Talk:Foreign relations of Taiwan

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foreign relations of Taiwan article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives (index): 1: 3 months

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, use the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

China Top‑importance

	China portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Taiwan Top‑importance

	Taiwan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taiwan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Taiwan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TaiwanWikipedia:WikiProject TaiwanTemplate:WikiProject TaiwanTaiwan
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Embassy of the Republic of China (Taiwan) in the Kingdom of Swaziland was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 May 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Foreign relations of Taiwan. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

On 9 June 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved from Foreign relations of the Republic of China to Foreign relations of Taiwan. The result of the discussion was page moved.

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

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

ROC Examination Yuan Seal.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map for Resolution 2758

There are some oddities on this map as it presents today.

Oman is shown in yellow, but it was not a Chinese colony. Since it joined the UN 18 days earlier, it should be red, blue or green.

Portuguese Guinea (now Guinea-Bissau) is shown in green, while Portuguese West Africa (Angola) and Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique) are shown in grey. Greenland is shown in green instead of grey.

Bangladesh is shown in green, but it was not a UN member since independence in March 1971 until 1974; if the map purports it as still being "East Pakistan", then at best, it should be shown as an ambiguity - Pakistan had no control over the territory. I suggest grey for Bangladesh not being a UN member and its independence not yet conceded by Pakistan.

If the ROC was present for the vote, did it abstain or vote against? - Taiwan should be shown in the appropriate colour because, until the vote was complete, it was still a member and its delegation legitimate.

Also, the independent island colonies in the world are not shown, though usually, a visible circle is placed where the actual size is too small for the scale, and there are, in 1971, independent nations in the Pacific and the eastern Caribbean. GBC (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some research. The following were independent and UN members prior to 25 Oct 1971: Jamaica, Bhutan, Qatar, Oman (visible on map), Malta, Maldives, Singapore, Barbados, Fiji, Bahrain (not evident on map). Samoa (independent nation not evident on map) and Bangladesh (visible on map) were not UN members. Trinidad & Tobago and Mauritius, also UN members, are barely visible and their colours cannot be distinguished.

New Caledonia is shown, in green, but it is a dependency of France.

Bangladesh declared independence in Mar 1971 and Pakistan capitulated to that condition in Dec 1971, so Bangladesh should be shown in grey, not green. GBC (talk) 21:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nairobi Trade Center

Taiwan maintains an extremely low level Trade Office in Nairobi which can be assumed as the unofficial de facto Embassy of Taiwan in Nairobi Kenya. On their website [1]https://nairobi.taiwantrade.com/home they list "visa application form" which can be seen as an unofficial embassy. Also, one of their local employees. states on her Linkedin that she helps people get visas. Can the editors do research and see if this qualifies to update the section. Their facebook account is www.facebook.com/ttcNairobi/ Steveonsi (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of References in the NDR section

Of the eight paragraphs under "Non-diplomatic representation" only one of the smaller ones has references.

Shouldn't this article be marked as "References needed"?

To be honest, I first decided to post this mostly because I'd like to see some comments on the lack of a warning; its absence seems to deviate from the rules and treatment of many other articles.

Pondering this issue further though, I'm also concerned that some of the information within that section is either out of date or might be soon. If it had references, the date of publication of the reference would serve as the date the "facts" were allegedly true. But without references, I'm not sure when the writer thought the information there was accurate.

  - DAZ / FS 98.110.243.10 (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. Sorry I sort of created a redundant title of "References" without noticing the first one. Since I'm not an editor I can't change it. But if you notice this, please move it to "References" or rename the new section to something like "Lack of References in the NDR section" rather than just deleting it due to the arguably poor choice of sections/section-name. 98.110.243.10 (talk) 17:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]