Talk:List of diplomatic missions of Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Ireland (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lists (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 


[Untitled][edit]

Information for Latvia and Indonesia is missing, as the foreignaffairs site is returning a blank page for those entries. I'm fairly certain Latvia has an Irish embassy because they're in the EU, and the government has a policy of having embassies in all the EU member states. No clue about Indonesia though... Demiurge 19:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

No Irish Embassy in Indonesia, but there is one in Riga (http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=5484). Not every EU state has an embassy in every other EU state. Kransky 08:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:FOR on formatting and content of "List of diplomatic missions" article[edit]

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#Formatting_of_diplomatic_missions_lists - 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 00:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


Taiwan[edit]

The article listed the "Republic of China (Taiwan)" in the same way as every other country. However, Ireland does not recognise RoC/Taiwan as a country. I initially moved the Taipei entry to follow under the China entry as the Irish Government considers Taiwan part of China. However, on balance, they could be listed separately as persons comming to the article might search under Taiwan (without looking at China) so I have amended the entry so that no Flag or "Republic of China" description is given but the position is explained in a footnote so as to read as follows:

  • Taiwan[1]
    • Taipei (The Institute for Trade and Investment)

To leave it as it was originally would be misleading and inaccurate. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your views Redking.
It is true that the Republic of Ireland does not recognise the Republic of China, as do most other states in the world.
However the Republic of China recognises itself, and on the principle of self-identification it is considered valid to list the RoC as a state in a manner consistent with other states (i.e. with a flag). Kosovo, Israel, TRNC and other partially recognised states also follow this convention in the DBMC articles. To not follow this principle for Taiwan would be both inconsistent and NPOV, and I see little compelling reason to alter this principle in the 180+ other articles.
You may notice that that in other DMBC articles we do not have disclaimers about Taiwan's lack of official recognition. I see no reason to change this, or to make DMBC articles different

Kransky (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)



RESPONSE

From what you have posted, I think you see "little compelling reason" to make any changes re Taiwan etc. I will try to explain further why the article is both misleading and inaccurate as it stands....If I convince you that it is accurate and misleading, would that be compelling enough reason for you to change the article?

I am aware this will mean changes in most of the other similar articles too.

While, I think the reasons I have already given are pretty clear and compelling, here are some further points:

Countries with Irish diplomatic missions

The Republic of Ireland (incidentally, inaccurate name of state - its name is "Ireland" (Art. 4 of Constitution) - If you are talking about embassies and diplomatic missions etc., you will never find one called Embassy of the Republic of Ireland, but I digress from the point in discussion) has diplomatic relations (Ireland does not have diplomatic relations with "RoC/Taiwan" but the article clearly implies it does) with 161 foreign governments.[2] The Irish government has 74 missions across the world[2], including 55 embassies, 8 multilateral missions and 8 Consulates General and other offices. The country has also appointed 24 Honorary Consuls General and 62 Honorary Consuls. This list is sourced from the Department of Foreign Affairs website, and was last updated in March 2007. (That is inaccurate. The Department of Foreign Affairs does not list the "Republic of China" anywhere - it would not do so as Ireland considers Taiwan as part of the People's Republic of China).

As to the principle of self-identification (whatever that is) - who is the self concerned? This is an article about Ireland's diplomatic missions etc...It is Ireland that is the self concerned. If Ireland does not recognise a state, an article about Ireland's missions etc should not suggest it does. Your approach also ignores the other possible self - Ireland recognises the Peoples Republic of China as the sovereign power in Taiwan. The PRC does not consider Taiwan to be the Republic of China or to have the flag etc....On what basis have you determined that the Taiwan Authorities (as Ireland and the PRC would refer to them) are the relevant self. What is that POV based on?

Re Kosovo, Israel and the TRN - Ireland recognisese Kosovo and Israel - I would fully agree that if they were listed in an article about Ireland's missions etc., it is clear they should be listed as regular countries as the others. Obviously, the TRN is not recognised by Ireland and so the same logic applies to it as to Ireland.

Well, have a think about it....I presume I will not change your mind....but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia where accuracy is paramount and POVs put to one side so I would ask you to think about it. I fully appreciate that whatever is decided here has application on most of the other similar pages (which are presumably similarly misleading/inaccurate at the moment) Regards. Redking7 (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The self-identification principle is based on the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity, that is, the name most commonly used for a person (or in this case, a country) by themselves should be the name used in Wikipedia. Hence when listing countries we list countries in these articles we list according to the name they (the receiving states) wish to be called.
However it is a principle that is not universally followed in - look at other DMBC articles. Some say 'Republic of China' and others say 'Taiwan' - irrespective of wether there are diplomatic relations or not.
It is not an immediate priority of mine to make a wholesale change, which could potentially lead to an edit war. It would be good if you could update all the 180+ articles to reflect whatever name you consider appropriate ("Republic of China" to all those that recognise Taipei, and "Taiwan" for others), but expect to encounter some flack in the process.
I am strongly of the view that de facto nature of many of these unofficial missions in Taipei are for all intents and purposes are diplomatic missions, and thus should be included.
I am also strongly of the view that the Taiwanese flag should be flying, and no disclaimers are provided. I feel that there as long as Taiwan exists with its own government, institutions and identity there is no reason to catalog the country as an adjunct part of the PRC.

