Talk:List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Closed diplomatic missions
Worth including, but perhaps in the main text at the beginning and not separately at the bottom. But if it is going to be included it should include as many closures as possible, and not just those that were recently closed. Kransky 12:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:FOR on formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" article
There is now a discussion at WP:FOR on the formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" articles. As this discussion ostensibly could affect this article, editors are encouraged to provide their opinions on the WP:FOR at this link - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_relations - please do not discuss on this article talk page as valid points for consideration may very well not be seen by editors at large. Thank you, --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 00:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Map
why no map? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.70.60 (talk) 05:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The map does not have a key and is therefore unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.2.172.164 (talk) 07:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The map is out of date I suggest it is re-done as their has recently been a review and many have closed and opened since this map was last edited2.123.131.244 (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Taiwan
The following from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office :

''The People's Republic of China claims sovereignty over Taiwan and regards Taiwan as a province of China. The United Kingdom acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of China and recognises the Chinese Government as the sole legal government of China. The United Kingdom does not recognise Taiwan as a state and does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. The United Kingdom considers the Taiwan issue as one to be settled by the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. We are strongly opposed to any use of force and urge both sides to engage in constructive dialogue''

In light of this, Taiwan cannot be listed as a country that the UK has sent a diplomatic mission to. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Redking, I think we had this discussion a while back concerning Ireland and Taiwan. The point that was made at the time was that even though the two did not have diplomatic relations, the offices in each other's capitals were to a significant degree managed by the foreign affairs ministries of either state, and carried out the same duties as a normal diplomatic missions.  In short the British office in Taipei is for all intents and purposes a diplomatic mission.


