Talk:Foreign relations of Taiwan/Archive 1

2723:). 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.) -- 161:), 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.) 1065:

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.

1274:

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.

1418:. 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. 3798:

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

4094:

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.

4141:. 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. 1501:

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.

1112:, 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. 932:

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

1455:

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.

31: 583: 3647: 3155: 2828:

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 Knowledge 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.

327:

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.--

401:

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".". —

2510:. 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. 2443:. 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 469:- 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? 2692:. 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 2805:, 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. -- 245:

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?" (-_-")

2309:

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

1941:

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

1712:

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

1525:

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

1421:

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

1398:

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

861:

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

798:

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

589:

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

4070:

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

2831:

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

2482:

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

2253:

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

2056:

No, the article should not be deleted. With respect to "delet 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.

1961:

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

1708:

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

1504:

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

1485:

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,

1314:

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"

1273:

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

1176:

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

1089:

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

943:

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

931:

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

927:

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

893:

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

745:

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

651:

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

581:

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

326:

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

3817:

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

3194:

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

2011:

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

1288:

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

1047:

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

884:

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

702:

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

400:

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

2827:

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

2582:

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,

2289:

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

1976:

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

1543:

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

1500:

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

1454:

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

1425:

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

1394:

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

1267:

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

777:

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

4093:

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

3797:

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

3090:

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

1866:

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

1210:

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

4057:

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.

1447:

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

1219:'. 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. 911:

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

244:

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

219:

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

2222:

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

389:

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,

1374:

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

3517:

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

1064:

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

889:

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.

4071:

foreign relations of Taiwan is unwise, mistaken and misleading to the amateur readers. And I know Knowledge 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.

353:

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

1946:

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...

4241: 340:

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. —

1292:

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

92:

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.

1262:

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

908:"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. 1226:

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

2779:

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

540:

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.

2774:

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

1769:. 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; 2203:

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?.

885:

logical sense as well. Looking at how other Knowledge 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.

3319:

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. --

1222:

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

313:

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. —

1900:

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.

849:"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." 390:

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.

663:

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

462: 420: 703:

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.

1128:

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

2505:

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

1085:

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

2876:

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? --

3602:

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

2905:

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. --

1108:. 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 857:"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." 666:"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 1867:

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.

3606:

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

1203:' 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 ' 560:

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.

271:

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

2381:– 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 1886:. 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. 1505:

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.--

1311:

2464:. 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. 1848:

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.

3573:. 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 1359:

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?

1823:

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

1296:

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.--

297:

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.

3072:, 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 2426:

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.--

2290:

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.

1521:

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

1426:

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.—

1881:

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

1356:

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

77:

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.

4178: 1448:

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.

1257:

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

365:

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.... —

3533:

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:

1259:. 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". 778:

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?

3127:

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. --

722:

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

1414:

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

865:

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?--

668:. 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. 231:

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.

176:

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.

4066:. 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 1104:

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

3721: 3581: 3554: 3538: 2716: 2394: 1080:

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.

958:

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.

234:

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.

1451:

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.

1090:

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.--

1399:

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. --

4138: 4119: 260:

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. —

2767:

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.

4217:

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...

2749:

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.--

556:

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.

2090: 3675: 1981:

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.

624: 2824: 419:

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

1255:

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

3577:(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: 2861:- 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. 3897:

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

3388:

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

2658: 2423: 2374: 2115: 620:

Thanks to That-Vela-Fella for making the corrections earlier. However, the latest news reports confirm that the restoration of ties has been finalized:

134: 211:

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

3679: 2042:

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.

2226:

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).

747: 3717: 3023: 2839:

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. --

2230: 2193: 2179: 2223:

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.

1919:? 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. 1241:

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.--

2763:

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

1794:

The above is a well written, well sourced and relevant contribution. It is not "original research" and certainly improved the article. Regards.

726:

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.

3019: 1526:

these cases, the underlying domestic political furour is given little if any space in an article discussing the country's foreign relations. --

220:

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.

145:

addresses the international affairs of a state or state-like entity that both others and itself calls the Republic of China, while the article

3109:

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

557: 2529: 2271: 2261: 3537:

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

3396:

Arguable, as it doesn't cover the foreign relations of the PRC and the government appears to prefer "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or similar

2057:

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.

1204: 1165: 78: 4137:

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

2378: 894:

is about foreign relations, not politics. Domestic political opposition is almost irrelevant to describing a country's foreign policy. --

2151:

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. --

937: 751: 606:

Regarding the previous concerns of user DDTing, Saint Lucia's restoration of ties with Taiwan has been confirmed by the government; see

108: 1422:

Lee said, no administrative changes were made to alter ROC's consistent government structure not to treat the PRC as a foreign country.

4078: 2820: 2311: 1709:

oft-repeated opinions of widely read newspapers, etc.. Chen are just the best examples because they are both "legal" and very notable.

2720: 354:

introduction of content over relations with the PRC. I do hope you exercise great care in writing on an issue as sensitive as this.--

107:

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

4095: 3073: 3069: 3001: 2746: 2738: 2533: 2864:

Additionally if people have foreign relations with the "Republic of China" as something separate from Taiwan then no-one would use

1134:

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

688:

The article doesn't say how one would call Taiwan from China then. Also mention if postal codes, and highway numbers are reserved.

2697: 2382: 3734: 3730: 3713: 3196: 2873: 2832:

see that the Vatican is the common name used even in diplomatic contexts even though "Holy See would be more accurate and proper.

1196: 47: 17: 4203:

Unless we have a a clearer source which specifically states that they recognize the RoC, I don't think we should add the SMOM.

3802:

didn't provide, they could find it promptly by taking a quick glance at the lead sentence which has "Taiwan" prominently bolded.

2393:, and so forth. Taiwan applied for UN membership under the name "Republic of China (Taiwan)" each year in 2002-2006 and in 2008. 1713:

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.

3667: 1675:

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

1033:

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

912:

details. Making such statements and dwelling on those details while postponing the mention of disagreeing POVs violates NPOV.

3764:

simple reasons and various facts provide enough subjective and objective supports to rename/redirect this article among others

665: 4185:

like SMOM recognizes ROC (no diplomatic relations established yet), which isn't surprising since the Holy See recognizes it.

3709: 3697: 652:

to offer to continue recognizing the PRC – and making an absolute statement like "all" should require certainty on our part.

2853:

If ambassador to the vatican is more commonly used than ambassador to the Holy See, maybe we should use that - as we follow

755: 625:

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/asiapacific/news/article_1298587.php/Taiwan_and_St_Lucia_sign_communique_on_resuming_ties

3399:

Arguable, as it is Taiwan's legal name, although the government appears to prefer "Republic of China (Taiwan)" or similar.

3701: 3693: 2386: 2027:

Building an encyclopedia is a slow process. We don't just delete article because they are incomplete - we improve them.

1216: 933: 4046:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2634:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2610:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2342:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

4059: 3705: 2662: 2648: 2419: 2352: 2170:

Algeria was French Algeria, a part of France and not a country in 1956. How could it have any diplomatic relations? --

886: 490: 466: 449: 437: 301: 130: 2570: 2939: 2868:

in this context as Kauffner pointed out above in this context - and lets not forget all the countries who recognise

3659: 3574: 3546: 3027: 1469:

I trimmed the lead a little further. If we're not going to give both sides, we shouldn't give either. Remember:

962:

In an article about a country's foreign relations, the question of domestic politics is of fairly minor importance.