Kransky (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


I agree edit warring is unfortunate and likely. Politics (not the accurate facts discussed above) are of more concern to many many Editors. I have edited this article so that it is more accurate but I can't "fight" for accuracy on all 180 articles....I accept that you probably do not have the time to either....I also agree with you that the Taiwan/Taipei missions should be listed (but not in a way that suggests thst Taiwan is recognised as a state (unless it is recognised by the state as over 20 countries recognise it))....Hence the changes I have made to this Ireland missions article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
No. There is no reason to list, label and name countries according to how they are recognised by the sending state. Using one consistent principle (how each state identifies itself, rather than how ) removes bias as an issue. There is no question of accuracy - Ireland would insist its mission in Taipei is on Taiwan, while Taiwanese would say it is in the Republic of China. Which term is accurate? Depends who you ask.
As mentioned there is some variation on the names appear, but adding disclaimers about a state's recognition and not including their flags is clearly POV and outside the remit of this article - outlining diplomatic missions.
I have no inclination to make 180+ changes to implement this new rule, nor to battle against the many editors with partisan interests in this issue who would not want this change.

Kransky (talk) 10:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Entirely disagree. I have offered full explanations. Your reasoning does not stack up and leaves an inaccurate, misleading article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Let me illustrate again. Suppose we follow your idea here (revoke the principle of self-identification and show receiving states according to how the sending states recognise them, and add caveats/remove flags where there is no recognition). We would then need to make these changes into all the other 180 articles, not just for Taiwan but also for other states with different naming standards. I know there are many Taiwanese who will be offended by their flag being removed and will give us no end in grief in ensuring it remains.
Actually I never was in favour of having flags in the first place; somebody added them in and I thought it wasn't worth worrying about. But I am against unnecessary caveats cluttering articles.
I will canvas your idea with a few other long-term contributors and see what they think. Kransky (talk) 08:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia refers to the Republic of China as such - Therefore we should refer to the ROC as such in any context. The ROC does not just contain Taiwan, but also the Pescadores, Kinmen, and Matsu, which are separate from Taiwan. Therefore Taiwan is too simple of a description. I must add that the names of missions to and from the ROC in countries that do not recognize the ROC use Taipei, NOT Taiwan. That is because the PRC does not recognize Taiwan as being separate from the rest of China. Countries using "Taiwan" would imply that Taiwan is NOT a part of China. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe that we should leave the flags and refer to 'Taiwan' as the 'Republic of China.' Regardless if a country recognizes the ROC or not, I believe it is irrelevant. If a nation has a diplomatic missions in the ROC, then the mission should be referenced under the flag of the ROC. If we do arrive to an agreement, who will edit all 180+ articles? We should remain consistent and not favour one particular article. Another point, I personally feel that we should remove the "The Institute for Trade and Investment" because I don't feel that it is a diplomatic mission. It is not mentioned in the website of the Irish Dept. of Foreign Affairs nor in the website of the Embassy of Ireland in China. It is only mentioned in the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of China (Taiwan). It seems to me that they are not an office aligned to the Irish Dept. of Foreign Affairs. Aquintero (talk) 15:23, 6 November, 2008 (UTC)

I believe that de facto facilities in Taipei (and other places, like Pristina) which cosmetically appear to be at arms reach from the sending government should still be included. HOwever, having looked at the Ireland Ministry of Foreign Affairs I am not convinced that there is any such Irish presence in Taiwan, and thus the reference to this office in Taipei should be removed. Any comments? Kransky (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
If there is no source, the entry should be removed. If there is a source, then we should find one. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


A few points:

  • Re - We would then need to make these changes into all the other 180 articles - We are talking about one article only. It should be accurate. The other articles should be accurate too and if that means editors choose to raise a similar issue on those article discussion pages, so be it - the argument that "well, it is inaccurate on all the other articles, so it should stay inaccurate on the Ireland article" is a poor argument;
  • As to there being "many Taiwanese who will be offended by their flag being removed" etc. This is an encyclopedia, its about accuracy and facts - not pandering to nationalistic feelings - I suppose some could be offended that Scotland is never listed in lists like this either. That really is no argument at all;
  • As to canvassing 'my idea', I am concerned that where one user canvasses, we end up with a biased discussion but hope I am wrong on that;
  • As Wikipedia referring to the Republic of China....and this being a reason to refer to Taiwan as the RoC "in any context", I think this is confused thinking....; There is no rule that the term "RoC" should be used; Ireland has a non-diplomatic presence on the island of Taiwan - Ireland does not recognise that Taiwan or any of the other Taiwan islands are part of the RoC - Ireland considers them part of the PRC;
  • Re use of the name Taipei and Taiwan, lots of names are used by countries that do not recognise the RoC - but they never use the name "RoC" - if you look at my first edit to the article, you will see I originally suggested the mission be listed under the PRC as Taipei.... There are a few potential names that could be used (noted below);
  • Some one made the point that if it is not a diplomatic mission it should not be listed, This is the best point that has been made. I agree in principle. I thought it was useful to keep Taiwan/Taipei listed (making clear it was not a diplomatic mission) but make it clear that it is not a recognised state....but if that compromise cannot be made then, yes, I agree, we should take Taiwan out altogether....See below, Ireland does not have any diplomatic mission or relations with Taiwan:

Here is the Irish position on Taiwan (the footnotes may not show up on the talk page but I am sure you can find them):

Concerning the Taiwan issue, Ireland follows a One-China policy. In 2007, the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dermot Ahern summarised the Irish position as follows:[3]

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 25 October 1971 recognised the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole representative of China. Although Taiwan continues to exercise autonomy and to term itself ‘The Republic of China’, this is not recognised in international law. Taiwan’s official status is that of a Province of China...Ireland recognises the Government of the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. Ireland does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan and there is no inter-Governmental contact between the two sides. A Taipei Representative Office, established in Dublin in 1988, has a representative function in relation to economic and cultural promotion, but no diplomatic or political status.

