China by pushing the envelope on established conventions such as trying to use "Taiwan" rather than "Republic of China" in applications to the UN, changing passports to include "Taiwan", and renaming national institutions to use "Taiwan" or "Taiwanese" rather than "China" or "Chinese". They made incremental steps. The fact that they didn't try to overextend should not be taken as evidence that they weren't pushing the direction their comments indicated.Readin (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed the lead a little further. If we're not going to give both sides, we shouldn't give either. Remember: official is not a synonym for only. The official POV is not the only POV. And as Pyl has pointed out "Politically, there is a 45 (foreign) / 55 (not foreign) ratios based on the basic voting pattern of the Taiwanese public." Right now the article is heavily weighted in favor of the (not foreign). The (foreign) side of the argument gets only 2 and a half sentences, while the (not foreign side) gets the rest of the section. Readin (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Pyl, when I say no mainstream politician would argue that the PRC is a foreign country, I should rephrase that as no mainstream politicain would argue that the PRC be treated as a foreign country as a policy position. I do appreciate that some (but not all) in the Pan-Green camp talk about "Taiwan and China" and that they are different states. However, neither they nor the politicians representing their views have ever suggested, nor are currently suggesting, that the PRC be treated as a foreign country, relations with which are "foreign relations", as a policy position. Not even Chen, who frankly cared very little for what Beijing or Washington DC thought when he abolished the Reunification Council, has seriously advocated that relations with the mainland be moved to the Foreign Office.

If you are talking about administrative changes to the ROC government structure so the ROC would reflect a view that the PRC is a foreign country, then yes I agree with you. This, as far as I know, has not been seriously suggested. But from a general policy perspective, the pan-greens have suggested to treat the PRC as a foreign country, just like any other foreign countries. For example, all the agreements signed between Taiwanese and mainland Chinese authorities should be treated as international treaties etc.--pyl (talk) 07:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, "foreign relations" is a purely administrative and executive matter. The relevance of underlying political opinions is limited in a case like this, where the government's official position has been consistent.

Again I point to other examples where a government has maintained a consistent foreign policy position which has been controversial at home, such as Australia re East Timor; Israel re Palestine; even the ROC and the PRC re Japanese reparations or territories in Manchuria occupied by Russia. In all of these cases, the underlying domestic political furour is given little if any space in an article discussing the country's foreign relations. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, "foreign relations" is a purely administrative and executive matter. Pyl, you have a very legalistic view of the world, not surprising as your user page indicates you are trained in law. However, law is not the defining attribute of human existence, nor is it the final authority on what is "neutral". There is more to foreign relations to simply what is written in law. Readin (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"foreign relations" is a purely administrative and executive matter. I didn't say that. It was PalaceGuard008.--pyl (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. Sorry Pyl, I guess it wasn't you who said that. Readin (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The statement is strange coming from PalaceGuard008 given his statements on the main article Cross-strait relations:

The article has enough politics to establish the background, I think. I think what it needs more of are:

• actual relations: cross-strait marriages in recent years; defections, visits, whatever, in earlier years;
• cultural exchanges, other types of collaboration, etc.
• investment, economic co-operation, cross flow of money.

Your opinions? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

and

I think the common sense meaning of the word "relations" is broad enough to encompass both official and non-official relations.

He was right, and he added a section called "Informal relations".Readin (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Chen and Lee are used as examples in the hope that by using something you would call "official", you would be less likely to object. But the fact is that other opinions matter too including the opinions of the people of Taiwan, the opinions of notable people such as DPP elected representatives, the oft-repeated opinions of widely read newspapers, etc.. Chen are just the best examples because they are both "legal" and very notable.