621: 138: 38: 2715:. Kauffner's concerns are invalid as a hatnote and redirect will prevent readers from mistaking this article from 2528:

This is for a separate move discussion, but to the reasons for keeping the current title would be the same as why

4179:

H. E. JEAN-PIERRE MAZERY, GRAND CHANCELLOR OF THE SOVEREIGN ORDER OF MALTA, VISITS THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA (TAIWAN)

3297:. What your fellow residents of Taiwan think is not a valid policy argument for moving Knowledge article pages.-- 1212: 2325:

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

1776:, that has continuously had diplomatic relations with it since before the Republic of China retreated to Taiwan; 200:, Vanuatu has reversed its decision to recognize the ROC as a country after the government there changed. -anon 3294: 2295: 2275: 2265: 2219:

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

1735: 1639: 1531: 1404: 1289:

to depart from the One China Policy but they were strongly discouraged by mainland China and the United States.

1200: 1013: 899: 673: 3553:

This page is about the Foreign relations of Taiwan. For the article about the Foreign relations of China, see

82: 2770:

And can we please abandon this canard that Taiwan is ever referred to as anything by that, I was reading the

1761:

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

112: 4082: 2991: 2588: 2315: 2189: 2175: 2156: 2137: 2047: 526: 494: 453: 4099: 1177:

a simple statement by the President of Taiwan is not enough to determine policy, we should fix the article.

1119:

page, Pyl wrote in defense of quoting Ma's "Special non-state-to-state relations" statement as policy, that

3570: 2858: 2836: 2784: 2666: 2644: 1590: 1316: 968: 759: 2719:. He is also mistaken in believing that "Republic of China (Taiwan)" is an "official name" (refer to the 2566: 2385:. (See both the site heading, and the legal fine print at the bottom.) Its embassy to the Vatican is the 1758:

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

3774: 3625: 3615: 3325: 3278: 3132: 3096: 3039: 2951: 2911: 2882: 2810: 2792: 2674: 2185: 2100: 2043: 2032: 1986: 1942:

as ... " do sound like "Original Research", but, methinks, most of the statistics-type facts listed by

1924: 1891: 1833: 1608:

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

1116: 982:

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

522: 405: 369: 345: 318: 310: 264: 2771: 607: 4226: 4212: 4197: 4164: 4150: 4131: 4103: 4086: 3831: 3778: 3629: 3619: 3596: 3527: 3329: 3306: 3282: 3136: 3122: 3100: 3085: 3043: 3013: 2995: 2955: 2929: 2915: 2900: 2886: 2848: 2814: 2796: 2758: 2732: 2707: 2678: 2652: 2592: 2574: 2545: 2519: 2496: 2473: 2456: 2435: 2404: 2367: 2319: 2299: 2279: 2242: 2213: 2184:

Well the prefix IS technically incorect, so it's acctually just Algeria, so it had foreign relations.

2160: 2141: 2127: 2104: 2066: 2051: 2036: 2021: 1990: 1971: 1956: 1928: 1910: 1895: 1876: 1858: 1837: 1818: 1803: 1739: 1722: 1699: 1643: 1584: 1570: 1553: 1535: 1514: 1495: 1464: 1435: 1408: 1384: 1369: 1331: 1305: 1283: 1250: 1236: 1190: 1099: 1074: 1057: 1017: 953: 921: 903: 874: 835: 808: 787: 771: 735: 712: 692: 677: 656: 645: 633: 615: 596: 570: 550: 530: 516: 497: 473: 456: 427: 408: 394: 372: 358: 348: 331: 321: 292: 249: 116: 102: 86: 4222: 4218: 4208: 4193: 4189: 4160: 4127: 4074: 3953: 3819: 3814: 3810: 3799: 3794: 3444: 3106: 2854: 2764: 2507: 2257: 831: 653: 642: 630: 612: 593: 546: 3182:), what I (along with maximum majority of my fellow 23.25 million residents in Taiwan) care most is 1915:

Why don't you try addressing the concerns we had with your section rather than breaking the article

4067: 3748: 2291: 2209: 1814: 1780: 1731: 1635: 1527: 1400: 1009: 972: 895: 826:

Ugh, a double negation. I changed "not dissatisfied" to "satisfied", but surely that's not right?!

669: 639: 481:

Fine with me. It's nice to get a source so articles don't contradict one another or themselves... -

391: 184: 169: 3687:

Official names are not necessary to be linked with series foreign relations articles on Knowledge.

2114:

To the international organizations section should be added the Red Cross/Red Crescent Federation:

3972: 3862: 3463: 3357: 3031: 2980: 2703: 2584: 2469: 2400: 2171: 2152: 2133: 2017: 1967: 1906: 1872: 1854: 1799: 767: 158: 513: 4146: 4063: 3229: 3201: 3175: 3065: 2363: 1962:

deleted and things started over again. In the meantime, no doubnle standards please. Regards.

1952: 1589:

The statement is strange coming from PalaceGuard008 given his statements on the main article

3770: 3651: 3639: 3611: 3562: 3321: 3274: 3171: 3128: 3092: 3035: 2947: 2907: 2891:

To answer you, no (see above). But then, this article is much more than the present tense.--

2878: 2806: 2788: 2670: 2515: 2452: 2238: 2123: 2096: 2062: 2028: 1982: 1920: 1887: 1829: 1809:

your single citation does not support most of your comments. cite them and then put them in

1718: 1695: 1580: 1549: 1491: 1460: 1365: 1327: 1279: 1186: 1178: 1070: 1053: 1048:

to reprimand Taiwan and even going so far as to conduct missile tests near Taiwanese waters.

917: 822:

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

804: 783: 731: 402: 366: 342: 315: 307: 261: 197: 98: 1441:

I will add more later when I have time about what Chen and Lee did during their presidency.

638:

Does seem that the one who changed it now again looks to be correct with the article here:

582:

be construed as a severance of the relationship with the People's Republic of China". See

237: 4204: 4156: 4123: 3827: 3592: 3523: 3302: 3118: 3081: 3009: 2925: 2896: 2844: 2754: 2728: 2583:

but making an extended name doesn't fix anything that the lead and redirects don't cover.

2541: 2492: 2431: 2085: 2080: 1916: 827: 708: 542: 486: 445: 300:

As for the scope of this article, I found no record that this article was ever moved from

149:(which is named correctly) addresses the disputed political status of an island. In fact, 1977:

need to add it, otherwise it looks like an arbitrary list where anybody can add whatever

1779:

does not include any leading world power such as a state that is permanent member of the

1618:: cross-strait marriages in recent years; defections, visits, whatever, in earlier years; 992:: cross-strait marriages in recent years; defections, visits, whatever, in earlier years; 627:

Thus I have reverted the changes, as the notes & qualifications are now unnecessary.

4155:

Hmm, strange. Don't know why that would be. Either way, as long as it's working now.

1315:

rather than "China" add much. This section is a brief introduction to the main article

928:

their official capacity as presidents, they never departed from the one China principle.