In light of the above how can you seriously suggest we list the "Republic of China" as a country Ireland has a diplomatic presence in? The Taiwan entry should either be (a) removed entirely; or (b) edited as I had suggested (i.e. removing reference to "Republic of China", replacing with either Taiwan (my preference) or Taipei or Taiwan, China or Chineese Taiwan and footnoting that Ireland does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan or recognise it as a state. For the time being, as an alternative to my original suggestion, I will remove Taiwan altogether from the list. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Re - We would then need to make these changes into all the other 180 articles - We are talking about one article only. It should be accurate. The other articles should be accurate too and if that means editors choose to raise a similar issue on those article discussion pages, so be it - the argument that "well, it is inaccurate on all the other articles, so it should stay inaccurate on the Ireland article" is a poor argument;
We are talking about one article, but the same principle would then need to be reflected in all other relevant articles. And not just for Taiwan, but Macedonia, Kosovo and all other articles in which name disputes occur. We apply the self-identification principle. It is accurate to say that the folks on Taiwan call their country Republic of China, even if it is not recongised in international law. If you want us to discard this principle and work on a new principle, please work on gaining a consensus first.


  • As to there being "many Taiwanese who will be offended by their flag being removed" etc. This is an encyclopedia, its about accuracy and facts - not pandering to nationalistic feelings - I suppose some could be offended that Scotland is never listed in lists like this either. That really is no argument at all;
There is no reason why we should avoid making unpopular changes. I merely wanted you to be aware that you will encounter considerable opposition from some quarters from making these changes, and to ask you to consider if it is worthwhile.
  • As to canvassing 'my idea', I am concerned that where one user canvasses, we end up with a biased discussion but hope I am wrong on that;
I have canvassed a few regular contributors to the DMBC articles, including one who I have had some disagreements with. None of them are shrinking violets, and the only bias we have is a strong sense of professionalism towards these articles
  • As Wikipedia referring to the Republic of China....and this being a reason to refer to Taiwan as the RoC "in any context", I think this is confused thinking....; There is no rule that the term "RoC" should be used; Ireland has a non-diplomatic presence on the island of Taiwan - Ireland does not recognise that Taiwan or any of the other Taiwan islands are part of the RoC - Ireland considers them part of the PRC;
These articles are about networks of diplomatic facilities. We include in these lists the quasi missions on Taiwan that carry out these de facto duties. It does not imply Ireland recognises Taipei, for the same token that Australia's mission in Ramallah does not imply Australia recognises Palestinian statehood or Russia's mission in Pristina does not imply Russian recognition of Kosova.
  • Re use of the name Taipei and Taiwan, lots of names are used by countries that do not recognise the RoC - but they never use the name "RoC" - if you look at my first edit to the article, you will see I originally suggested the mission be listed under the PRC as Taipei....
See self-identification principle.


This is my last say on the matter, as I feel I am repeating myself, and I have laid out these facts that anybody of reasonable intelligence should be able to understand. I believe that Redking is approaching this issue with good faith, and would suggest we seek views on changing this principle to name receiving states according to how the sending states call them. I would add that this principle is reflected in airline destination articles (eg:

Singapore Airlines destinations says Taiwan, not RoC)

I would support Redking's suggestion, but only if he is prepared to make the changes to all relevant pages, including for Taiwanese and Macedonian missions, and protect this principle.
I would conclude that I do not feel it is fair that longstanding editors should have to make onerous changes and fight unnecessary battles for them, just because one newbie makes one change. Kransky (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Redking continues to insist that the Irish office in Taipei is either removed, or if included, is referred to by the name Ireland calls RoC/Taiwan. 2. I have continually responded that we name receiving countries in these articles according to how they call themselves, and sending countries according to how they call themselves. The fact that the government on Taiwan calls itself the Republic of China is an accurate statement, even if few other states recognises its name. 3. I have continually added I am open to a review of this policy, adding that I have no problems with Redking's change, as long as it is supported by a consensus and is applied consistently in all these articles (not just to Taiwanese missions but also to other countries with naming issues). 4. Redking appears to have difficulty following the logic presented in (2), and is refusing to enter into a debate at (3) by making changes to the article as he see fits without entering into debate. I note other writers have criticised his suggestion; I believe it is still possible to find agreement on the matter 5. I mentioned before it was my last say on the matter - correct me if you wish, but I believe we have been patient enough with Redking, and if he continues to make these reverts without working constructively towards developing a consensus, I believe we can consider his edits to be disruptive. Kransky (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


RESPONSE: I have quoted the Irish Government stating that Ireland:

  • quote "recognises the Government of the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China";
  • quote "does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan";
  • quote "[there is] no inter-Governmental contact between the two sides [Ireland and the Taiwan Authorities]"; and
  • quote "[considers that] Taiwan’s official status is that of a Province of China".