This section of the article is not supposed to go into great detail on these matters. It is a brief introduction with a link to the main article, where the details can be covered. Chen and Lee's comments are provided as example of one side of the debate. Examples of the other side of the debate are provided as well. That's enough to give a taste of what the debate is about. For details readers show go to the main article. Readin (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

not surprising as your user page indicates you are trained in law. Haha. Too many lawyers spoil the debate? =P --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair Comment

Some one removed the following contribution which I made on the pretense that it is "original research":

The list of 23 states having diplomatic relations with the Republic of China is also distinctive because it:

• includes a very high proportion of microstates. If one interprets a microstate as any state having an area of less than 1,000 km sq (386 mi sq), 11 of the 23 states are microstates. If one interprets a microstate as any state having less than 1 million people, 13 of the 23 states (just over half) are microstates;
• includes just one state, the Vatican City, that has continuously had diplomatic relations with it since before the Republic of China retreated to Taiwan;
• does not include any leading world power such as a state that is permanent member of the UN Security Council or a G8 member; and
• does not include any of the Republic of China's top-ten trading partners.

The above is a well written, well sourced and relevant contribution. It is not "original research" and certainly improved the article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

your single citation does not support most of your comments. cite them and then put them inBevinbell (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd also be interested in seeing some sources for these statements. Although the diplomatic relations of the ROC are probably quite unique, we need to find a source saying so. We can't simply list the facts that we think make the list of 23 states distintive. Laurent (talk) 09:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough - Unsourced material needs to go

I agree with your sentiments above and suppose a lot of work is needed on the article generally....I will start removing unourced material and we can rebuild the article from there. I am fully for sources. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Ps, As I work through, just the deletions, I can see how much work we have ahead of us if we are to rewrite all of this with sources....I hope we will work co-operatively together....We could divide it up into Sections, if there was interest in it. Then each editor could start the rewrite, with a source for each sentence - they could use the "history" of the article to extract the old unsourced material as a starting point if that helps. It will be a lot of work and will take a while but it will be worth it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I've reverted your recent removal of content. There was two editors objecting to your section, and the reason we gave was not so much the lack of sources but the fact that it looked a lot like original research. If you object to some sections of the article, feel free to discuss the changes here but don't remove huge parts of the article without a good reason. You can also add {{fact}} templates next to the unsourced parts. Laurent (talk) 19:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why have you reinserted unsourced materials? Please be consistent....Make up your mind....All of what you have reinserted could obviously be regarded as OR. It needs to be removed for the very same reason my contribution neeeded to be removed. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you try addressing the concerns we had with your section rather than breaking the article to make a point? I think there is indeed something to say about the 13 states that have diplomatic relations with the ROC. We just need to find sources for it. Laurent (talk) 09:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Does one really have to add a "source" to the fact that the list of ROC's "diplomatic allies" (using the popular journalistic expression) does not include any G-8 members, or that over half of them have less than 1 million population? I suppose that expressions such as "If one interprets a microstate as ... " do sound like "Original Research", but, methinks, most of the statistics-type facts listed by Redking7 can be directly verified by looking at the list of the said "diplomatic allies" and comparing it to e.g. the list of G-8 countries or the list of world's countries populations. Perhaps that paragraph can be reworded a bit, and references to some sources for obvious facts can be added... Vmenkov (talk) 10:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are right Vmenkov, my modest contribution was of things that were obviously verifiable - there is a double standard going on here....the artice is a very poor one in that hardly any of it is sourced....but some users single out bits of it...In truth, I think the whole article should be deleted and things started over again. In the meantime, no doubnle standards please. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, let's work on your section and rewrite it in a non-OR way. What bothered me is that it was written "the list of 23 states is distincts because of X, Y and Z". But do we have a source saying that these features indeed make the list distinct? Perhaps there is, but in that case we need to add it, otherwise it looks like an arbitrary list where anybody can add whatever they think make the 23 states distinct. We don't simply need to source the individual facts but the fact that they are considered unique by third party reliable sources. Laurent (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Should Article be Deleted

This entry:

{{Refimprove|date=December 2008}}

has been on the article for almost a year. When does it become time to delete unsourced material (over 80% of the article)? I support deleting it in its entirety and simply focusing on the main RoC article - as clearly this article is a failure and does not meet normal WikiStandards. No one here is bothering to improve it. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Building an encyclopedia is a slow process. We don't just delete article because they are incomplete - we improve them. Laurent (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree w/ Laurent, as the original ROC article and most other wikipedia articles looked like this in the beginning.Thx for listening to my opinion. Chocokake5057 (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, the article should not be deleted. With respect to "delet[ing] unsourced material" within the article, the most common time given before deletion is "enough" time. :) However, "enough" should be judged within the context of how much editing is done on the article, and ample deference should be given. It takes a long time to find sources for particular stuff, even with Google Books and such. And as usual, mass deletions are frowned upon. Int21h (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible references

Some links that could be used as references (Moved from main page):

• Taipei can help Beijing take bigger global role
• Canada edges close to granting visa-free travel
• EU will consider Taiwan's request to be included in the EU's visa waiver program

Laurent (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ICRC

To the international organizations section should be added the Red Cross/Red Crescent Federation: Red Cross Society of the Republic of China. Alinor (talk) 13:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Done! --Mistakefinder (talk) 12:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Clarification requested on which China in Background section

The paragraph "In 1917, China declared war...", to which China is being referred? Sun's KMT Govt? Seems it can't be the Beiyang govt. --Mistakefinder (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Algeria's "cease of recognition" in 1956?

Algeria was French Algeria, a part of France and not a country in 1956. How could it have any diplomatic relations? --Mistakefinder (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the prefix IS technically incorect, so it's acctually just Algeria, so it had foreign relations. Chocokake5057 (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

List of countries that maintain unofficial relations with the ROC

I have some doubts on this part of the article. If Bhutan conduct relations with the PRC through their missions in India, seems contradictional claiming that they don't have diplomatic relations with the PRC. Also, ain't Palestine supposed to be in this category?. Regards.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I see a "list of countries with no relations with either the ROC or PRC", but no "unofficial relations list"...

Yes, Bhutan is a little odd. It seems that it "recognises" PRC (relations trough Bhutan and PRC embassies in India, honorary consulates in HK and Macau), but does not have diplomatic relations with it because of border problems, etc. But this is pure speculation - it would be better if we got a source stating "Bhutan does not/does recognise RoC"). If we have a source showing swing either way we could place Bhutan in the appropriate list.

Palestine has relations with the PRC (see their articles), that's why it is not in this list (the list for no relations with neighter PRC nor ROC).

Of the states with limited recognition are missing Somaliland, Transinistria, Nagorno-Karabakh. Alinor (talk) 08:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Nations in Oceania

On the page it seems to be missing at least one nation in Oceania, namely the Federated States of Micronesia, so I edited the line that formerly had "the other eight" to "eight others", since it and the previous sentence did not include all of the nations in Oceania. I do not know what FSM's stance is, but it is not included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.102.151.116 (talk) 02:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC) --208.102.151.116 (talk) 03:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What is a de facto embassy or consolate?

Half of the lead of this article is currently taken up by a confusing statement about the ROC's "de facto embassies and consolates." I don't think I'm alone in saying, I don't know what a "de facto embassy" would be. The lead is supposed to be easy to read and its okay if stuff gets repeated there from the body of the article. Someone who understands what this statement means should either alter it to have less mysterious wording or add a little context, an explanation of what is being talked about. Metal.lunchbox (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Countries that have switched recognition from ROC to PRC after 1949