3879:

Arguable (this is specifically related to diplomacy and not a general country article)

3873:

Arguable (this is specifically related to diplomacy and not a general country article)

3806: 3790: 3053: 2205: 1810: 566: 180: 177: 165: 162: 1139:

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

208: 3049: 2699: 2465: 2396: 2013: 1963: 1943: 1902: 1868: 1850: 1795: 1566: 1510: 1431: 1380: 1301: 1246: 1232: 1095: 949: 870: 763: 246: 3518:

relevant as there is no title conflict - confusion should be settled by hatnotes. --

141:, but that is okay because the two articles address different concepts: the article 4142: 4037: 3843: 3338: 3154: 2742: 2625: 2601: 2359: 2333: 1948: 1883: 1773: 1109: 1105: 689: 355: 328: 289: 3569:

There is no need to be so long-winded with the hatnote as we are not dealing with

2665:– more concise and clearer name that is in line with the Republic of China/Taiwan 463:

Dates of establishment of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China

3610:

Given that I think we really do need to go for the long-winded approach here. --

3755: 3671: 2511: 2448: 2390: 2234: 2119: 2091:

EU will consider Taiwan's request to be included in the EU's visa waiver program

2058: 1714: 1691: 1576: 1545: 1487: 1456: 1361: 1323: 1275: 1182: 1066: 1049: 913: 800: 779: 727: 622:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/05/01/asia/AS-GEN-Taiwan-China-St.-Lucia.php

470: 424: 337: 94: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3048:

Those aren't counterexamples. The countries templates are currently located at

944:

think the behaviour and the actions by the Presidents are even more relevant.--

4028: 3823: 3588: 3519: 3298: 3114: 3077: 3005: 2921: 2892: 2840: 2750: 2724: 2562: 2537: 2488: 2427: 1766: 704: 482: 441: 3113:

article needs to be moved. In limited instances it just doesn't make sense.--

3890:

No in the sense that is it longer. Yes in the sense that there is no way to

1040:

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

562: 1541:

Again, "foreign relations" is a purely administrative and executive matter.

4188:

I'm not sure where and how this source can fit in the article. Any ideas?

3908:

Yes, since it refers to the political entity in the context of diplomacy.

4053:

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

3061: 2802: 1790:

does not include any of the Republic of China's top-ten trading partners.

1562: 1506: 1427: 1376: 1297: 1242: 1228: 1091: 945: 866: 226: 3663: 3315:

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

3225:(recognized by almost all 200 countries in the world) also marked with 3234: 3219:' websites, among many others, titled as "Republic of China (Taiwan)" 3179: 2972: 2819:

My opposition here is not as strong as my opposition to the moves at

2076:

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

1559:"foreign relations" is a purely administrative and executive matter. 608:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2007/04/26/2003358246

577:

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

3488:

No, there is obvious confusion with the People's Republic of China

3241:

We may consider different options for changing the term to either:

2872:

but with some sort of relations with Taiwan will call it that e.g.

2305:

Countries that have switched recognition from ROC to PRC after 1949

3260:

also support rename/redirect other articles with similar situation

3153: 3057: 2869: 283: 277: 2971:, since this is a descriptive title and the parent article is at 2943: 2487:

in text links should use the form "Republic of China (Taiwan)".--

2199:

List of countries that maintain unofficial relations with the ROC

1728:

not surprising as your user page indicates you are trained in law

1690:

He was right, and he added a section called "Informal relations".

1575:

Whoops, my bad. Sorry Pyl, I guess it wasn't you who said that.

794:

List of countries that maintain unofficial relations with the ROC

3741:

common names for English users to identify correctly and easier.

799:

and the names of the unofficial embassies would be informative.

640:

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-05/05/content_865879.htm

3905:

Arguable, as it doesn't cover the foreign relations of the PRC

3210: 3368:

Unlikely, unless one is an expert due to lack of modern usage

25: 3762:

5. With other information in the survey section above, these

1082:

I am not sure why you said this as a response to what I said.

157:

is a sort of state entity (and thus sanctioning the proposed

3739:

These are not their official names either. We simply choose

2147:

Clarification requested on which China in Background section

1195:

I am not sure how you got the impression that I deny Lee's '

512:

Are there any majior micronations that recognise the ROC? -

1784: 1486:

while the (not foreign side) gets the rest of the section.

3216: 3190:

any notion that any of our issue to be connected with it.

1375:

paragraph isn't offensive to me. It is just not concise.--

223:

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

3756:

Embassy of The Republic of China (TAIWAN) to the Holy See

3749:

Embassy of The Republic of China (Taiwan) to the Holy See

2787:

on this project so I fail to see why we must do here. --

2387:

Embassy of the Republic of China (Taiwan) to the Holy See

2351:. No prejudice against a new RM to discuss the merits of 2233:

are missing Somaliland, Transinistria, Nagorno-Karabakh.

2165: 1145: 521:

micronations are.....????????????????????????????/ ....?

3822:

relies upon) is not intruding the reader's experience.--

2624:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

2332:

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a

880:

Placement of "controversy" within cross-strait relations

4115: 1628:

investment, economic co-operation, cross flow of money.

1002:

investment, economic co-operation, cross flow of money.

967:

First, the main article linked to from this section is

286: 280: 273: 3105:"Confusion" is not a valid concern here. That is what 2942:

use "Holy See, Vatican City, British Embassy" and the

2391:

Embajada de la República de China (Taiwán) en Honduras

2383:

Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of China (TAIWAN)

1623:

cultural exchanges, other types of collaboration, etc.

997:

cultural exchanges, other types of collaboration, etc.

461:

Yes, seems strange to me too, but Bhutan is not here:

4036:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

2643:: majority after 15 days, no discussion for 13 days. 2600:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a

1319:. It shouldn't go into great detail on each subject. 137:. This will mean that the title is inconsistent with 3722:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

3034:

seems to prefer the common name in this context. --

3582:

Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China

3555:

Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China

3539:

Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China

3471:If there are POV issues this title doesn't meet it 2717:

Foreign relations of the People's Republic of China

2379:

Foreign relations of the Republic of China (Taiwan)

818:In the "Relations with the United States" section: 558:

The Holy See has diplomatic relations with Mongolia

4139:International recognition of the Republic of China 1215:' in 2000 promised that he would not abolish the ' 4058:Effectively, there are Two Chinas in this world, 3942:No, a similar form is only used for the Holy See 3433:No, a similar form is only used for the Holy See 2737:As an analogous situation we have an article at 1730:. Haha. Too many lawyers spoil the debate? =P -- 2946:use "Embassy of the United States Holy See" -- 2920:Sorry, I meant yes, per my original response.-- 2086:Canada edges close to granting visa-free travel 2081:Taipei can help Beijing take bigger global role 3894:"Republic of China" to something unambiguous. 3676:Foreign relations of the Republic of Macedonia 3091:another state in the case of the Holy See. -- 3258:because this article is about Taiwan. I will 1828:think make the list of 23 states distintive. 964:I have to disagree with this for two reasons. 8: 3948:No, a similar form is only used for the ROC 3468:If there are POV issues this title meets it 3439:No, a similar form is only used for the ROC 2825:Talk:Vice President of the Republic of China 2254:is, but it is not included in the article. 1844:Fair enough - Unsourced material needs to go 4122:) doesn't work for you? It works for me. 3851:Foreign relations of the Republic of China 3690:We also pick common and easy ways as titles 3346:Foreign relations of the Republic of China 3195:the term China/Chinese). It's that simple! 2975:. Anything other than "foreign relation of 1561:I didn't say that. It was PalaceGuard008.-- 845:A current statement of this article says:- 3030:etc. etc. - the consistency criteria from 2659:Foreign relations of the Republic of China 2424:Foreign relations of the Republic of China 2375:Foreign relations of the Republic of China 2116:Red Cross Society of the Republic of China 143:foreign relations of the Republic of China 135:foreign relations of the Republic of China 3747:our Embassy doorplate in the Holy See is 3680:The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 3662:for a country whose official name is now 3251:5. Taiwan/Republic of China (after 1949). 2166:Algeria's "cease of recognition" in 1956? 3838: 3678:for a country whose name in the U.N. is 3333: 2285:What is a de facto embassy or consolate? 1322:Changing the word "repudiated" is fine. 1156:He used this as justification for saying 215:ROC: an illegitimate government of China 153:is a POV title, because it implies that 4234: 3789:I think the decision on whether to use 3718:Foreign relations of the United Kingdom 3024:Foreign relations of the United Kingdom 2938:It is also worth pointing out that the 1168:of the Republic of China government". 465:and also the article that you mention: 3254:Anyway, the key and common feature is 3020:Foreign relations of the United States 2835:I'm not suggesting the application of 971:. In that article's discussion page, 256:Pre-1970s foreign relations of the ROC 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 2530:Foreign relations of the Vatican City 1043:Secondly, Taiwan's domestic politics 227:http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm 7: 3545:You can't even use the following as 3184:not being confused with those of PRC 2979:" is likely to confuse the readers. 2639:The result of the move request was: 2347:The result of the move request was: 1205:special non-state-to-state relations 2617:Move to Foreign relations of Taiwan 1765:includes a very high proportion of 938:Guidelines for National Unification 752:Soviet-German relations before 1941 748:Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941) 3857:Foreign relations of the Holy See 3854:Foreign relations of Vatican City 3352:Foreign relations of the Holy See 3349:Foreign relations of Vatican City 2821:Talk:Flag of the Republic of China 2012:bothering to improve it. Regards. 2008:{{Refimprove|date=December 2008}} 862:ROC as a legitimate state at all. 24: 3074:foreign relations of the Holy See 3070:foreign relations of the Holy See 3002:Foreign relations of the Holy See 2747:Foreign relations of the Holy See 2739:Foreign relations of the Holy See 2534:Foreign relations of the Holy See 276:, which switches the spelling of 3735:Foreign relations of North Korea 3731:Foreign relations of South Korea 3714:Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 3645: 3197:Economy of the Republic of China 1197:special state-to-state relations 192:Concerning Vanuatu's Recognition 29: 18:Talk:Foreign relations of Taiwan 3668:Foreign relations of East Timor 3644:s Efforts! You Did Great Jobs! 3249:4. Republic of China (Taiwan), 3247:3. Taiwan (Republic of China), 2231:states with limited recognition 1350:history of relations with China 975:argued persuasively as follows: 4227:08:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC) 4213:18:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 4198:11:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 3710:Foreign relations of Venezuela 3698:Plurinational State of Bolivia 2741:but the countries template at 2037:12:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 2022:10:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC) 1211:with what they said. Chen in ' 746:smilar to what we've done for 590:of China including Mongolia." 129:I am moving this article from 1: 4165:05:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 4151:05:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 4132:04:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC) 3813:is an editorial one. I think 3702:Foreign relations of Tanzania 2745:. The reasons for not moving 2389:, the one in Honduras is the 2320:15:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC) 2310:altogether could be dropped. 2128:13:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC) 2067:17:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 1991:13:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 1972:11:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 1957:10:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 1929:09:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 1911:23:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1896:19:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1877:19:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1859:19:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1838:09:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1819:02:51, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 1804:22:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 1772:includes just one state, the 1395:further down in the article. 809:20:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 788:20:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 772:19:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC) 693:01:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 551:22:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC) 267:19:49, August 24, 2005 (UTC) 250:12:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC) 117:19:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC) 3848:Foreign relations of Taiwan 3694:Foreign relations of Bolivia 3343:Foreign relations of Taiwan 2194:22:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 2180:11:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 2161:20:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC) 2142:12:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC) 2052:22:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 1740:11:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 1723:14:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 1700:04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 1585:04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 1571:00:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC) 1554:14:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 1536:02:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 