User: Kransky does not dispute the authenticity of these quotes but insists that the Article should:

  • list the "Republic of China" or "Taiwan" as a "country" that Ireland has a diplomatic mission to when this is clearly not accurate.

Like User: Kransky, I support "working constructively towards developing a consensus". I also think making sure the article is accurate is an absolute essential. After all, this is an encyclopedia. Regards Redking7 (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you are now saying that foreign representative offices in Taiwan belonging to states that do not recongise the RoC should not be listed in these articles as diplomatic missions.
There are good arguments for and against applying this principle.
May I suggest that you raise this suggestion in Category talk:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country, notify regular contributors (a list is provided on the talk page), state your case and, if it is accepted, make the necessary changes to all pages. Kransky (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I have said what I said above. I have not said something else. This Article is called Diplomatic missions of Ireland and it must be accurate. You seem to accept now that the "RoC/Taiwan" entry was not accurate and that I was correct to delete it. If so, we are both finally in consensus. If you think other Articles are inaccurate and you wish to change them, thats a matter for yourself. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I said that there are arguments for and against including Taiwanese rep offices abroad. An argument for their inclusion is that many of these offices carry out representational, consular and other duties similar to other diplomatic missions, that they are staffed by professional diplomats who work for the foreign ministries sending state, and that they are afforded a similar status of diplomatic immunity by the Taiwanese authorities (see American Institute in Taiwan).
Conversely you say that it cannot possibly be a diplomatic mission if no diplomatic relations exist. This is a reasonable argument, but it should not be the deciding factor. We list for example the American mission in Cuba which in part of the Swiss embassy, but for all intents and purposes acts as its own mission. We are trying to illustrate diplomatic networks here.
I am a stickler for consistency (a non-negotiable Wikipedia principle), and will only support this change if it is supported by a clear mandate. By being clear about this rule it prevents people accusing one editor being biased against another.
You are clearly new to these articles. If you really give a damn about this project I expect you to put in some work - not just wanting one change on one article to fit a personal preference and expecting others to make the requisite changes to everything else - and to fight the battles alone that this change will create. Frankly speaking, your attitude suggests that you will not be prepared to make this commitment, so I am reluctant to support your change. Kransky (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
But that is just my view - like I said, seek the consensus of other editors. Kransky (talk) 12:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Above, you are essentially asking me again to discuss other articles, not just the Diplomatic missions of Ireland article - the only relevant article I have edited or discussed. I do not want to discuss other articles - but you insist - and because you sound like a well-meaning editor, I will - but only a little: Firstly I do not want to (i) put you down; or (ii) sound condescending. That said, your stated devotion to consistency even at the cost of accuracy [I have clearly shown above that leaving the RoC/Taiwan entry as it was would be inaccurate and misleading but you wanted no change], means you and I will never see eye-to-eye. For me articles must always try to be accurate. That is No. 1. Articles should also never be misleading. Hence, my edits.

General points re: If you really give a damn about this project I expect you to put in some work - not just wanting one change on one article to fit a personal preference and expecting others to make the requisite changes to everything else - and to fight the battles alone that this change will create.:

  • I put work in on a topic I know something about [this Article], Irish foreign relations - I try to contribute to articles I actually know something about - I think that is how it should be; and
  • I do not expect editors to make changes to other articles on foot of my edit to the Ireland List article. In particular, every country has its own distinct foreign policies and foreign relations. Articles or Lists of Diplomatic Missions should reflect differences. They cannot all be consistent. The place to discuss those articles is their respective discussion pages.

Further comment re Taiwan in the Ireland List - Much earlier in this discussion, I gave two alternatives in respect of the Taiwan entry on the Ireland list: "The Taiwan entry should either be (a) removed entirely; or (b) edited as I had suggested (i.e. removing reference to "Republic of China", replacing with either Taiwan (my preference) or Taipei or Taiwan, China or Chineese Taiwan" as well as stating clearly that Ireland does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan or recognise it as a state. The second alternative reflects that I partly agree with you. Listing Ireland's "Institute for Investment and Trade" in Taipei might well add something to the article. However, it would have to be listed accurately and not in a misleading way. Otherwise, it should be left out. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I feel we are getting somewhere. I maintain that accuracy is subjective - The Taiwanese would argue 'Republic of China' is correct, the Irish would say 'Taiwan' and the PRC would say 'Chinese Taipei'. By picking the name that the subject (ie the receiving state, not the sending state) calls itself, and keeping this standard consistent, one circumvents accusations of bias.
I have gone over a few other articles, and realise that the principle of self-identification is not being maintained. On the Australian and South Korean articles "Taiwan" is used; on the Swiss and Canadian articles it is "Republic of China". In short I don't think it is reasonable to fight for a rule which is not being applied adequately in practice.
I will accept inclusion of the name 'Taiwan', the name of the quasi-mission, and the use of the RoC flag - similar to what appears in most other articles. Is this okay with you?
No ofcourse its not acceptable. Your suggestion to merely change "RoC" for "Taiwan" but otherwise leave it listed the same way as the others with the flag and no express wording that it is not recognised by Ireland etc is essentially the exact same as it was at the outset. Frankly to suggest I am being "subjective" in claiming Ireland does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan is totally ridiculous. I have quoted the Government above. I already set out the only two ways Taiwan could be dealt with (a) or (b) above. For now, its (b) and thats fine - (b) leaves the article accurate. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 20:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying Ireland has diplomatic relations with Taiwan. What is subjective is the choice about how we refer to the country. We canvassed views from other editors and they did not agree to either of your suggestions. I further invited you to canvas views about making a wholesale change to this policy for all these articles, an offer you refused. In Wikipedia we work through consensus, and I can only take your continued behaviour to be disruptive. Kransky (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