The list of the above is a bit of a mess. It even included countries like Ethopia and Ireland that have never had any diplomatic relatinons with the ROC. I have tried to put these countries into a separate list. The formatting has fallen out so help with that would be appreciated - or their inclusion altogether could be dropped. 86.42.18.148 (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: Foreign relations of the Republic of China → Foreign relations of the Republic of China (Taiwan)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No prejudice against a new RM to discuss the merits of Foreign relations of Taiwan as a title. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Foreign relations of the Republic of China → Foreign relations of the Republic of China (Taiwan) – The current title no doubt confuses many readers into thinking that this an article about the Chinese government, when it is in fact about Taiwan's foreign relations. The country's foreign ministry is officially the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of China (TAIWAN). (See both the site heading, and the legal fine print at the bottom.) Its embassy to the Vatican is the Embassy of the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the Holy See, the one in Honduras is the Embajada de la República de China (Taiwán) en Honduras, and so forth. Taiwan applied for UN membership under the name "Republic of China (Taiwan)" each year in 2002-2006 and in 2008.[3] Kauffner (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Oppose. Foreign relations of Taiwan redirects to Foreign relations of the Republic of China already. If you think there is confusion, then add a hatnote at the top of the page. With redirects and hatnotes, adding "(Taiwan)" to the title accomplishes nothing - it only makes the title less concise.--Jiang (talk) 16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. If we are going to make a change, the change should be made in accordance with the recent move of the ROC article to "Taiwan" so that this article is called "Foreign relations of Taiwan". But even without that move, the "(Taiwan)" is unnecessary because the article begins "The Republic of China (ROC), commonly known as Taiwan...". Readin (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not sure what to make of these responses. It seems that either no one read the nomination, or they assume that someone other than Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign of Affairs is running foreign affairs for the ROC. Kauffner (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• The rationale used by the government for adding Taiwan in parenthesis is to avoid confusion. Doing so for this sake does not make it an "official name". We do not run into the same problems here because we have hatnotes, redirects, and interlinks. It would be simply ridiculous to make it the rule on Wikipedia that all in text links should use the form "Republic of China (Taiwan)".--Jiang (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Since the article is not about any specifically named agency or institution of the ROC, it would make more sense to rename the article to "Foreign Relations of Taiwan" in accordance with the recent move of the Republic of China article due to WP:COMMONNAME. That would clarify the subject and bring the article into conformance with the decision. If someone proposes such a rename I'll support it. However the new name being proposed is, as Jiang says, less concise without adding enough clarity to make the verbosity worthwhile. The new title is also inelegant for an article name. Readin (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is for a separate move discussion, but to the reasons for keeping the current title would be the same as why Foreign relations of the Vatican City redirects to Foreign relations of the Holy See.--Jiang (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Jiang. 梁棚元 (talk) 01:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose on stylistic grounds. Notes in parenthesis usually indicate some kind of disambiguation on wikipedia, and this article has nothing to disambiguate with. I don't have an immediate position on a move to "Foreign relations of Taiwan", and would be interested to see the arguments for and against that, but making an extended name doesn't fix anything that the lead and redirects don't cover. CMD (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move to Foreign relations of Taiwan

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved: majority after 15 days, no discussion for 13 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Foreign relations of the Republic of China → Foreign relations of Taiwan – more concise and clearer name that is in line with the Republic of China/Taiwan move. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Survey