 * If you want to open up the debate and change this policy - something perfectly reasonable - it would need to apply to all countries in which have similar arrangements in Taiwan. Rather than doing it piecemeal for each individual country, propose the policy change at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations and seek consensus first before making a wholesale change.  Kransky (talk) 15:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We have been here before and we are here again. Please provide a source for your claim that the UK has a diplomatic mission to Taiwan /ROC. I have provided a source stating expressly that it does not. Until you have provided a source verifying your claim that the UK has a diplomatic mission to Taiwan / RoC - I must insist that you do not add Taiwan / RoC as a country the UK has a diplomatic mission to. This is the relevant talk page. Here. Nowhere else. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You have provided me a statement that states the UK does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. This is not the same thing as stating that the UK does not have a diplomatic mission in Taiwan.
 * Details of the British Trade and Cultural Office (BTCO) appear listed alongside diplomatic missions at the FCO website (see here). The website of the BTCO demonstrates that it carries out the core functions of a diplomatic mission.  As found for other sites, we therefore list these quasi institutions as diplomatic missions.
 * But if you feel so strongly that we should limit these articles to diplomatic missions according to the spirit and the letter of what they are, then fine! But go ahead and seek a consensus, and then apply a ruling to all DMBC articles - not just the few you dabble in.  Hence you should raise it in that forum, not just for this article.  It would not be appropriate to have two standards applying across all these articles.  Cheers.  Kransky (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Quote (again) "The United Kingdom does not recognise Taiwan as a state and does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan". The UK cannot have a diplomatic mission to Taiwan/RoC without having diplomatic relations with Taiwan/RoC. Your insitence on equating a trade and cultural office with a diplomatic mission is untenable. If you wish to create an article entitled List of foreign trade and cultural offices of the United Kingdom, "Taiwan"'s inclusion would be fine. Not here. Provide a source evidencing that it is a diplomatic mission if you wish to inclue it here. Until you do, I must insist you do not revert my edit. Again, this is the relevant talk page - no other page. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Please read and follow BOLD, revert, discuss cycle guidelines about making bold and disputed changes.
 * 2) Please provide a substantive reason why my argument for the BTCO's inclusion is not compelling. Discussion is about two sides engaging with each other's reasons.
 * 3) Your insitence on equating a trade and cultural office with a diplomatic mission is untenable. No - because Britain does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it has carried out normal reporting and consular functions under the guise of the office.  The BTCO is under the aegis of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  It is listed in the FCO website (whereas other trade and cultural offices are not).
 * 4) Here is my question for you - if you are so keen that the BTCO is removed, why are you not seeking the application of your principles across all DMBC articles? Kransky (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1)ANSWERS Please read and follow BOLD, revert, discuss cycle guidelines about making bold and disputed changes - Please see WP:Verify and WP: OR etc - basically, use facts, not politics in articles;
 * 2) Please provide a substantive reason why my argument for the BTCO's inclusion is not compelling. Discussion is about two sides engaging with each other's reasons. - My reasons are set out above - i.e. the UK has unambiguously stated it does not even recognise Taiwan as a state nor have diplomatic relations with it i.e. it absolutely does not have a diplomatic mission to Taiwan/RoC.
 * 3) Your insitence on equating a trade and cultural office with a diplomatic mission is untenable. No - because Britain does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, it has carried out normal reporting and consular functions under the guise of the office.  The BTCO is under the aegis of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  It is listed in the FCO website (whereas other trade and cultural offices are not).  - Taiwan/RoC is I think the only country on the list, in respect of whom the UK has expressly denied it "recognises" or has "diplomatic relations" with. You ignore that completely in your list and pretend that Taiwan/RoC should be listed like any other country - you must appreciate that that is entirely misleading for the reader as well as inaccurate. The UK does not even recognise Taiwan as a state but you inisist Taiwan must be listed as a country that the UK has diplomatic relations with. Your approach is indeed untenable.
 * 4) Here is my question for you - if you are so keen that the BTCO is removed, why are you not seeking the application of your principles across all DMBC articles? Kransky (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC) - This is the talk page for the article we are discussing. It is the relevant page. The question therefore does not arise - but for completeness, I would mention that the position of some countries may not be as clear-cut as the UK's (one size may not fit all etc) - The UK's approach is simply this: "The United Kingdom does not recognise Taiwan as a state and does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan" Very clear cut. It is abundently clear that it does not have a diplomatic mission to Taiwan! Regards. Redking7 (talk) 05:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Are you alleging that I am using original research, or the FCO website is not reliable?
 * 2) That is your interpretation of what a diplomatic mission is. Other people who have contributed to these articles have a different view.
 * 3) The crux of our disagreement is the extent to which we can say the BTCO is a diplomatic mission in form if not in name. If we can limit our discussions to this then we will save each other time, if that is what you want.  Taiwan/RoC is I think the only country on the list, in respect of whom the UK has expressly denied it "recognises" or has "diplomatic relations" with. You ignore that completely in your list and pretend that Taiwan/RoC should be listed like any other country  I cannot see how this supports your argument, and actually it boosts mine.  Ask yourself why does the FCO explicitly provides the caveat for Taiwan, but not for other unrecognised territories like Puntland or the Republic of Lakotah.  My reading is that it is because the FCO has a significant presence in Taiwan, but due to political sensitivities it needs to treat Taiwan as a special case, and thus its website reiterates Britain's commitment to the One China policy and its non-recognition of Taiwan/RoC.
 * 4) I consider these policy differences could be best analysed and managed by adopting a principle that if the the website of the sending country's foreign ministry makes a reference to its quasi-mission in Taiwan, alongside its list of other missions, then it can be listed in these articles.  This helps keep the articles consistent, which is why I recommended it is considered in tandem with similar articles.  There is no reason why UK missions should be treated differently.


 * Clearly you have serious differences with this. Let's seek the input of others.

Kransky (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RESPONSE: As before, I assume good faith and am happy to go back on any valid points you raise. None of the points you have raised are valid but I'll engage with your points any way - my responses are after the bits from the above I cut and paste:


 * 1) Are you alleging that I am using original research, or the FCO website is not reliable?

Claiming that a website that expressly denies the UK has diplomatic relations with Taiwan is a source that proves it does have diplomatic relations certainly strikes me as original.
 * 2) That is your interpretation of what a diplomatic mission is. Other people who have contributed to these articles have a different view.