1515:07:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 1496:23:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC) 1465:23:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC) 1436:08:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC) 1409:07:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC) 1385:15:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 1370:13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 1332:16:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 1306:15:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 1284:13:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 1251:01:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 1237:01:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC) 1217:National Unification Council 1191:18:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 1100:14:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 1075:14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 1058:14:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 954:09:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 934:National Unification Council 922:03:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 904:03:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC) 875:15:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC) 736:15:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC) 713:14:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC) 571:15:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 531:22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC) 517:08:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC) 409:16:56, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 395:21:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC) 373:07:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 359:07:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 349:06:29, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 332:04:41, 3 November 2005 (UTC) 322:18:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 293:15:34, 2 November 2005 (UTC) 172:)] 21:07, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC) 4104:04:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC) 3706:United Republic of Tanzania 3217:Ministry of Foreign Affairs 3068:. This article, along with 2801:Oh and with regards to the 2663:Foreign relations of Taiwan 2420:Foreign relations of Taiwan 2353:Foreign relations of Taiwan 2268:) 02:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC) 2105:19:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC) 1164:"The One China policy is a 887:Foreign relations of Israel 498:14:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 474:11:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC) 467:Foreign relations of Bhutan 457:14:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 438:Foreign relations of Bhutan 428:07:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC) 302:foreign relations of Taiwan 191: 187:)] 21:11, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC) 151:foreign relations of Taiwan 131:foreign relations of Taiwan 103:18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC) 87:17:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC) 4259: 4060:People's Republic of China 3660:Foreign relations of Burma 3579: 3575:foreign relations of China 3552: 3547:Foreign relations of China 3536: 3028:Foreign relations of India 2866:Republic of China (Taiwan) 2694:Republic of China (Taiwan) 2593:04:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 2575:01:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 2546:08:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 2520:02:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 2497:01:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC) 2474:23:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 2457:18:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 2436:16:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 2405:14:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC) 2368:12:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC) 616:01:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 597:01:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC) 147:political status of Taiwan 139:political status of Taiwan 4087:17:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC) 4007: 3990: 3971: 3952: 3896: 3861: 3850: 3841: 3832:12:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC) 3779:14:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3637:First of All, Thanks for 3630:12:23, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3620:17:42, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3597:13:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3549:is a disambiguation page: 3528:11:30, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3498: 3481: 3462: 3443: 3387: 3356: 3345: 3336: 3330:10:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3307:11:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3283:10:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3137:17:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3123:11:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3101:09:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3086:09:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3044:09:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 3014:08:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 2996:08:16, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 2956:09:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 2930:11:17, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 2916:09:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 2901:09:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 2887:08:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 2849:08:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC) 2653:10:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 2300:18:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 2280:03:00, 14 June 2011 (UTC) 2243:08:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC) 2001:Should Article be Deleted 1443:Be sure to say what they 1213:four noes and one without 1144:"即國防、外交、與兩岸關係是直屬總統權責的三塊" 836:22:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC) 756:Japanese–Soviet relations 678:18:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 440:. Do you have a source? - 240:18:54, 8 July 2005 (UTC) 4043:Please do not modify it. 4008:English language titles 3580:Not to be confused with 3499:English language titles 3295:Knowledge:Article titles 2815:23:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 2797:23:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 2759:14:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 2733:14:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 2708:10:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 2679:10:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC) 2631:Please do not modify it. 2607:Please do not modify it. 2339:Please do not modify it. 2214:10:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC) 1644:02:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 1201:one country on each side 1018:02:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC) 657:22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 646:22:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC) 421:very few have such notes 3967:Arguable (less common) 3964:Arguable (more common) 3211:Office of the President 3199:has been redirected to 3178:(already redirected to 3165:with different options. 634:05:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC) 3158: 1591:Cross-strait relations 1317:Cross-strait relations 969:Cross-strait relations 760:Japan-Russia relations 698:The ROC in the Pacific 203: 4027:12:16, 11 June 2012‎ 3157: 2874:the UK Foreign Office 1473:is not a synonym for 1117:Talk:One-China_policy 415:ROC to PRC transition 304:to the present title. 