• Support. Many readers will assume from this title that this is an article about the current Chinese government. The parent article is at "Taiwan", so the names of the child articles should correspond. The current title suggests that the name ROC is used officially in this context. But in fact, the foreign ministry prefers Republic of China (Taiwan).[4] Kauffner (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Kauffner's concerns are invalid as a hatnote and redirect will prevent readers from mistaking this article from Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China. He is also mistaken in believing that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is an "official name" (refer to the failed move proposal). The reason that the long, rather than short form, should be used here is that the article specifically focuses on the state entity rather than the country as a whole - first, the legal entity being referred to here is continuous from 1928 and this article should cover Chinese foreign relations from that date forward; second, foreign relations of the Republic of China specifically concern recognition of the political entity as "China" in the tug-of-war with the PRC. Precision is a valid concern in article naming. (The valid counter argument to all this - not what Kauffner said - is that this article also covers unofficial relations, which are done in the name "of Taiwan" and that this is a proper name as part of a descriptive title rather than a purely proper name. I think in this limited context, akin to legal terminology, the proper name should be used as being far more accurate and precise than the common name.) --Jiang (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • As an analogous situation we have an article at Foreign relations of the Holy See but the countries template at Vatican City. The reasons for not moving Foreign relations of the Holy See to "Foreign relations of the Vatican City" are equally valid here. The state entity conducting foreign relations and the common name of the country can be different.--Jiang (talk) 14:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Just think we could shrink 'Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China' from 51 characters to 26 by removing the utterly redundant and WP:COMMONNAME breaking "People's Republic of". The same sort of thing applies in this case - we could reduce this title from 42 characters to 27 as well as gaining significant clarity.
  • And can we please abandon this canard that Taiwan is ever referred to as anything by that, I was reading the FT's coverage of the Olympics over time and saw the following - "The 1956 Olympics in Melbourne was a Games full of boycotts. ... China didn’t go because Taiwan was going." - the FT is a serious new source, this is cross strait relations and is referring to the 1950's and yet they still use Taiwan exclusively and don't even bother to mention the Republic of China - even though actually it might help clarify the situation. I suspect the reason they don't is that even FT readers don't necessarily understand that the Republic of China and Taiwan are the same.
  • We don't use WP:OFFICIALNAME on this project so I fail to see why we must do here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh and with regards to the Holy See, that is different because it is the Catholic Church's foreign relations rather than the foreign relations of the rather new state known as the Vatican City - so there is an important loss of clarity if you didn't refer to the Holy See - it is also a term that people are much more likely to be familiar with. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
    • My opposition here is not as strong as my opposition to the moves at Talk:Flag of the Republic of China and Talk:Vice President of the Republic of China since this title is largely descriptive, but I don't find the arguments for moving convincing. Two points (1) Taiwan is the common name of the Republic of China so the countries template should reside at Taiwan but (2) there are contexts in which the name Republic of China is preferred over Taiwan due differences in meaning between the two. Are you suggesting that every instance of of Republic of China should be changed to Taiwan? I'm sure that's a no go. Reader ignorance is never a reason to dumb down Wikipedia as it is to dumb down an news article whose article space is much more limited than ours. Any clarity lost by the current setup is served by redirects and hatnotes.
    • The foreign relations of the Republic of China have long existed before the 1970s, so the situation with the Holy See is analogous in which the legal personality has a name very different from the state. If you Google "ambassador to the Holy See" and compare it to "ambassador to the Vatican", you'll see that the Vatican is the common name used even in diplomatic contexts even though "Holy See would be more accurate and proper.
    • I'm not suggesting the application of WP:OFFICIALNAME here. I am just pointing out that this is one of the rare instances in which the longer name would be more accurate and comprehensive in scope. --Jiang (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
      • If ambassador to the vatican is more commonly used than ambassador to the Holy See, maybe we should use that - as we follow WP:COMMONNAME not WP:OFFICIALNAME - that said there is certainly no possibly confusion with Holy See, it's not as if Mecca is an independent city state known as the Holy City or something.
      • Additionally if people have foreign relations with the "Republic of China" as something separate from Taiwan then no-one would use Republic of China (Taiwan) in this context as Kauffner pointed out above in this context - and lets not forget all the countries who recognise China but with some sort of relations with Taiwan will call it that e.g. the UK Foreign Office use "Taiwan, Taipei, British Trade & Cultural Office" - are you really saying all the countries with "Trade and cultural offices" in Taipei, which massively outnumber the number of embassies, don't count under foreign relations? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
        • To answer you, no (see above). But then, this article is much more than the present tense.--Jiang (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
          • So then the countries which don't officially recognise Taiwan, but have some serious level of diplomatic relations don't count at all? I don't think this really represents the reality of how Taiwan is treated in the real world. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Sorry, I meant yes, per my original response.--Jiang (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
        • It is also worth pointing out that the UK use "Holy See, Vatican City, British Embassy" and the US use "Embassy of the United States Holy See" -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
• Support, since this is a descriptive title and the parent article is at Taiwan. Anything other than "foreign relation of country name" is likely to confuse the readers. mgeo talk 08:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Counterexample: Foreign relations of the Holy See.--Jiang (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Counterexample: Foreign relations of the United States, Foreign relations of the United Kingdom, Foreign relations of India etc. etc. - the consistency criteria from WP:CRITERIA seems to prefer the common name in this context. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Those aren't counterexamples. The countries templates are currently located at United States, United Kingdom, and India, but not Holy See and Republic of China. This article, along with foreign relations of the Holy See, are the two exceptions in which the name of the foreign relations article (rightly, IMO, though we can discuss this) does not use the common name. If we want to justify this move, we should justify moving foreign relations of the Holy See too.--Jiang (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
        • I think we should treat each individual case on its own merits and handle them separately. The case of the Holy See and this case are not exactly analogous, and there are arguments in favour of the Holy See staying as it is that don't apply in this case - most obviously the lack of confusion with another state in the case of the Holy See. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
          • "Confusion" is not a valid concern here. That is what hatnotes and redirects are form. You can't be suggesting that all mentions of the "Republic of China" be changed to "Taiwan" - be more specific on why this article needs to be moved. In limited instances it just doesn't make sense.--Jiang (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
            • Regardless of the policy reducing confusion seems like a pretty good reason to perform a move. And frankly reducing the number of hat notes in an article is by itself a good thing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support with different options.