How I or others inteprete does not matter here because the UK government is clear - Here it is again (I note you don't deny this is what the UK government's policy nor do you dispute the source):

''The People's Republic of China claims sovereignty over Taiwan and regards Taiwan as a province of China. The United Kingdom acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of China and recognises the Chinese Government as the sole legal government of China. The United Kingdom does not recognise Taiwan as a state and does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. The United Kingdom considers the Taiwan issue as one to be settled by the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. We are strongly opposed to any use of force and urge both sides to engage in constructive dialogue''


 * 3) The crux of our disagreement is the extent to which we can say the BTCO is a diplomatic mission in form if not in name. If we can limit our discussions to this then we will save each other time, if that is what you want.  Taiwan/RoC is I think the only country on the list, in respect of whom the UK has expressly denied it "recognises" or has "diplomatic relations" with. You ignore that completely in your list and pretend that Taiwan/RoC should be listed like any other country  I cannot see how this supports your argument, and actually it boosts mine.  Ask yourself why does the FCO explicitly provides the caveat for Taiwan, but not for other unrecognised territories like Puntland or the Republic of Lakotah.  My reading is that it is because the FCO has a significant presence in Taiwan, but due to political sensitivities it needs to treat Taiwan as a special case, and thus its website reiterates Britain's commitment to the One China policy and its non-recognition of Taiwan/RoC.

''Same point as above - The UK has made its position abundently clear. It entirely nonsense to suggest that a country that expressly states it does not have diplomatic relations (and you can't have a diplomatic mission without diplomatic relations - I am afraid, it is as simple as that. Nothing complicated about it. Establishing diplomatic relations is indeed a higly "political" act that can involve all sorts of "sensitivities" as you seem to appreciate. Thats why the UK has chosen not to establish diplomatic relations with Taiwan/RoC.''


 * 4) I consider these policy differences could be best analysed and managed by adopting a principle that if the the website of the sending country's foreign ministry makes a reference to its quasi-mission in Taiwan, alongside its list of other missions, then it can be listed in these articles.  This helps keep the articles consistent, which is why I recommended it is considered in tandem with similar articles.  There is no reason why UK missions should be treated differently.

''Suggesting we determine whether "diplomatic missions" have been sent to countries on the basis of whether a "sending" country makes any reference to any kind of presence in a territory, is, and surely you must appreciate it, nonsense. What is needed is simple old-fashioned well referenced sources that establish the facts. Thats what I have done above.''

We have had the discussion of "consistency between articles" versus "basic accuracy" before and you know where I stand - but in summary again, articles should be accurate.


 * Clearly you have serious differences with this. Let's seek the input of others.