42:of past discussions. 3820:template:distinguish 3815:template:distinguish 3811:template:distinguish 3800:template:distinguish 3795:template:distinguish 2721:failed move proposal 385:"generally excluded" 4173:relations with SMOM 4120:11 UN member states 4110:Link to recognizers 4068:Taiwan independence 2357:(non-admin closure) 2072:Possible references 1781:UN Security Council 1268:onto it when I can. 973:User:PalaceGuard008 4118:version (or here: 4114:Clicking on 22 in 3245:2. Taiwan/R.O.C., 3159: 2249:Nations in Oceania 853:I changed it to:- 159:Republic of Taiwan 4077:comment added by 4064:Republic of China 4031: 4024: 4023: 3515: 3514: 3230:Republic of China 3202:Economy of Taiwan 3176:Republic of China 3066:Republic of China 2994: 2645:Anthony Appleyard 2358: 2260:comment added by 1884:original research 1634:Your opinions? -- 1008:Your opinions? -- 549: 436:This contradicts 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4250: 4243: 4239: 4089: 4045: 4026: 3867:Recognizability 3839: 3649: 3648: 3362:Recognizability 3334: 3293:Please refer to 3264:highlight Taiwan 3172:Taiwanese people 3018:Counterexample: 3000:Counterexample: 2990: 2988: 2983: 2633: 2609: 2356: 2341: 2269: 1179:One-China_policy 545: 204:Grenada's switch 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4258: 4257: 4253: 4252: 4251: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4240: 4236: 4175: 4112: 4072: 4055: 4050: 4041: 3991:Disambiguation 3754:the website is 3646: 3585: 3571:WP:PRIMARYTOPIC 3558: 3542: 3482:Disambiguation 3317: 3186:. Actually, we 3174:and citizen of 2984: 2981: 2859:WP:OFFICIALNAME 2837:WP:OFFICIALNAME 2785:WP:OFFICIALNAME 2686: 2629: 2619: 2614: 2605: 2483:Knowledge that 2412: 2337: 2327: 2307: 2287: 2272:208.102.151.116 2262:208.102.151.116 2255: 2251: 2201: 2168: 2149: 2112: 2074: 2003: 1917:to make a point 1846: 1756: 1481:POV is not the 1392: 1352: 882: 843: 816: 814:Double negation 796: 743: 720: 700: 686: 684:+886 TEL prefix 643:That-Vela-Fella 604: 579: 543:Septentrionalis 538: 510: 417: 387: 258: 217: 206: 194: 127: 125:Name of article 75: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4256: 4254: 4245: 4244: 4233: 4232: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4174: 4171: 4170: 4169: 4168: 4167: 4111: 4108: 4107: 4106: 4054: 4051: 4049: 4048: 4038:requested move 4022: 4021: 4020:Not a concern 4018: 4017:Not a concern 4015: 4014:Not a concern 4012: 4011:Not a concern 4009: 4005: 4004: 4003:Not a concern 4001: 4000:Not a concern 3998: 3997:Not a concern 3995: 3994:Not a concern 3992: 3988: 3987: 3986:Not a concern 3984: 3983:Not a concern 3981: 3980:Not a concern 3978: 3977:Not a concern 3975: 3969: 3968: 3965: 3962: 3959: 3956: 3950: 3949: 3946: 3943: 3940: 3937: 3933: 3932: 3929: 3926: 3923: 3920: 3916: 3915: 3912: 3909: 3906: 3903: 3899: 3898: 3895: 3888: 3885: 3881: 3880: 3877: 3874: 3871: 3868: 3865: 3859: 3858: 3855: 3852: 3849: 3846: 3837: 3836: 3835: 3834: 3807:template:about 3805:The choice of 3803: 3791:template:about 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3767: 3760: 3743: 3725: 3683: 3656: 3623: 3622: 3608: 3604: 3567: 3566: 3551: 3550: 3543: 3534: 3513: 3512: 3509: 3506: 3503: 3500: 3496: 3495: 3492: 3489: 3486: 3483: 3479: 3478: 3475: 3472: 3469: 3466: 3460: 3459: 3456: 3453: 3450: 3447: 3441: 3440: 3437: 3434: 3431: 3428: 3424: 3423: 3420: 3417: 3414: 3411: 3407: 3406: 3403: 3400: 3397: 3394: 3390: 3389: 3386: 3383: 3380: 3376: 3375: 3372: 3369: 3366: 3363: 3360: 3354: 3353: 3350: 3347: 3344: 3341: 3316: 3313: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3309: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3268: 3267: 3252: 3250: 3248: 3246: 3244: 3242: 3239: 3206: 3167: 3166: 3152: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3148: 3147: 3146: 3145: 3144: 3143: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3139: 3054:United Kingdom 2966: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2932: 2862: 2833: 2829: 2817: 2781: 2768: 2761: 2710: 2685: 2682: 2656: 2637: 2636: 2626:requested move 2620: 2618: 2615: 2613: 2612: 2602:requested move 2596: 2595: 2577: 2555: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2550: 2549: 2548: 2523: 2522: 2500: 2499: 2477: 2476: 2459: 2438: 2411: 2408: 2373: 2371: 2345: 2344: 2334:requested move 2328: 2326: 2323: 2306: 2303: 2292:Metal.lunchbox 2286: 2283: 2250: 2247: 2246: 2245: 2227: 2224: 2220: 2200: 2197: 2167: 2164: 2148: 2145: 2111: 2108: 2094: 2093: 2088: 2083: 2073: 2070: 2040: 2039: 2002: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1993: 1939: 1938: 1937: 1936: 1935: 1934: 1933: 1932: 1931: 1845: 1842: 1841: 1840: 1821: 1792: 1791: 1788: 1777: 1770: 1755: 1752: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1732:PalaceGuard008 1710: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1702: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1636:PalaceGuard008 1631: 1630: 1625: 1620: 1605: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1587: 1528:PalaceGuard008 1523: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1467: 1452: 1449: 1423: 1419: 1401:PalaceGuard008 1391: 1388: 1351: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1337: 1336: 1335: 1334: 1320: 1294: 1290: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1239: 1227:perspective.-- 1224: 1220: 1208: 1199:' and Chen's ' 1166:current policy 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1125: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1113: 1087: 1083: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1041: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1010:PalaceGuard008 1005: 1004: 999: 994: 979: 978: 977: 976: 965: 959: 941: 929: 896:PalaceGuard008 881: 878: 859: 858: 851: 850: 842: 839: 824: 823: 815: 812: 795: 792: 791: 790: 742: 739: 719: 716: 699: 696: 685: 682: 681: 680: 670:Metal.lunchbox 660: 659: 603: 600: 578: 575: 574: 573: 537: 534: 509: 506: 505: 504: 503: 502: 501: 500: 483:Justin (koavf) 442:Justin (koavf) 416: 413: 412: 411: 392:SchmuckyTheCat 386: 383: 382: 381: 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 363: 362: 361: 257: 254: 253: 252: 216: 213: 209:This BBC story 205: 202: 193: 190: 189: 188: 126: 123: 122: 121: 120: 119: 79:77.122.111.141 74: 71: 69: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4255: 4242: 4238: 4235: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4210: 4206: 4202: 4201: 4200: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4186: 4184: 4180: 4172: 4166: 4162: 4158: 4154: 4153: 4152: 4148: 4144: 4140: 4136: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4121: 4117: 4109: 4105: 4101: 4097: 4092: 4091: 4090: 4088: 4084: 4080: 4076: 4069: 4065: 4061: 4052: 4047: 4044: 4039: 4034: 4033: 4032: 4030: 4019: 4016: 4013: 4010: 4006: 4002: 3999: 3996: 3993: 3989: 3985: 3982: 3979: 3976: 3974: 3970: 3966: 3963: 3960: 3957: 3955: 3954:WP:COMMONNAME 3951: 3947: 3944: 3941: 3938: 3935: 3934: 3930: 3927: 3924: 3921: 3918: 3917: 3913: 3910: 3907: 3904: 3901: 3900: 3893: 3889: 3886: 3883: 3882: 3878: 3875: 3872: 3869: 3866: 3864: 3860: 3856: 3853: 3847: 3845: 3840: 3833: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3816: 3812: 3808: 3804: 3801: 3796: 3792: 3788: 3787: 3786: 3785: 3780: 3776: 3772: 3768: 3765: 3761: 3758: 3757: 3751: 3750: 3744: 3742: 3738: 3736: 3732: 3726: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3711: 3707: 3703: 3699: 3695: 3691: 3688: 3684: 3681: 3677: 3673: 3669: 3665: 3661: 3657: 3655: 3653: 3643: 3641: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3627: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3583: 3578: 3576: 3572: 3564: 3560: 3559: 3556: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3535: 3532: 3531: 3530: 3529: 3525: 3521: 3510: 3507: 3504: 3501: 3497: 3493: 3490: 3487: 3484: 3480: 3476: 3473: 3470: 3467: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3454: 3451: 3448: 3446: 