RESPONSE:After all of this discussion the position has not changed at all...I have quoted the Irish Government stating that Ireland:

  • quote "recognises the Government of the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China";
  • quote "does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan";
  • quote "[there is] no inter-Governmental contact between the two sides [Ireland and the Taiwan Authorities]"; and
  • quote "[considers that] Taiwan’s official status is that of a Province of China".

User: Kransky does not dispute the authenticity of these quotes but insists that the Article should:

  • list the "Republic of China" or "Taiwan" as a "country" that Ireland has a diplomatic mission to when this is clearly not accurate.

Like User: Kransky, I support "working constructively towards developing a consensus". I also think making sure the article is accurate is an absolute essential. After all, this is an encyclopedia. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Debate moved to Category talk:Lists of diplomatic missions by sending country Kransky (talk) 08:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continues here. - This is the relevant discussion page so it is not appropriate to move the discussion. I have tried to solicit the views of any interested Editors on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 21:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)‎

  • Response: I think that if Ireland doesn't recognise RoC but has a mission in Taipei it should be listed under PRC.--Avala (talk) 14:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
No, that implies that Taiwan is part of the PRC. This is against the NPOV rule. The Irish government has its POV. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to comply with that POV. We merely need to state the Irish POV while complying with NPOV rule.
How is it NPOV to imply that Taiwan is not part of PRC and POV to imply that it is? If both parties here, Ireland and PRC have the same opinion on this issue then the only POV thing to do it to go against it and list Taiwan completely separaely.--Avala (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
That's not how NPOV works. The guidelines are clear on this.--Jiang (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, even though the Irish government doesn't have *official* diplomatic relations with the ROC, it does have unofficial relations with the ROC. The ROC is the political entity that the Irish government interacts with, even if the Irish government does not officially recognise it. If the Taiwanese residents want to have an Irish visa, that office in Taipei is where they go to get it. If Irish citizens need to have assistance while they are in Taiwan, that office is where they go to get the help. It is a de facto diplomatic mission. This practical piece of information is useful for people who read Wikipedia.

It is accurate for Wikipedia to list the office as a diplomatic mission while having a footnote saying something to the effect of "the Irish government does not have official relations with the ROC". It is important to note that the Irish government's official POV is not the only POV. We as editors need to balances all POVs.--pyl (talk) 15:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Recognition and diplomatic relations are not the same thing. To use an unrelated example, the United States recognizes the authority of the Castro-led government over Cuba, but does not have diplomatic relations with it. Are we supposed to remove all quasi-official representative offices? Inclusion is by no means inaccurate. In the case of Taiwan, it is common for governments to deny that their "trade offices" have any governmental status and yet staff these very same offices with diplomats. Hence, they are de facto diplomatic missions. Citizens of Ireland who show up at the PRC embassy applying for a visa to go to Taiwan are without exception turned away. Representation does not necessarily require diplomatic relations.--Jiang (talk) 16:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I agree that diplomatic missions of the ROC need to be listed in this article and similar articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Response: Ireland, as most of countries does not recognize Taiwan, but as Pyl already stated, you still have to contact those unofficial offices for getting a visa. This i what I just did several times. And those are the places where Taiwanese go, when they need any governmental documents. 快樂龍 16:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we should state that Ireland, and for that matter all countries, that have a representative office abroad or have one within should be recognized and included within the articles. Though Ireland and Taiwan may not have formal diplomatic relations, there is however informal ones that exist, and Taiwan does have a representative office in Dublin, and Ireland has one as well in Taipei. As previous members have mentioned above, when Irish citizens wish to visit Taiwan, they must seek their visa at the Taipei Representative Office in Ireland, and vis a versa. Aquintero (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I have quoted the Irish Government stating that Ireland:

  • quote "recognises the Government of the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China";
  • quote "does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan";
  • quote "[there is] no inter-Governmental contact between the two sides [Ireland and the Taiwan Authorities]"; and
  • quote "[considers that] Taiwan’s official status is that of a Province of China".

None of the participants dispute the authenticity of these quotes but insists that the Article should:

  • list the "Republic of China" or "Taiwan" as a "country" that Ireland has a diplomatic mission to when this is clearly not accurate.