''No canvassing please. - This arose the last time and I am afraid I expect canvassing will just mean politically motivated editors will "vote" to put aside basic accuracy in favour of their political viewpoints'' Kransky (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Redking7 (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * PS - I've asked an Admin to help out too. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've now asked another Administrator User: William M. Connolley to help out. I'm not sure if he will get involved or not. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 09:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * With deadlock continuing - no consensus around inclusion and exclusion, I have tried a new compromise - inclusion but with FCO statement also so reader so it can assess whether it should or should not be included. Redking7 (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not support the change you have proposed to this page.
 * As I stated to you earlier, this is a matter affecting all diplomatic mission by country articles. We are not going to have one rule for British missions, and another rule for others.  :::If you really are so passionate about this you should develop the guidelines as they effect all these articles.  You will need to discuss your views in the relevant talk room that encompasses all countries about your views.  You will need present your arguments in a coherent and logical format, and listen and take on board the views of others.  I will invite a wide range of regular contributors to give their views - there is a list on the talk page, and you are free to contact them.
 * You are free to suggest the caveated text (as you have just provided), or to propose that these quasi-missions should be taken out entirely, or really anything else that you consider is reasonable and practical.
 * If your guidelines are adopted, I think it can be expected that you will do the lion's share of the work in making the modifications to the other 200+ articles that will be affected.
 * On another matter, I have looked at your discussions with William. I don't think he will become involved in mediation, and frankly I don't blame him.  Your postings have an aggressive, vexacious tone that turns anybody against your arguments and yourself.  Whinging about the guidelines "being too long", but not bothering to be succinct in one's own writing, will not win friends either.  You are probably one step away from a total ban, and as you do not seem to have have acknowledged the consequences of your behaviour, I recommend that you stop and think what you write each time before you click that 'save page button'.
 * If, after a few days, I see that you have chosen not to seek consensus for your change, or have not raised any concerns about my proposed matter to resolve the issue, I will assume that you have dropped the matter. Consequently, I will revert the page back and the matter will be closed.
 * I trust these guidelines are not too long for you to understand. Peace Kransky (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see exemplary conduct from either Kransky or Redking7 here. If you want to engage in reverting, you are expected to read and understand WP:Dispute resolution. If either of you wants help in pursuing that, contact me. I will not vote on who is right in this dispute, just assist in following the steps. From Kransky's comment above: "If, after a few days, I see that you have chosen not to seek consensus for your change, or have not raised any concerns about my proposed matter to resolve the issue, I will assume that you have dropped the matter. Consequently, I will revert the page back and the matter will be closed." Kransky: Just waiting until the other guy stops paying attention is not a solution. You know that this point has been in dispute for a long time, and you need to find somebody besides you and Redking7 who is willing to think about this and give their own opinion. If there has already been a WP:Request for comment, please give a link to it. Those who continue to revert without following the steps of Dispute Resolution risk getting blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I *have* now read this stuff and I am going to comment. I don't think the text removed here is acceptable. We don't fill articles with caveats like this. RK's entire argument appears to consist of repeating The United Kingdom does not recognise Taiwan as a state and does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and ignoring the obvious counter-argument that it has something displaying all the characteristics of one. I was going to say there should be something to distinguish this, but I see that the office is labelled British Trade and Cultural Office rather than embassy, and I would have thought that would do. To determine whether it should be listed, I would be inclined to ask "what purpose does having it on this page serve"? But that is a difficult question to answer, as the entire page seems rather pointless William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The United Kingdom's position is that they officially don't recognize Taiwan, but in practice they sort of recognize it. Since Wikipedia does not have a mission of restoring consistency to things that are not consistent, as an editor (not as an admin) I agree that repeating the caveat that UK does not recognize Taiwan officially seems like overkill. If UK is really trying to dance between two positions we need to reflect that accurately, and not try to correct the consistency of their view. I imagine that somebody in a newspaper has already commented on the ridiculousness of this situation, and searching for such commentary would be a worthwhile task. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re "I was going to say there should be something to distinguish this, but I see that the office is labelled British Trade and Cultural Office rather than embassy, and I would have thought that would do" - Whatever merit there might be in that idea - its fatally flawed by the fact "RoC" is listed like any other country. No uninformed reader could but think the UK had the same sort of relations with the RoC as any other country - I could hardly really respond to your posting re listing Taiwan - Things like "it has something displaying all the characteristics of [a diplomatic mission]" - [Where's the Ambassador? etc.]. I don't think you have given the point any thought. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ps User W. Connolley - You even admit you hadn't bothered to read the talk page before you blocked me. Well done. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 19:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could we decide to limit this list to those countries where the UK has an ambassador? EdJohnston (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My view is that if a country like Britain is prepared to list its office in Taipei on its website alongside other diplomatic missions, then it can be included here. The quasi nature of the mission will be apparent to readers by its terminology (ie:  BTCO, not embassy)
 * As stated above, could we have this debate in the right talk page encompassing all diplomatic mission articles?  Kransky (talk) 23:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've left an admin comment here as a warning that on *this* article, if the Taiwan entry keeps getting reverted without a Talk consensus, blocks are possible. Redking7, due to his extensive block log, is on especially thin ice. Kransky, you are welcome to try widening the discussion to other pages, so long as you don't resume the revert war. Personally, I would still expect to see an ambassador or a consul if you think a diplomatic mission exists. A trade office doesn't sound like a diplomatic mission. I doubt that they issue passports or visas. EdJohnston (talk) 01:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not something much more easier? Email the relevant Department within the UK Government (In Australia that department would be the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) and ask if Taiwan is a diplomatic mission or if the trade office acts like one (diplomatic mission). Bidgee (talk) 02:12, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RedKing7 is proposing the policy change; therefore the onus should be on him to raise the issue.
 * Otherwise the text could be RedKing7 proposing to remove from all Diplomatic Missions by Country articles all references to government offices in Taiwan, except where they are expressly and unambiguously diplomatic missions of a country with diplomatic relations with the Republic of China. He will make the changes to all the articles if the proposal is accepted  I will then say my piece, and I will alert other members of the community (as listed).  This should be a clear and transparent process.
 * Bidgee, thanks for the idea, but trust me, foreign ministries don't want to get involved in the issue if they don't have to! Kransky (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Fully agree with you in principle Bidgee - Why not something much more easier? Email the relevant Department within the UK Government (In Australia that department would be the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade) and ask if Taiwan is a diplomatic mission or if the trade office acts like one (diplomatic mission) - The only thing is that they have already unambiguously stated that they don't have diplomatic relations with Taiwan (see my quote above - and you can't have a diplomatic mission without diplomatic relations!) so what would an email tell us that we don't already know? If you can email them though, please do. Re "RedKing7 is proposing the policy change; therefore the onus should be on him to raise the issue." Nonsense, its always been Wiki policy to stick to the facts. I'm not advocating a new policy. It looks like I am so far in the minority Bidgee, others - you wouldn't support even the compromise language I had inserted previously. Thats disappointing. All I am getting is further threats of being blocked (I've already been blocked for a week) rather than assistance in putting right a blatant inaccuracy in an article.  You could back me up and give your own opinion on this. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 09:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * To say that they "carried out the same duties as a normal diplomatic missions" might be a fact, but to conclude that it is therefor de facto a diplomatic mission is more than we Wikipedia writers ought to do. We might quote some politician, diplomat or journalist who has drawn that conclusion, but we writers should not be giving our own opinions. This is not a blog; it is an encyclopedia project. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The foreign ministries of several countries maintain these quasi offices in Taiwan so that representational and other diplomatic duties can take place. They are not called diplomatic missions to reflect the fact that these countries do not recognise the Republic of China, but as they are nevertheless run and staffed by the foreign ministries, are listed on their respective foreign ministries' websites, and have the characteristics of diplomatic missions.  This is not an opinion, but an assessment deliberately kept ambiguous to balance contending sensitivities.


