Talk:List of diplomatic missions of Taiwan

Untitled
This article is called the Republic of China due to the Wikipedia principle and precedent of places being named according to what the de facto government that rules it calls it. Naturally this has no legal weight, and arguing this point is silly. Nor does imply endorsement by Wikipedia or any contributing authors of whatever name that place is called. The overriding concern is to be consistent with other Wikipeia practices. Kransky 12:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Also in the categorisation page it will be called the Republic of China, and will be ordered with other countries starting with 'C' (C for 'China, Republic of'), and not 'R' (R for 'Republic of China') or 'T' (T for 'Taiwan') Kransky 12:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Link to PRC Missions
There is no direct link between Chinese and Taiwanese missions, so the link has been removed. The issue of international recognition is relevant and important, so it stays.Kransky 12:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

A number of stylistic changes proposed by 212.51.199.173
Normally I do not enter into correspondence with IP addressees, but in order to demonstrate that I am taking his/her comments seriously I will respond. 212.51.199.173 has proposed a number of stylistic changes which I do not be included.


 * Adding flags within prose text like this is pointless and looks unprofessional.
 * Calling China "the mainland Chinese communist PRC" is gratuitously POV and distracting.
 * I will accept the terminology "Republic of China (Taiwan)" for the "Republic of China" only when it has greater recognition in Wikipedia (starting with its own article. I certainly take issue with 212.51.199.173 claim that adding "(Taiwan)" best prevents misinterpretations by readers and provides sufficient correct information in the simplest terms for readers of the general public
 * No reason to delete details of RoC unofficial offices in Hong Kong and Macau
 * 212.51.199.173 is right in prefixing the names of many missions with "Taipei", although there are a few errors that could be fixed. For example the mission in Stockholm is certainly not "Taipei Diplomatic Mission" but "Taipei Mission".

Kransky (talk) 06:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding flags is the best way to prevent confusion among readers in the general public, otherwise there is a tendency to confuse Republic of China with Communist People's Republic of China!
 * China is indisputably, without question, a Communist country, take a look at this link Communist Party of China if need confirmation, therefore referring to China as communist is absolutely NOT POV in any way shape or form. It is just plain fact that the People's Republic of China is a communist country!
 * I will not accept the terminology "Republic of China" because that is not the official title that is currently used by the country of the ROC (Taiwan). The official title: The Republic of China (Taiwan) is the currently accepted title used officially by the government of Taiwan, go look at:  www.gio.gov.tw   and    www.president.gov.tw  for confirmation.
 * The deletion of the ROC (Taiwan) unofficial offices can stay as long as they do not imply that the ROC (Taiwan) is some kind of "Special Administrative Region" of the communist People's Republic of China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.16.156.250 (talk) 15:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No, enough people know the difference between PRC and ROC. If they didn't, I doubt they would know the flags of the two countries anyway.
 * Communist or not, there is no reason to add adjectives like this. We don't say things like "The social democratic republic of Finland".
 * erm...I just went to www.gio.gov.tw  and on the title it says "Republic of China"
 * they are designated Special Administrative Regions by the authorities that govern them. I don't know any country that still thinks Hong Kong is British.
 * in short, I feel your comments are motivated by a political agenda. As I have done in the 180 other articles, I have kept things strictly neutral.  If you start fiddling with this article, others will be encouraged to change it back, or make it even worse than what either of us want.  Kransky (talk) 15:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong Kransky! The site www.president.gov.tw and the other both say Republic of China (Taiwan), it appears you are trying to spin my words around. Let's just come to a consensus based on the unbiased facts, as I've previously stated, instead of trying to confuse the people.
 * No, most people do NOT know the difference between the PRC and ROC (Taiwan), they think there is ONLY "one China" when infact there are TWO Chinas that split during the Chinese civil war, similar to North Korea and South Korea or East Germany and West Germany.
 * No, I do not have any political agenda whatsoever, but I am pissed when some people corrupt the indisputable truth, such as China not being communist when in fact they are.
 * And what is it that you want Kransky? We should come to a concensus based on facts and not your obsessive compulsive psychological urges to keep every article in the same neat and tidy format. Chaos persists in the Universe, entropy prevails Kransky! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.176.52 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Government Information Office leads with "Republic of China" (contrary to your denials), the Presidental website leads with "Republic of China (Taiwan)". Do we really need a longer title when RoC is perfectly acceptable?  We are not going to start renaming Britain as The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
 * I am not debating China's political or economic system. I am debating the relevance and neutrality of referring to the PRC as "Communist China".
 * see Manual of Style: consistency promotes professionalism, simplicity and greater cohesion in Wikipedia articles..an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style
 * Governments recognise the One China policy, but they acknowledge there are two administrations (albeit the RoC administration not having full force of sovereignty). It is legally murky, but people generally recognise the two being separate - certainly this is no reason to start inserting flags in text.
 * I believe I have addressed your issues, albeit perhaps not giving you the response you want. unless you present me with an additional reason - and written with a civil tone - this will be my last correspodence with you on this matter.  Some of us have jobs and girlfriends, you know  Kransky (talk) 00:20, 1 June 2008 (


 * You are wrong again Kransky, both websites specifically emphasize TAIWAN on the frontpage and NOT just "Republic of China"
 * My job is that of SWAT team cop, for tactical operators like myself who are involved in Special Operations, I don't have a girlfriend or any meaningful relationships with people, so I have all the time in world to wage a cyber war if this confusion continues. It's in your best interest to come to a mutually beneficial agreement and resolve this issue peacefully.


 * Having read both the comments and seen the work on Diplomatic missions of the Republic of China I have to side with Kranksy. I feel it unnecessary the need to add flags to every embassy that ROC has, I mean, the point of the page is the diplomatic missions of the ROC, and so I don't think that adding flags or emphasizing its official status is really necessary. Also, I did see that websites of the ROC do state them as the Republic of China (Taiwan) so I would't mind if we left the name as that. The People's Republic of China is indeed a communist country, but I don't see the need to state or emphasize that in the article, since it has nothing to do with PR China. Also, I don't know if you are aware, but the ROC has stated that it might change its name to 'Taiwan' officially since most of the world knows them as Taiwan and not as the ROC since it is confusing. Taiwan in a tangle over its name Nevertheless, I feel that we should leave the article as it is (and other ROC articles for that matter) and not make them confusing for Wiki readers. Aquintero (talk) 17:10, 1 June, 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:FOR on formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" article
There is now a discussion at WP:FOR on the formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" articles. As this discussion ostensibly could affect this article, editors are encouraged to provide their opinions on the WP:FOR at this link - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations - please do not discuss on this article talk page as valid points for consideration may very well not be seen by editors at large. Thank you, --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 00:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Foreign relations of the Republic of China which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Belize–Republic of China relations which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:Foreign relations of Taiwan which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)