Other countries may be more ambiguous but Ireland is very clear. One Editor tried to draw a comparison with Cuba - The USA does not consider Cuba a 'Province of another country' etc, or consider another governement the legitimate government of Cuba. The comparison does not stack up. How can you advocate a total misstatment - saying that Ireland has a diplomatic mission to the RoC/Taiwan? If it is to be listed at all, it should be abundently clear to all readers that the position is not the same as with the countries listed on the article. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S: It is important to note that the Irish government's official POV is not the only POV. That is wrong. The only PoV that counts here is Ireland's (i.e. the Irish government) - This is an article listing Ireland's diplomatic missions. The opinions of others persons or countries etc are not relevant to the List. Regards again. Redking7 (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV section of Wikipedia says an editor needs to take in all POVs including minor significant POVs. Irish government's POV is an important POV, but it is not the only POV. For example, if the POV of the government is the only one that counts, then under the PRC page, there should only be mentions of Taiwan as part of the PRC and nothing else. This practice is clearly incorrect, and it is not neutral. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for readers to find useful information. It is not an official government website.--pyl (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


User Ply - You do not seem to understand. This is a list of Ireland's diplomatic missions. Only Ireland determines the List. Only the Government's view counts for the purposes of compiling the list. How else would we compile the list except by way of Government sources - should it be based on what the "consensus" view is on what Ireland's diplomatic missions should be (rather than are)? Of course not. The Government is the only source that counts for the List because this is a list of the Government's diplomatic missions. Its that simple.
Yes. The Irish government decides who it recognises. No one is disputing that. By listing the office in Taipei as a practical piece of information while stating that the Irish government does not recognise the ROC is consistent with the Irish POV.
You also need to consider that there is a significant POV that the office in Taipei is a de facto diplomatic mission. That's the spirit of the NPOV.--pyl (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
There is a difference between rhetoric and reality. Wikipedia cannot base its articles purely off rhetoric while ignoring reality. Of your quotes, all are irrelevant except number three, which may be true on a technicality (diplomats nominally on leave to staff the office), but misleading to accept at face value. The others do not imply that there cannot be representation.--Jiang (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
User: Kransky, please do not canvas in support of your views. It is against the rules and makes a mockery of genuine discussion. See:
Even if it will help you get a "consensus", it is wrong. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 02:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
RedKing7 - Please do not assume bad faith.
If we are talking about the status of the Irish office in Taiwan, what is wrong to seek views from Talk:Taiwan or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan? Actually it would be far more important, since whatever is decided on this issue will impact on more Taiwanese related articles than Irish related articles. And no I do not have a posse of mates for which I "stack" consensus seeking (I did not canvas Pyl, I have previously debated with Whispertome over photographs and naming issues).
The names of people in the International Relations project are there for you to canvas opinion. I believe that I have been NPOV in seeking comment and raising the broader issues likely to transpire from your proposed change, and any reasonable observer would concur with this.
Kransky (talk) 03:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


Everybody - please pay attention here.

Thank you all for coming to present your views, and generally keeping a civil tongue.

These articles are designed to illustrate how countries extend their influence overseas. They are not intended to make comment on the nature of these relations. Therefore I do not want these articles to be peppered with legalistic riders, or to fail to acknowledge the presence of these unofficial posts (it is interesting to see how non-recognising states call their offices in Taipei!).

on the question of including missions in Taiwan[edit]

user:RedKing7 claims it is inaccurate to list diplomatic missions by non-recognising states in this article. I maintain that these representative offices do - for all intents and purposes - perform the core functions of diplomatic missions (Article III of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations), and are staffed and managed - albeit at arms length - by the sending state's foreign ministry. I would ask that we define what goes in these articles according to what helps enhance the value of the information presented, as I have mentioned above.

user:RedKing7's stricter definition of what goes in is by no means unworthy of consideration. However he has said he is not interested in making the necessary changes to the other 160+ articles, to keep this rule consistent. If the rule is going to be enforced, it will need to be universally enforced.

on the question of using a disclaimer to denote non-recognition[edit]

On user:Jiang's idea of comments like "commonly known as Taiwan" and a disclaimer about a state's lack of diplomatic relations, I think we can consider tighter writing which delivers the same effect. I note however that I do not want these articles to be peppered with unnecessary riders (which I do not see in other Taiwan-related articles), and if we do choose to include disclaimers, that it will be universally enforced.


on the question of not using flags for denoting missions in Taiwan[edit]

I am ambivalent about using flags, but I would seek that we treat all missions in Taiwan as we would for all other flags, to maintain consistency. It is not as if including these flags in Wikipedia has some kind of symbolic or legalistic meaning. And if we do choose to remove flags for missions in Taiwan, that this rule will be (altogether now) universally enforced.


on the question of how we should refer to receiving states[edit]

I strongly suggest that we maintain and uphold the principle of self-identification, in which we refer to receiving states according to how they call themselves (although I note this rule is not as universally enforced as I would like it to be) Kransky (talk) 08:58, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. canvassing. I do not agree with canvassing. It is against the rules.
Re. statements like: "These articles are designed to illustrate how countries extend their influence overseas. They are not intended to make comment on the nature of these relations." That's completely inaccurate. Of course these articles comment on the relations between the sending and receiving state - they tell the reader whether they are "diplomatic relations" or not.
To compromise, I think the new position with the Rider wording clarifying the position is ok. The important thing is that the article should not mislead readers or amount to some type of propaganda etc. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