 * Ed Poor: I would consider that if the "diplomatic mission" in question is listed on the website of a foreign ministry, then it is reasonable to conclude that judgement was passed by that country that its representative office serves as a de facto mission.  Note that I earlier discussions over Ireland's diplomatic mission, I ended up supporting RedKing's deletion of the Irish offices in Taipei, based on the fact that the Irish office wasn't listed on the relevant Irish foreign ministry website.


 * RedKing7: So, you would like us to adopt a ruling that removes the British missions in Taiwan.  Fair enough.   Your argument about using a strict definition is not flawed.  However, I will only support one consistent set of guidelines (if you forgive the duplication, to be consistent with Wikipedia's principle of consistency).  I would like to know why you are not seeking a change to the guidelines that would affect all other relevant articles involving offices that are not diplomatic missions in the sense of the Vienna Convention (including articles related to Kosovo, TRNC, Palestine etc).    And I would like some form of guarantee that you are going to put in the hard yards in implementing your new policy, and defending it against editors whose preferences will be affected.


 * Several people including myself have been contributing to these 200 articles for three years. Occasionally contributors come along with ideas that reflect their preferences, and which other people are against.   I was pretty much the meat in the sandwich between RedKing7 and those that didn't want the Irish office reference removed, and I am loathe to fight any unnecessary battles.


 * By keeping things consistent, a one-rule-for-all approach prevents anarchy and accusations of bias. Kransky (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * User: Kransky - I think you must appreciate yourself how hollow any arguments for keeping Taiwan/RoC on the list are. "Several people including myself have been contributing to these 200 articles for three years". I don't doubt it. I think you genuinely mean well...but if you wish to include clearly misleading and unfounded entries on the list - the articles are less than useless, they are a discredit to Wikipedia. Its a case-by-case analysis that is required - the UK's case is very clear - it does not have a diplomatic mission to Taiwan/RoC. You know it as well as I do. Your website "theory" is hardly a theory fit for an encyclopedia, now is it? Surely you can start working with me to improve this article? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RedKing7, again, I ask you why you will not seek a consensus for all related articles. I am asking you because it seems odd - even suspicious - that you are so enthusiastic to make one change to one article, but not to address the same "problem" as you see it for other articles.   Kransky (talk) 00:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I must agree with Kransky. The United Kingdom clearly has a diplomatic mission in Taiwan, though it may not be an embassy or consulate, it still is a diplomatic mission that must be listed within List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom. Also, it is odd that if this is an issue, why are we not discussing the other 200+ articles of nations that may also have an office in Taiwan? I believe that we are improving the article by having the office in Taiwan listed along with the other diplomatic missions.Aquintero (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * User: Aquitero "The United Kingdom clearly has a diplomatic mission in Taiwan...." How do you square that claim with the UK' stated position, i.e. "The People's Republic of China claims sovereignty over Taiwan and regards Taiwan as a province of China. The United Kingdom acknowledges the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a province of China and recognises the Chinese Government as the sole legal government of China. The United Kingdom does not recognise Taiwan as a state and does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan." And do you think the UK could have a diplomatic mission in Taipei and Beijing at the same time? Ofcourse not. You are ignoring basic facts. If there are other articles with the same mistake the issue should be raised on their talk pages....Here we are discussing the UK position. Re. "I believe that we are improving the article by having the office in Taiwan listed along with the other diplomatic missions" - What is being done is that what amounts to a lie is being told by listing Taiwan as a country to which the UK has a diplomatic mission. We all know that its not true. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