1. As a Taiwanese people and citizen of Republic of China (already redirected to Taiwan), what I (along with maximum majority of my fellow 23.25 million residents in Taiwan) care most is not being confused with those of PRC. Actually, we reject any notion that any of our issue to be connected with it. Distinguish R.O.C. from PRC is necessary for us and readers of English wikipedia. However, we know it's not easy unless you are expert in this field. (It's easier to distinguish W/E Germany, S/N Korea, or N/S Yemen.) So we prefer to use the name "Taiwan" (many of our people feel uncomfortable to be linked with the term China/Chinese). It's that simple! Economy of the Republic of China has been redirected to Economy of Taiwan.
2. Our Office of the President and Ministry of Foreign Affairs' websites, among many others, titled as "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Our passport (recognized by almost all 200 countries in the world) also marked with both Republic of China and Taiwan for years.
3. We may consider different options for changing the term to either:
   1. Taiwan,
   2. Taiwan/R.O.C.,
   3. Taiwan (Republic of China),
   4. Republic of China (Taiwan),
   5. Taiwan/Republic of China (after 1949).
4. Anyway, the key and common feature is Taiwan because this article is about Taiwan. I will also support rename/redirect other articles with similar situation to highlight Taiwan.

-- Wildcursive (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

• • Please refer to Wikipedia:Article titles. What your fellow residents of Taiwan think is not a valid policy argument for moving Wikipedia article pages.--Jiang (talk) 11:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Table comparing Taiwan/ROC names and those of the Holy See/Vatican city

I thought it was worth comparing this case to the Holy See, I guess if you could show Foreign Relations of the Vatican or Foreign Relations of Vatican City was the common name then that would be the right title, although on the other criteria it is a toss up. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Section of WP:AT		Foreign relations of Taiwan	Foreign relations of the Republic of China	Foreign relations of Vatican City	Foreign relations of the Holy See
WP:CRITERIA	Recognizability	Yes	Unlikely, unless one is an expert due to lack of modern usage	Yes	Arguable
	Naturalness	Yes	No	Maybe, although one might well use "Foreign relations of the pope" or "Foreign relations of the Vatican" or "Foreign relations of the church" or similar
	Precision	Arguable, as it doesn't cover the foreign relations of the PRC and the government appears to prefer "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or similar	Arguable, as it is Taiwan's legal name, although the government appears to prefer "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or similar.	No	Yes
	Conciseness	Yes	No	Toss up	Toss up
	Consistency	Yes	No, a similar form is only used for the Holy See	Yes	No, a similar form is only used for the ROC
WP:COMMONNAME		Yes	No	Arguable	Arguable
WP:POVTITLE		If there are POV issues this title meets it	If there are POV issues this title doesn't meet it	Arguable	Arguable
Disambiguation		Yes	No, there is obvious confusion with the People's Republic of China	Yes	Yes
English language titles		Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

I disagree with a few points. Here would be my version. I see no evidence that the government "prefers Republic of China (Taiwan)" for anything else other than select English language government websites. I'm not sure how the last three points factor into the comparison. Disambiguation is not relevant as there is no title conflict - confusion should be settled by hatnotes. --Jiang (talk) 11:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of compromise I'm happy to go with your table for the rest of the points, however I think claiming disambiguation isn't an issue isn't really being honest. The hat note is crazy:

This page is about the Foreign relations of Taiwan. For the article about the Foreign relations of the country commonly known as China, see Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China.

