Talk:List of diplomatic missions of the Holy See

Discussion at WP:FOR on formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" article
There is now a discussion at WP:FOR on the formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" articles. As this discussion ostensibly could affect this article, editors are encouraged to provide their opinions on the WP:FOR at this link - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations - please do not discuss on this article talk page as valid points for consideration may very well not be seen by editors at large. Thank you, --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 00:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Nomination
List class articles cannot be nominated for GA status. They may either be nominated as featured lists at WP:FAC or as A-Class articles at project level. Please see WP:Good article criteria I have removed the nomination. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

SMOM
See here - does the Holy See has a mission/accreditation to SMOM? Alinor (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * SMOM has a mission accredited to the Holy See (Annuario Pontificio 2008 - I don't have a later edition - lists "Ordine di Malta (Sovrano Militare)" between "Nuova Zelanda" and "Paesi Bassi" (Netherlands) on page 1395 among the missions of the "Corpo Diplomatico presso la Santa Sede" (Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy See); but the Holy See has no diplomatic mission to SMOM (Annuario Pontificio 2008 has only the non-diplomatic apostolic delegation "Oceano Pacifico" between "Nuova Zelanda" and "Paesi Bassi" among the "Rappresentanze Pontificie" (Papal Representative Missions) on page 1362.  Esoglou (talk) 19:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation needed
Copied from Esoglou talk page:

I noticed you have been quite a prolific contributor to Wikipedia, and have just discovered this article

You recently made a number of changes in good faith to the article List of diplomatic missions of the Holy See, including listing resident and non-resident representations, and adding a second map. This and other Diplomatic Missions by Country (DMBC) articles were written and compiled to focus on diplomatic missions (ie: a physical presence), and not non-resident accreditations, honorary consulates and other details.

You may not have noticed that we have over 180 articles listing the diplomatic missions of every country in the world. Since 2006 these articles have followed a consistent format, and we rigorously stick to standards about what is included, and how it is included. The changes you have proposed do not fit with either the purpose or style of these articles, and I have reverted the article back.

If you have a compelling reason why we should modify a longstanding policies on the style and content of over 180 articles, this would need to be discussed with other editors.

However what you have written is still worth including on Wikipedia. You might wish to take the suggestion I provided to you earier and create an article to list all the nuncios (ambassadors), like List of Ambassadors from Ethiopia or List of ambassadors from South Korea. You could also write biographies of the nuncios, since I notice very few have articles - you seem to have contributed many articles on religious matters, and your knowledge and passion could be best placed contributing on writing the bios of nuncios.