You have already raised an allegation of canvassing with EdJohnston - you haven't yet explained how you think my announcements have been biased or have sabotaged this process, as he asked.
Incredibly, after a month, you still seem to be assuming that these articles are about diplomatic relations. There is a subtle difference, which everybody except yourself seem to have no problems understanding. In the 2.25 years that this category has been around, you are the only person who has ever sought to eliminate references to representative offices in Taipei from these articles.
Anyhow, there is nothing wrong with old rules being challenged. I only wish that you bother to understand them first, and not say that things are "accurate" or "inaccurate" when there are many sides to this story.
As for your comprimise: I may be satisfied if a brief rider concerning the lack of diplomatic relations between any given state and the RoC (please draft something up and show us) is presented in front of the article, and not in the listings themselves. The listing itself remains as "Republic of China" (plus flag) the name of the city/cities and the name of the representative office, in the style currently being used. In other words, the new changes reflect as much as possible the existing style of entry. I am also expecting that if this change is going to be accepted by others here, you are going to make the updates to all the affected articles (ie all countries with a rep office in Taiwan). If you are going to propose a wholesale policy change, I expect that you are going to carry the can on this. And if you don't like "Republic of China", please develop a consensus that we will use the name preferred by sending states, and make all the necessary changes to the other articles.  ::Kransky (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: [1]. It is not accurate to say that Ireland does not recognize Taiwan while it is accurate to say that Ireland does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Diplomatic recognition and diplomatic relations are not the same thing, see diplomatic recognition. The statement, "there are no inter-governmental contacts between the two sides" is deliberately misleading. There is contact between organizations that are officially not government agencies, but controlled, staffed, and funded by the government as if they were. So this is more complicated than the statement implies. It is common to do one thing and call it another. We have to explain the actual situation, not blindly follow the rhetoric of one side.--Jiang (talk) 12:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Re. "It is not accurate to say that Ireland does not recognize Taiwan while it is accurate to say that Ireland does not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan." - Ireland position is that it recognises Taiwan as a province of the PRC. That has to be clear in the Article. I have tweaked your wording, most of which was ok. I have added sources also. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 13:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
RedKing is correct on this point. I have paraphrased his text in the introductory paragraph. Kransky (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
The important note needs to be listed under the relevant Territory (Taiwan), where the information concerning the Territory is set out - what you had inserted was at the very top was very easy to miss for a Reader to miss and omitted important information necessary if Taiwan is to be listed. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
I cannot comprimise on this point. It goes beyond what the scope of these articles are. I am not going to make these changes to 180 odd articles and then defend them when they get changed. Nobody has supported your proposal, and you appear to be wilfully deaf to any reason as to why we list Taiwanese representative offices.
The next step is a Request for Comment, which will take on board your views and behaviour. Kransky (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


Redking7 quoted the Irish minister of foreign affairs as saying: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 25 October 1971 recognised the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole representative of China. Although Taiwan continues to exercise autonomy and to term itself ‘The Republic of China’, this is not recognised in international law. Taiwan’s official status is that of a Province of China...Ireland recognises the Government of the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. Ireland does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan and there is no inter-Governmental contact between the two sides. A Taipei Representative Office, established in Dublin in 1988, has a representative function in relation to economic and cultural promotion, but no diplomatic or political status. And Redking7 has been using that quote as a basis for claiming that Ireland considers Taiwan part of the PRC. However it is not uncommon for high-ranking diplomatic officials and even presidents of the UN to misstate official positions regarding Taiwan of the bodies they represent. What does Irish law have to say on the matter? Does it actually say it considers Taiwan part of China, or does it use the vaguer language used by many other countries such as the U.S. that "acknowledges" China's position but doesn't endorse it?Readin (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The state (or political entity) which the Irish government interacts with is the government of the ROC, regardless whether the Irish government recognises the ROC or otherwise. To this date, the only government called "Taiwan" is the government of the Taiwan province. The ROC is commonly known as Taiwan, but it is not Taiwan.--pyl (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
This appears inconsistent with the position you took for the Cross-Strait Relations article. Readin (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The position is consistent. Please refer to my reply to your message on your talk page.--pyl (talk) 04:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I saw your reply. And you are incorrect. You said
Cross-strait relations are not simple diplomatic/domestic relations. The terminologies used are the geographic terms of "mainland China" and "Taiwan" so we avoid asserting whether mainland China and Taiwan are two different states or one state with 2 areas.
That's not the case for other normal diplomatic relations. Internationally, there are two political entities/states asserting to be the sole representative of China. The two states are the ROC and the PRC, regardless whether they are officially recognised. If we are going to use the geographic locations then we can do PRC (mainland China) and ROC (Taiwan).--pyl (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
In both cases there is a distinction in how things are said and how action is performed. Ireland claims it does see Taiwan or the ROC as a state. Yet aside from this lip service, it carries on as though Taiwan or the ROC were a state.
The PRC does the same, although it treats Taiwan or the ROC as a rogue or hostile state (much like the U.S. treats Cuba or North Korea).
However in both cases government-to-government negotiations continue, jurisdictions are recognized and accepted (according to what you've said elsewhere).
So we have two situation that are identical in that the de facto relations are between two governments with complete control over their respective territories, and in that in both cases Taiwan or the ROC is not formally recognized and so that term "ROC" is not actually use.
You're position seems to be that when talking about the PRC and ROC, we should use "Taiwan" and "mainland China" to avoid suggesting that they are anything but a single nation, while when used in relation with other countries, we should avoid using "Taiwan" to avoid people thinking that Taiwan is a nation. In both cases you are trying to manipulate things to push your very stron POV that Taiwan is part of China.
I'm suggesting that instead we be consistent. When the ROC goverment negotiates or works with other governments, whoever they may be, and the name "ROC" is avoided for diplomatic reasons, we should either use "ROC" because it is in fact the ROC government that is involved (even if through unofficial channels), or we should use the name that is used in forming the relationship. But we should be very consistent for purposes of NPOV. Readin (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for your views Pyl and Readin. Both are valid. The reason why I am strict on maintaining consistency is to avoid disputes over Palestine, Cyprus, Western Sahara and other matters which may surface on these pages by people with viewpoints specific to particular conflicts. This article concerns the representation of Ireland abroad, and not whether it recognises Taiwan or not. Kransky (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