You can't even use the following as Foreign relations of China is a disambiguation page:

This page is about the Foreign relations of Taiwan. For the article about the Foreign relations of China, see Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China.

-- Eraserhead1 <

There is no need to be so long-winded with the hatnote as we are not dealing with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The hatnote is meant to reduce misguided confusion arising from similar names, not actively divert traffic because the actual name has occupied by a different article. The traffic diversion is being conducted at foreign relations of China (the logical title people would enter into the search box, not "foreign relations of the Republic of China"). Something as simple as this should suffice:

Not to be confused with Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China.

--Jiang (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine, if people actually understood at some basic level what the Republic of China and the People's Republic of China actually were - I don't think its plausible that even the audience of the Financial Times is in that position.

And while it doesn't come up on the talk pages, that's probably because people don't want to lose face over it - and by the time they've done enough reading around to get to the point of asking the question they probably do understand.

Given that I think we really do need to go for the long-winded approach here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

talk> 12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

First of All, Thanks for Eraserhead1's Efforts! You Did Great Jobs! Wildcursive likes this.

1. We have Foreign relations of Burma for a country whose official name is now Myanmar, Foreign relations of East Timor for Timor-Leste, and Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia for a country whose name in the U.N. is The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

2. Official names are not necessary to be linked with series foreign relations articles on Wikipedia. We also pick common and easy ways as titles such as: Foreign relations of Bolivia for Plurinational State of Bolivia; Foreign relations of Tanzania for United Republic of Tanzania; Foreign relations of Venezuela for Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; and Foreign relations of the United Kingdom for United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

3. How about Foreign relations of South Korea and Foreign relations of North Korea? These are not their official names either. We simply choose common names for English users to identify correctly and easier.

4. BTW, our Embassy doorplate in the Holy See is Embassy of The Republic of China (Taiwan) to the Holy See and the website is Embassy of The Republic of China (TAIWAN) to the Holy See.

5. With other information in the survey section above, these simple reasons and various facts provide enough subjective and objective supports to rename/redirect this article among others.

-- Wildcursive (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the decision on whether to use template:about instead of template:distinguish is based entirely on speculation - rather than experience - of how users of these template would react. Two faulty assumptions: 1) only those who need to hatnotes read them; 2) those who read the hatnotes do not read the lead section. I would like to instead speculate that (1) the hatnotes are so prominent that almost all readers who happen upon the article read them and (2) those who read the hatnotes (given the similarity in topic) may at a minimum take a quick glance at part of the first sentence. This being the case, having a long hatnote that is redundant with the lead sentence on the whole creates a negative experience for the reader - for most people who don't need to hatnote, the hatnote creates redundant reading and is a waste of time; for people who need the hatnote, even if they needed more detailed explanation that template:distinguish didn't provide, they could find it promptly by taking a quick glance at the lead sentence which has "Taiwan" prominently bolded.