Kransky (talk) 12:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that "diplomatic missions" is generally used in reference to diplomatic relations with accreditation of ambassadors (wherever resident), presentation of credentials, etc. That is the meaning attached to the term by, for instance,  the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland.
 * This seems to have been the understanding also of new-name User:MTVarro, who prepared the excellent and up-to-the-minute list of the diplomatic missions of the Holy See (plus the apostolic delegations), together with an indication of the present head of mission and date of appointment. It was to MTVarro, not to me, that Kranksy objected on 23 February: "Keep to style used in most other DMBC articles. Suggest create separate article listing ambassadors (There is an ambassador accredited to Mongolia, but there certainly isn't an a diplomatic mission in Mongolia)."  Believing that MTVarro's edit was very much worth keeping, I responded: "The list is useful. In answer to the previous objection, I have marked Mongolia etc. as non-residential."  (By "Mongolia" I meant the diplomatic mission to Mongolia, as you can speak of the mission of Israel or of Finland to Mongolia.)  A diplomatic mission to a country, even if it is not in the country, is still a diplomatic mission of the sending power.  MTVarro provided, not just a list of nuncios (ambassadors of the Holy See), but a list of the countries to which there are diplomatic missions of the Holy See headed by these less numerous nuncios.  But Kransky has now reverted again back to the pre-MTVarro version.
 * If Kransky is indeed speaking in the name of the Wikipedia community (using "we") and if, unlike what MTVarro and I thought, the article is not about diplomatic missions in the usual sense, it seems to me that the article's title needs to be disambiguated, and should be changed to something like "Diplomatic missions of the Holy See (buildings)" or "Diplomatic missions of the Holy See (residential)". Esoglou (talk) 16:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The only edit made by MTVarro was in his entire time on Wikipedia was to reorder this article. For the sake of civility I will assume he is somebody totally different to Esoglou who joined Wikipedia, chose to edit the article and then decided to find another hobby, just as Esoglou coincidentally turns up and endorses his change. But anyhow, let's debate his proposal on its own merits.
 * True, a diplomatic mission can have a looser meaning (e.g.: Kissinger's diplomatic mission to China), as can an embassy be under some technical interpretations refer to just the residence of the ambassy. But since 2006 we have mangaged to achieve consensus on what should go in these articles to ensure maximum utility - almost everybody who has contributed thinks that diplomatic missions are resident accredited embassies, high commissions and consulates.  It is a handy catch-all term.  There has been some dissent about what should be included or excluded in the articles, but in those cases it has always on political issues particular to a country's sovereignty (Taiwan, Cyprus, Sahawri etc) rather than the general rules for the DMBC articles.
 * Nobody has ever proposed renaming the 180+ articles "List of embassies of X", "list of diplomatic facilities of Y" etc.  I think back in 2008 somebody proposed renaming the articles from "diplomatic missions of X" to "list of diplomatic missions of X", and we all agreed the change would be appropriate.  The scope and appearance of these articles have been debated before, and I believe a consensus has emerged that allows me to speak on behalf of it.
 * Some people wanted to include ambassadors in these articles, but were pursuaded to create new articles that list them, separate from an article that focusses on diplomatic missions exclusively.
 * You are welcome to propose the mass renaming/rewriting of 180+ articles, but I doubt many long-term writers are going to support such s radical idea coming from somebody who has only contributed to one article. Kransky (talk) 13:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you think it would be better to create a new article, such as List of nuncios, or to add this list in the article Nuncio? There already exists a list ([]), but it lists only diplomatic missions, with no names. MTVarro (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MTVarro, for intervening again. I refrain from using any adjective to qualify Kransky's insinuation that you are and I are the same person, including his use of the adverb "coincidentally".  You have proved yourself better informed than I am or was: I imagined that the person who was recently appointed non-resident papal representative to Vietnam had not ceased to be resident in Jakarta, and at first wrongly indicated that the seat of some apostolic delegations was in Indonesia, a mistake that I corrected later.  I considered your work so valuable and useful that, when it was removed from here, I inserted it at Foreign relations of the Holy See.  So it has not been lost.  Esoglou (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

List Turkey under Asia or under Europe
User:XLR8TION thinks Turkey should be listed under Europe because of being a member of the Council of Europe and NATO (and, one could add, having ambitions to become a member of the European Union). I think that those considerations do not outweigh the geographical fact that by far the greater part of Turkey, including its capital, is in Asia, any more than Israel's membership of some European organizations outweighs the geographical fact of where the whole of Israel is situated. This article has a geographical section headed "Middle East" (excluding Egypt and so corresponding to what is also called "West Asia"). I think that is the most suitable heading under which to place Turkey. Esoglou (talk) 13:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Long standing practice is that we categorise Turkey under Asia, which is consistent with the UN Geoscheme for categorising countries with continents for reporting purposes. An entertaining account of the debate is here: Category talk:Diplomatic missions by sending country.  Kransky (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Turkey is a member of the Council of Europe, NATO, and is a candidate for membership into the European Union. They are technically part of Europe. Please do not involve the Armenian Genocide in this as the UN never said that Turkey was a part of Asia and Armenia is part of Europe also as they are part of the Council of Europe. Religion does not play a role in determining a country's location. Georgraphy and membership in regional organizations does. --XLR8TION (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * For further information, please see --XLR8TION (talk) 15:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So where would you place Israel, a member of the United Nations Western European and Others Group, the European Broadcasting Area, UEFA, and doubtless several more organizations that do not come immediately to my mind? Just asking.  What Kransky says about consensus usage in Wikipedia seems more important than any arguments you or I could propose.  Esoglou (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's not confuse apples with oranges here. Israel has NO territory in Europe. Turkey does, and Armenia and Azerbaijan lie north of the Caucucus Mountains that formers the southern boundary of Europe from Asia. Please check out the article for Europe on this site. Furthermore, Turkey controlled most of Eastern Europe such as the Balkans and Greece until they won independence. The modern Turkish state modeled itself after Western Europe and adopted a Western style, secular democracy. Turkish is NOT related to Arabic or Hebrew. That's why it's not lumped together with the Middle East in the first place.--XLR8TION (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop posting threads on this everywhere. Centralise your rant at WT:BILATERAL. ... When your block expires that is.  Night w   04:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Great Britain
It’s an oddity that the Holy See has a nuncio accredited to Great Britain rather than the UK. What do we do for a flag icon? Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)