3445:WP:COMMONNAME 3442: 3438: 3435: 3432: 3429: 3426: 3425: 3421: 3418: 3415: 3412: 3409: 3408: 3404: 3401: 3398: 3395: 3392: 3391: 3384: 3381: 3378: 3377: 3373: 3370: 3367: 3364: 3361: 3359: 3355: 3351: 3348: 3342: 3340: 3335: 3332: 3331: 3327: 3323: 3314: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3284: 3280: 3276: 3272: 3271: 3270: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3240: 3237: 3236: 3231: 3228: 3224: 3220: 3218: 3213: 3212: 3207: 3204: 3203: 3198: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3181: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3168: 3164: 3161: 3160: 3156: 3138: 3134: 3130: 3126: 3125: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3103: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3089: 3088: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3050:United States 3047: 3046: 3045: 3041: 3037: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3021: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3011: 3007: 3003: 2999: 2998: 2997: 2993: 2989: 2987: 2978: 2974: 2970: 2967: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2937: 2931: 2927: 2923: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2913: 2909: 2904: 2903: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2890: 2889: 2888: 2884: 2880: 2875: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2860: 2856: 2855:WP:COMMONNAME 2852: 2851: 2850: 2846: 2842: 2838: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2822: 2818: 2816: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2783:We don't use 2782: 2778: 2773: 2772:FT's coverage 2769: 2766: 2765:WP:COMMONNAME 2762: 2760: 2756: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2740: 2736: 2735: 2734: 2730: 2726: 2722: 2718: 2714: 2711: 2709: 2705: 2701: 2698: 2695: 2691: 2688: 2687: 2683: 2681: 2680: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2655: 2654: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2635: 2632: 2627: 2622: 2621: 2616: 2611: 2608: 2603: 2598: 2597: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2581: 2578: 2576: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2557: 2556: 2547: 2543: 2539: 2535: 2532:redirects to 2531: 2527: 2526: 2525: 2524: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2508:WP:COMMONNAME 2504: 2503: 2502: 2501: 2498: 2494: 2490: 2486: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2460: 2458: 2454: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2439: 2437: 2433: 2429: 2425: 2422:redirects to 2421: 2417: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2407: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2395: 2392: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2370: 2369: 2365: 2361: 2354: 2350: 2343: 2340: 2335: 2330: 2329: 2324: 2322: 2321: 2317: 2313: 2304: 2302: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2284: 2282: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2267: 2263: 2259: 2248: 2244: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2225: 2221: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2211: 2207: 2198: 2196: 2195: 2191: 2187: 2186:Chocokake5057 2182: 2181: 2177: 2173: 2172:Mistakefinder 2163: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2153:Mistakefinder 2146: 2144: 2143: 2139: 2135: 2134:Mistakefinder 2130: 2129: 2125: 2121: 2117: 2109: 2107: 2106: 2102: 2098: 2092: 2089: 2087: 2084: 2082: 2079: 2078: 2077: 2071: 2069: 2068: 2064: 2060: 2054: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2044:Chocokake5057 2038: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2019: 2015: 2009: 2006: 2000: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1969: 1965: 1960: 1959: 1958: 1954: 1950: 1945: 1940: 1930: 1926: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1874: 1870: 1865: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1860: 1856: 1852: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1827: 1822: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1789: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1775: 1771: 1768: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1759: 1753: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1729: 1726: 1725: 1724: 1720: 1716: 1711: 1707: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1685: 1684: 1683: 1682: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1677: 1676: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1629: 1626: 1624: 1621: 1619: 1617: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1592: 1588: 1586: 1582: 1578: 1574: 1573: 1572: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1542: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1533: 1529: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1508: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1484: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1468: 1466: 1462: 1458: 1453: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1439: 1438: 1437: 1433: 1429: 1424: 1420: 1417: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1406: 1402: 1396: 1389: 1387: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1372: 1371: 1367: 1363: 1358: 1354:The sentence 1349: 1333: 1329: 1325: 1321: 1318: 1313: 1309: 1308: 1307: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1272: 1266: 1261: 1260: 1258: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1248: 1244: 1240: 1238: 1234: 1230: 1225: 1221: 1218: 1214: 1209: 1206: 1202: 1198: 1194: 1193: 1192: 1188: 1184: 1180: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1167: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1141: 1140: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1130: 1118: 1114: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1102: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1088: 1084: 1081: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1046: 1042: 1039: 1038: 1037: 1036: 1035: 1034: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1015: 1011: 1003: 1000: 998: 995: 993: 991: 986: 985: 984: 983: 974: 970: 966: 963: 960: 957: 956: 955: 951: 947: 942: 939: 935: 930: 926: 925: 924: 923: 919: 915: 909: 906: 905: 901: 897: 891: 888: 879: 877: 876: 872: 868: 863: 856: 855: 854: 848: 847: 846: 841:A Minor Issue 840: 838: 837: 833: 829: 821: 820: 819: 813: 811: 810: 806: 802: 793: 789: 785: 781: 776: 775: 774: 773: 769: 765: 761: 757: 753: 749: 740: 738: 737: 733: 729: 725: 717: 715: 714: 710: 706: 697: 695: 694: 691: 683: 679: 675: 671: 667: 662: 661: 658: 655: 650: 649: 648: 647: 644: 641: 636: 635: 632: 628: 626: 623: 618: 617: 614: 610: 609: 601: 599: 598: 595: 591: 587: 585: 576: 572: 568: 564: 559: 555: 554: 553: 552: 548: 544: 535: 533: 532: 528: 524: 523:Chocokake5057 519: 518: 515: 507: 499: 496: 492: 488: 484: 480: 477: 476: 475: 472: 468: 464: 460: 459: 458: 455: 451: 447: 443: 439: 435: 432: 431: 430: 429: 426: 422: 414: 410: 407: 404: 399: 398: 397: 396: 393: 384: 374: 371: 368: 364: 360: 357: 352: 351: 350: 347: 344: 339: 335: 334: 333: 330: 325: 324: 323: 320: 317: 312: 309: 305: 303: 296: 295: 294: 291: 287: 285: 281: 279: 275: 270: 269: 268: 266: 263: 255: 251: 248: 243: 242: 241: 239: 235: 232: 229: 228: 224: 221: 214: 212: 210: 201: 199: 198:this BBC link 196:According to 186: 182: 178: 175: 174: 173: 171: 167: 163: 160: 156: 152: 148: 144: 140: 136: 132: 124: 118: 114: 110: 109:77.122.111.30 106: 105: 104: 100: 96: 91: 90: 89: 88: 84: 80: 72: 70: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4237: 4187: 4182: 4176: 4113: 4079:114.42.73.19 4073:— Preceding 4056: 4042: 4035: 4025: 3936:Consistency 3919:Conciseness 3891: 3884:Naturalness 3763: 3753: 3746: 3740: 3728: 3689: 3686: 3650: 3638: 3624: 3586: 3568: 3516: 3427:Consistency 3410:Conciseness 3379:Naturalness 3318: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3233: 3226: 3222: 3215: 3209: 3200: 3191: 3187: 3183: 3162: 3110: 2985: 2977:country name 2976: 2968: 2865: 2776: 2743:Vatican City 2712: 2693: 2689: 2657: 2640: 2638: 2630: 2623: 2606: 2599: 2579: 2558: 2484: 2461: 2444: 2440: 2415: 2372: 2355:as a title. 