The choice of template:about or template:distinguish is an editorial one. I think template:distinguish is more appropriate because 1) this is a specialized topic (likely arrived at from a related article, and not the default name i.e. "foreign relations of China" entered into the search box) 2) the articles to be distinguished are sufficiently related such that getting context from the lead sentence (as template:distinguish relies upon) is not intruding the reader's experience.--Jiang (talk) 12:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Section of WP:AT		Foreign relations of Taiwan	Foreign relations of the Republic of China	Foreign relations of Vatican City	Foreign relations of the Holy See
WP:CRITERIA	Recognizability	Yes	Arguable (this is specifically related to diplomacy and not a general country article)	Yes	Arguable (this is specifically related to diplomacy and not a general country article)
	Naturalness	Yes	No in the sense that is it longer. Yes in the sense that there is no way to shorten "Republic of China" to something unambiguous.	Maybe, although one might well use "Foreign relations of the pope" or "Foreign relations of the Vatican" or "Foreign relations of the church" or similar
	Precision	Arguable, as it doesn't cover the foreign relations of the PRC	Yes, since it refers to the political entity in the context of diplomacy.	No	Yes
	Conciseness	Yes	No	Toss up	Toss up
	Consistency	Yes	No, a similar form is only used for the Holy See	Yes	No, a similar form is only used for the ROC
WP:COMMONNAME		Yes	No	Arguable (more common)	Arguable (less common)
WP:POVTITLE		Not a concern	Not a concern	Not a concern	Not a concern
Disambiguation		Not a concern	Not a concern	Not a concern	Not a concern
English language titles		Not a concern	Not a concern	Not a concern	Not a concern

12:16, 11 June 2012‎ User:Jiang

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

On foreign relations of Republic of China to foreign relations of Taiwan?

As far as I know there are about 99 to 1 advantage to ROC (or ROC(Taiwan)) than "Taiwan" as most international organizations recognize Republic of China or the recognitions based on the derivation of the Chinese ethnicity of the ROC by the name of "Taiwan" from those international organizations. Effectively, there are Two Chinas in this world, People's Republic of China and Republic of China. An independent Taiwan basically confronts the international norm. For those states that do recognize ROC that it tends to be ROC (Taiwan) and not just simply "Taiwan" because Taiwan independence is unachievable in our current international order that there is no such country (including the 23 states that currently recognize ROC and the rest that recognize PRC) in this world that recognizes Taiwan independence. Therefore, the change of the title from foreign relations of Republic of China to foreign relations of Taiwan is unwise, mistaken and misleading to the amateur readers. And I know Wikipedia editors tend to favor amateur readers for efficiency but it is not about precision in this case and it is about accuracy without providing totally wrong information from the start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.42.73.19 (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I must agree, but there is no use in changing it back unless the PRC foreign relations changes back to its original form. It is, however, confusing to have the Republic of China's foreign relations referred as foreign relations of Taiwan; considering both of their histories. Taiwan was a colonial possession of Japan in 1911 and according to the foreign relations chart the earliest relations established, that still recognizes the Republic of China, is Panama, establishing relations in 1911. Then the nations, that formerly recognized the ROC, established their relations with the ROC was right after the Xinhai Revolution ended. A fair amount of them established their relations before Taiwan was even part of China and Taiwan became part of the ROC in 1945 at the end of the Second Sino-Japanese War/World War II. ~Sigh~ Too bad.24.60.42.14 (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Link to recognizers

Clicking on 22 in this version (or here: 11 UN member states) doesn't work for you? It works for me. TDL (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, those links didn't work for me. But they do now, and the only change is that I put underscores instead of spaces in the redirect at International recognition of the Republic of China. Why that should make a difference is beyond me, but it does. I experimented several times putting them in and taking them out and trying the preview, and if there are underscores in the redirect then clicking on the Numrec template link takes me to the list of states within the article, but if there are spaces in the redirect then it just takes me to the top of the article - which is useless as that is where the link is that I'm clicking on. Weird. It's working fine now, with the underscores in. GrahamN (talk) 05:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, strange. Don't know why that would be. Either way, as long as it's working now. TDL (talk) 05:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

relations with SMOM

See H. E. JEAN-PIERRE MAZERY, GRAND CHANCELLOR OF THE SOVEREIGN ORDER OF MALTA, VISITS THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN). It seems like SMOM recognizes ROC (no diplomatic relations established yet), which isn't surprising since the Holy See recognizes it.

I'm not sure where and how this source can fit in the article. Any ideas? Japinderum (talk) 11:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Unless we have a a clearer source which specifically states that they recognize the RoC, I don't think we should add the SMOM. TDL (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't suggest adding it as recognizer (I agree with need a clearer source for that), but maybe we can mention its position, as far as this source shows it, somehow... Japinderum (talk) 08:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)