cn
This article is a whole long list, and almost none of the entries are referenced. So I really can't see this edit having any merit. It is essenitally a continuation of the edit war (see above) via different means, and this is bad. Have the real war, not a proxy war William M. Connolley (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've inserted a "citation?" tag on the RoC/Taiwan entry - User: Kransky has deleted it (without providing a source upon which to base the claim that the UK has a diplomatic mission to RoC/Taiwan). Keenly aware of how likely you are use your powers to simply "block" me, I want to tread carefully....but this is pretty prepsterous....deleting a citation tag when clearly no one has provided a source.....Perhaps you could weigh in on the talk page -  please give it a bit of thought this time though. Read up and think things through. That would be appreciated. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops I've just spotted that you, not User Kransky deleted my change....You appear to have pointed me to the talk page...but there is nothing new there or a relevant source....I will revert for the time being your change....better to tag as needing citation then leave untagged.....Please don't block me. If you explain what you are referring to by saying see talk page etc., I'm happy to take it up. As you know, on the talk page, no consensu emerged. I'll post this on the talk page too to get the exchage going again. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Its not a restart of any edit war - its asking for a consensus and a reference. This is not edit warring. Pleas adduce a source. Redking7 (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

List is not not SOURCED / Accurate
I know User: Redking7 (above) tried at length to rectify this (at least in respect of the "Republic of China" entry) but here is the real list - from the Foreign Office Website List. Why is the "Republic of China" listed on this Wikipedia List when it is not listed by the UK Government? The Palenstinian authorities are mentioned on the UK's government list (in a different section to those for usual countries - there is absolutely no reference to the "Republic of China" or to "Taiwan, Penghu, Kinemen or Matsu" etc.... Can some one give a reasoned non POV view for why the ROC is listed. I note "Redking7" got kicked off WP for insisting on this being put rigt previously. Shame on those responsible for kicking him/her off.