2348: 2346: 2338: 2331: 2312:86.42.18.148 2308: 2288: 2256:— Preceding 2252: 2202: 2183: 2169: 2150: 2131: 2113: 2095: 2075: 2055: 2041: 2010: 2007: 2005:This entry: 2004: 1978: 1847: 1825: 1793: 1774:Vatican City 1760: 1757: 1754:Fair Comment 1727: 1674: 1673: 1633: 1632: 1627: 1622: 1615: 1613: 1607: 1606: 1558: 1540: 1482: 1478: 1474: 1470: 1444: 1440: 1415: 1397: 1393: 1373: 1355: 1353: 1310: 1264: 1256: 1163: 1143: 1142: 1138: 1137: 1133: 1132: 1127: 1126: 1079: 1044: 1032: 1031: 1007: 1006: 1001: 996: 989: 987: 981: 980: 961: 910: 907: 892: 883: 864: 860: 852: 844: 825: 817: 797: 744: 723: 721: 701: 687: 637: 629: 619: 611: 605: 592: 588: 580: 539: 520: 511: 508:Micronations 478: 433: 418: 388: 338:special:logs 336:I was using 299: 259: 236: 233: 230: 225: 222: 218: 207: 195: 154: 150: 146: 142: 128: 76: 73:Kosovo issue 68: 60: 43: 37: 4096:24.60.42.14 3973:WP:POVTITLE 3863:WP:CRITERIA 3842:Section of 3793:instead of 3771:Wildcursive 3672:Timor-Leste 3658:1. We have 3654:likes this. 3652:Wildcursive 3640:Eraserhead1 3612:Eraserhead1 3607:understand. 3563:Eraserhead1 3464:WP:POVTITLE 3358:WP:CRITERIA 3337:Section of 3322:Eraserhead1 3275:Wildcursive 3243:1. Taiwan, 3192:Distinguish 3129:Eraserhead1 3093:Eraserhead1 3036:Eraserhead1 3032:WP:CRITERIA 2948:Eraserhead1 2908:Eraserhead1 2879:Eraserhead1 2807:Eraserhead1 2789:Eraserhead1 2671:Eraserhead1 1787:member; and 1767:microstates 1522:consistent. 1312:presidency. 602:Saint Lucia 36:This is an 4219:Japinderum 4190:Japinderum 4029:User:Jiang 3902:Precision 3729:How about 3393:Precision 3238:for years. 3060:, but not 2641:page moved 2204:Regards.-- 1979:they think 1293:relations. 828:Hairy Dude 654:Konekoniku 631:Konekoniku 613:Konekoniku 594:Konekoniku 547:PMAnderson 3692:such as: 3603:position. 3477:Arguable 3474:Arguable 3458:Arguable 3455:Arguable 3374:Arguable 2349:not moved 2206:HCPUNXKID 1811:Bevinbell 1616:relations 1390:Lead trim 1026:and later 990:relations 584:this link 181:Lowellian 166:Lowellian 61:Archive 1 4075:unsigned 3931:Toss up 3928:Toss up 3745:4. BTW, 3422:Toss up 3419:Toss up 3223:passport 3107:hatnotes 3062:Holy See 2803:Holy See 2700:Kauffner 2466:Kauffner 2397:Kauffner 2258:unsigned 2132:Done! -- 2014:Redking7 1964:Redking7 1944:Redking7 1903:Redking7 1869:Redking7 1851:Redking7 1796:Redking7 1479:official 1477:. The 1471:official 1357:growing. 1086:article. 764:Kevlar67 724:de facto 536:Mongolia 247:Akinkhoo 4143:GrahamN 3892:shorten 3664:Myanmar 3163:Support 2969:Support 2690:Support 2462:Comment 2360:Jenks24 2229:Of the 2097:Laurent 2029:Laurent 1983:Laurent 1949:Vmenkov 1921:Laurent 1888:Laurent 1830:Laurent 1614:actual 1265:de jure 1115:On the 988:actual 690:Jidanni 479:Oh well 434:Bhutan? 356:Huaiwei 329:Huaiwei 290:Huaiwei 39:archive 3716:; and 3674:, and 3256:Taiwan 3235:Taiwan 3221:. Our 3188:reject 3180:Taiwan 3076:too.-- 3056:, and 2973:Taiwan 2713:Oppose 2684:Survey 2580:Oppose 2561:. Per 2559:Oppose 2512:Readin 2449:Readin 2447:...". 2445:Taiwan 2441:Oppose 2416:Oppose 2410:Survey 2235:Alinor 2120:Alinor 2059:Int21h 1715:Readin 1692:Readin 1577:Readin 1546:Readin 1488:Readin 1457:Readin 1416:per se 1362:Readin 1324:Readin 1276:Readin 1223:stage. 1183:Readin 1129:wrong. 1067:Readin 1050:Readin 914:Readin 801:Readin 780:Readin 728:Readin 471:Alinor 425:Alinor 406:ntnood 370:ntnood 346:ntnood 319:ntnood 311:ntnood 265:ntnood 155:Taiwan 95:Readin 4183:seems 4181:. It 3844:WP:AT 3824:Jiang 3628:: --> 3618:: --> 3589:Jiang 3520:Jiang 3339:WP:AT 3328:: --> 3299:Jiang 3170:As a 3135:: --> 3115:Jiang 3099:: --> 3078:Jiang 3058:India 3042:: --> 3006:Jiang 2954:: --> 2922:Jiang 2914:: --> 2893:Jiang 2885:: --> 2870:China 2841:Jiang 2813:: --> 2795:: --> 2780:same. 2777:still 2751:Jiang 2725:Jiang 2677:: --> 2669:. -- 2563:Jiang 2538:Jiang 2489:Jiang 2428:Jiang 1783:or a 1544:law. 1110:WP:OR 1106:WP:OR 754:, or 741:Split 705:Aridd 514:Dr.-B 403:Insta 367:Insta 343:Insta 316:Insta 308:Insta 284:Macao 278:Macau 262:Insta 238:Siyac 16:< 4223:talk 4209:talk 4194:talk 4177:See 4161:talk 4147:talk 4128:talk 4116:this 4100:talk 4083:talk 4062:and 3958:Yes 3945:Yes 3939:Yes 3922:Yes 3914:Yes 3887:Yes 3876:Yes 3870:Yes 3828:talk 3818:(as 3775:talk 3752:and 3733:and 3720:for 3712:for 3704:for 3696:for 3670:for 3626:talk 3616:talk 3614:< 3593:talk 3565:< 3524:talk 3511:Yes 3508:Yes 3505:Yes 3502:Yes 3494:Yes 3491:Yes 3485:Yes 3449:Yes 3436:Yes 3430:Yes 3413:Yes 3405:Yes 3382:Yes 3371:Yes 3365:Yes 3326:talk 3324:< 3303:talk 3279:talk 3232:and 3227:both 3214:and 3208:Our 3133:talk 3131:< 3119:talk 3111:this 3097:talk 3095:< 3082:talk 3064:and 3040:talk 3038:< 3010:talk 2992:talk 2952:talk 2950:< 2926:talk 2912:talk 2910:< 2897:talk 2883:talk 2881:< 2857:not 2845:talk 2823:and 2811:talk 2809:< 2793:talk 2791:< 2755:talk 2729:talk 2704:talk 2675:talk 2673:< 2667:move 2649:talk 2589:talk 2571:talk 2542:talk 2516:talk 2493:talk 2470:talk 2453:talk 2432:talk 2401:talk 2364:talk 2316:talk 2296:talk 2276:talk 2266:talk 2239:talk 2210:talk 2190:talk 2176:talk 2157:talk 2138:talk 2124:talk 2110:ICRC 2101:talk 2063:talk 2048:talk 2033:talk 2018:talk 1987:talk 1968:talk 1953:talk 1925:talk 1907:talk 1892:talk 1873:talk 1855:talk 1834:talk 1815:talk 1800:talk 1736:Talk 1719:talk 1696:talk 1640:Talk 1581:talk 1567:talk 1550:talk 1532:Talk 1511:talk 1492:talk 1483:only 1475:only 1461:talk 1432:talk 1405:Talk 1381:talk 1366:talk 1328:talk 1302:talk 1280:talk 1247:talk 1233:talk 1187:talk 1096:talk 1071:talk 1054:talk 1014:Talk 950:talk 936:and 918:talk 900:Talk 871:talk 832:talk 805:talk 784:talk 768:talk 762:. - 758:and 732:talk 709:talk 674:talk 567:talk 563:Yaan 527:talk 274:edit 185:talk 170:talk 113:talk 99:talk 83:talk 4205:TDL 4157:TDL 4124:TDL 4040:. 3961:No 3925:No 3911:No 3809:or 3769:-- 3727:3. 3685:2. 3561:-- 3452:No 3416:No 3402:No 3385:No 3273:-- 3262:to 3004:.-- 2982:mge 2604:. 2585:CMD 2567:梁棚元 2536:.-- 2485:all 1660:and 1563:pyl 1507:pyl 1445:did 1428:pyl 1377:pyl 1298:pyl 1243:pyl 1229:pyl 1092:pyl 946:pyl 867:pyl 718:Map 288:?-- 282:to 133:to 4225:) 4211:) 4196:) 4163:) 4149:) 4130:) 4102:) 4085:) 3830:) 3777:) 3708:; 3700:; 3666:, 3595:) 3587:-- 3526:) 3305:) 3281:) 3121:) 3084:) 3052:, 3026:, 3022:, 3012:) 2944:US 2940:UK 2928:) 2899:) 2847:) 2757:) 2731:) 2706:) 2661:→ 2651:) 2628:. 2591:) 2573:) 2565:. 2544:) 2518:) 2495:) 2472:) 2455:) 2434:) 2418:. 2403:) 2377:→ 2366:) 2336:. 2318:) 2298:) 2278:) 2270:-- 2241:) 2212:) 2192:) 2178:) 2159:) 2140:) 2126:) 2118:. 2103:) 2065:) 2050:) 2035:) 2020:) 1989:) 1970:) 1955:) 1927:) 1909:) 1894:) 1875:) 1857:) 1836:) 1826:we 1817:) 1802:) 1785:G8 1738:) 1721:) 1698:) 1642:) 1583:) 1569:) 1552:) 1534:) 1513:) 1494:) 1463:) 1434:) 1407:) 1383:) 1368:) 1330:) 1304:) 1282:) 1249:) 1235:) 1207:'. 1189:) 1181:. 1098:) 1073:) 1056:) 1045:do 1016:) 952:) 920:) 902:) 873:) 834:) 807:) 786:) 770:) 750:, 734:) 711:) 676:) 586:. 569:) 529:) 423:. 306:— 115:) 101:) 85:) 4221:( 4207:( 4192:( 4159:( 4145:( 4126:( 4098:( 4081:( 3826:( 3773:( 3766:. 3759:. 3737:? 3724:. 3682:. 3642:' 3591:( 3584:. 3557:. 3541:. 3522:( 3301:( 3277:( 3266:. 3205:. 3117:( 3080:( 3008:( 2986:o 2924:( 2895:( 2843:( 2753:( 2727:( 2702:( 2696:. 2647:( 2587:( 2569:( 2540:( 2514:( 2491:( 2468:( 2451:( 2430:( 2399:( 2362:( 2314:( 2294:( 2274:( 2264:( 2237:( 2208:( 2188:( 2174:( 2155:( 2136:( 2122:( 2099:( 2061:( 2046:( 2031:( 2016:( 1985:( 1966:( 1951:( 1923:( 1905:( 1890:( 1871:( 1853:( 1832:( 1813:( 1798:( 1734:( 1717:( 1694:( 1638:( 1593:: 1579:( 1565:( 1548:( 1530:( 1509:( 1490:( 1459:( 1430:( 1403:( 1379:( 1364:( 1326:( 1300:( 1278:( 1245:( 1231:( 1185:( 1146:1 1094:( 1069:( 1052:( 1012:( 948:( 940:. 916:( 898:( 869:( 830:( 803:( 782:( 766:( 730:( 707:( 672:( 565:( 525:( 495:M 493:· 491:C 489:· 487:T 485:· 454:M 452:· 450:C 448:· 446:T 444:· 183:( 179:— 168:( 164:— 111:( 97:( 81:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index