List of Ambassadors (resident or not) to UK 1.	Kuwait 2.	United Arab Emirates Guyana 3.	Oman 4.	Botswana 5.	Congo, Republic of 6.	Morocco 7.	St Kitts & Nevis 8.	St Vincent & the Grenadines 9.	South Africa 10.	Burkina Faso 11.	Singapore 12.	San Marino 13.	Mozambique 14.	Papua New Guinea 15.	Croatia 16.	Iceland 17.	Armenia 18.	Zambia 19.	Laos 20.	Turkmenistan 21.	Philippines 22.	Togo 23.	Malaysia 24.	Mali 25.	Niger 26.	Kenya 27.	Benin 28.	Mexico 29.	Italy 30.	Egypt 31.	Uruguay 32.	Antigua & Barbuda 33.	Cambodia 34.	Switzerland 35.	Slovenia 36.	Sweden Syria 37.	Finland 38.	Latvia 39.	Holy See 40.	Dominican Republic 41.	Malta 42.	Djibouti 43.	Panama 44.	Guinea, Republic of 45. Equatorial Guinea 46.	Burma (Myanmar) 47.	Russia 48.	Swaziland 49.	Bulgaria 50.	Nicaragua 51.	Norway 52.	USA 53.	Qatar 54.	Czech Republic 55.	Lesotho 56.	Cuba 57.	Algeria 58.	Austria 59.	Zimbabwe 60.	Rwanda 61.	Angola 62.	El Salvador 63.	Congo, DR 64. Yemen 65.	Saudi Arabia 66.	Mauritius 67.	Ukraine 68.	Tonga 69.	Malawi 70.	Estonia 71.	Independent State of Samoa 72.	Ethiopia 73.	Uganda 74.	Jordan 75.	Brunei 76.	Ghana 77.	Chile 78.	Solomon Islands 79.	Iran 80.	Namibia 81.	Lithuania 82.	Canada 83.	Denmark 84.	Belgium 85.	Tanzania 86.	Georgia 87.	Sierra Leone 88.	Kyrgyz Republic 89.	Poland 90.	Bolivia 91.	Belarus 92.	Burundi 93.	Portugal 94.	Sudan 95.	Peru 96.	Jamaica 97.	Netherlands 98.	Costa Rica 99.	Greece 100.	Hungary 101.	Côte d’Ivoire 102.	Korea, DPR 103.	Thailand 104.	China 105.	Liberia 106.	Andorra 107.	Montenegro 108.	Afghanistan 109.	Tunisia 110.	Ireland 111.	Turkey 112.	Bangladesh 113.	The Gambia 114.	Seychelles 115.	Cape Verde 116.	Luxembourg 117.	Albania 118.	Vietnam 119.	Azerbaijan 120.	Slovak Republic 121.	Uzbekistan 122.	Venezuela 123.	Israel 124.	Nepal 125.	Eritrea 126.	France 127.	Senegal 128.	Maldives 129.	Honduras 130.	Bahamas 131.	Brazil 132.	Macedonia 133.	Romania 134.	Colombia 135.	New Zeeland 136.	Suriname 137.	Fiji 138.	Nigeria 139.	Ecuador 140.	St Lucia 141.	Indonesia 142.	Guatemala 143.	India 144.	Tajikistan 145.	Mongolia 146.	Japan 147.	Korea, Republic of 148. Lebanon 149.	Pakistan 150.	Trinidad & Tobago 151.	Sri Lanka 152.	Germany 153.	Bahrain 154.	Cyprus 155.	Spain 156.	Barbados 157.	Australia 158.	Moldova 159.	Cameroon 160.	Grenada

CHARGÉ D’AFFAIRES & ACTING HIGH COMMISSIONERS 161.	São Tomé & Principe 162.	Paraguay m 163. Kiribati m 164. Dominica, Commonwealth of 165. Madagascar 166.	Libya Serbia Iraq 167.	Gabon 168.	Bosnia Herzegovina 169.	Argentina 170.	Belize

84.203.65.224 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Cyprus, Georgia, and Armenia
Cyprus is NOT part of Asia nor the Middle East. It is a part of Europe and the European Union. With a Greek-Cypriot population of 80%, majority Greek Orothox religion and Greek language there is NOTHING Middle Eastern about this island nation. Please refrain from placing it in Middle East category as it is NOT Middle Eastern. Same goes for Georgia and Armenia. Both are technically part of Europe as they lie north of the Caucus Mountain range. Anything south is considered part of Asia. Georgia is a possible candidate for EU Membership and Armenia has expressed interest in joing the organization within the next decade. Please refrain from adding these two former Soviet Republics with overall Christian populations to the Middle East. If you have something to discuss, do so on this page.

With regards to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, no nation on earth recognizes that country except Turkey. Turkey realizes that it's recognition of this country will affect its chances of joining the European Union. --XLR8TION (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Georgia and Armenia are south of the main ridge of the Caucasus mountains, which places them in Asia by most standards. They are indeed Christian countries, but that doesn't make them European; there are plenty of Christians in Asia (Christianity was founded in Asia!) Cyprus is open to debate: European in culture it is geographically closer to Asia and the Middle East. There is nothing demeaning about being Asian. Howard Alexander (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Gambia
Gambia is no longer part of the Commonwealth so I have changed the mission title to Embassy. See The Gambia for reference. --Nozzer71 (talk) 12:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of diplomatic missions of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090728024756/http://www.caribbeannetnews.com:80/2004/12/17/close.htm to http://www.caribbeannetnews.com/2004/12/17/close.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Flag
Is the flag shown for consulates and consulates-general correct, with those large patches of white, rather than blue, at the top? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)