RESPONSE, concerning:

  • The state (or political entity) which the Irish government interacts with is the government of the ROC, regardless whether the Irish government recognises the ROC or otherwise - etc - Whatever your personal opinions (or mine), the article lists the countries Ireland has a diplomatic mission to. Whatever your views on whether it is legitimate to regard the RoC or Taiwan as a separate state from the PRC, Ireland has taken a view - and you want to ignore it in the article!
  • I am not sure why you have such difficulties understanding this issue. How are we ignoring the Irish's POV when we say clearly in this article that "the Irish government does not recognise the government of the Republic of China"? It is not my personal opinion. In fact, it is not a matter of opinion at all. It is a fact that the Irish government is interacting with something, and that something is called the government of the Republic of China. It doesn't matter whether the Irish government recognises it or not. It is what it is. Recognition is a different issue altogether.--pyl (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • And Redking7 has been using that quote as a basis for claiming that Ireland considers Taiwan part of the PRC. However it is not uncommon for high-ranking diplomatic officials and even presidents of the UN to misstate official positions regarding Taiwan of the bodies they represent. - This is clutching at straws....A misstatement from the Minister himself, the nowTaoiseach....?
  • What does Irish law have to say on the matter? This sounds like clutching at straws too...but I will address it. To summarise, the law says the Government of Ireland sets the State's foreign policy and that is what it has done here.

Generally, at least User: Kransky is clear on his/her views - he/she appears to care little for accuracy but is concerned about consistency. His style of Editing gives "Internet Encyclopedias" the sort of reputation they have. Others appear to have a POV that means accuracy does not matter. It may well be that User: Kransky's canvassing will pay off and my views will be drowned out by those with a POV agenda. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

The article header says that Ireland recognizes the PRC as the legitimate government of Taiwan. Some countries have a carefully negotiated policy of ambiguity combined with a "one-China" policy in which they acknowledge the PRC's one-policy position and say they don't argue with it, but they don't actually accept it. It is not uncommon for diplomatic officials of these countries to goof up and misstate the policy. We need to have a written reference source for Ireland's policy as a reliable source. One statement by a diplomat isn't enough. Readin (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Response:

United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 25 October 1971 recognised the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole representative of China. Although Taiwan continues to exercise autonomy and to term itself ‘The Republic of China’, this is not recognised in international law. Taiwan’s official status is that of a Province of China...Ireland recognises the Government of the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China. Ireland does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan and there is no inter-Governmental contact between the two sides. A Taipei Representative Office, established in Dublin in 1988, has a representative function in relation to economic and cultural promotion, but no diplomatic or political status.

:[4]

Ireland recognises the Government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole legitimate government of China. Taiwan’s official status is that of a province of China.

[5][6]

Do you think the above statements (by Government Ministers, not diplomats) are dubious or ambiguous? If so,why?. Do you contend that Ireland has a diplomatic mission to the RoC/Taiwan? Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I maintain my position that the Taipei Office should be listed here for the interest of the readers, but the official Irish government's POV should be stated at the same time. But Redking7 does have a point about accuracy vs consistency. How each state conducts its foreign affair is different. The US position may not be the same as other states. There is no reason why there has to be consistency throughout Wikipeida when in reality there is no consistent position on the ROC internationally. I searched the Irish government's official foreign affairs website on diplomatic missions, the Taipei office is not listed.[2] In Australia's case, the Taipei office is listed with the official Australian position stated. [3] Together with the materials provided by Redking7, I believe in this case the Irish government has taken a very literal interpretation on the One China policy.--pyl (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
As recently as July 2007 the General Secretary of the UN was criticized for misstating the UN position on Taiwan. Is it so hard to believe that a foreign minister could make a similar mistake?
I didn't delete or change the statement, but for a topic as controversial as this and as often misstated even by high ranking officials, it shouldn't be too much to ask that we make sure we get it right. Readin (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The statements are fully accurate and well sourced. That is assured. It now appears that no one here disagrees with me on the fact that Ireland does not have a diplomatic mission to the RoC/Taiwan. Does any one disagree? Redking7 (talk) 11:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
P.s - User: Ply, it appears we are now in full agreement re the Irish position (it is indeed a "very literal interpretation on the One China policy"). I think this discussion may finally be comming to an end (hopefully). Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The debate is not "Does Ireland recognise Taiwan" or "Does Ireland have a diplomatic mission in Taipei". The debate is "Should the Irish representative office in Taipei feature in this article (and by extention, all foreign quasi Government offices in Taiwan), and if so, how should they be presented"
Consistency is a Wikipedia requirement. (Internal consistency: An overriding principle on Wikipedia is that style and formatting should be applied consistently within articles, though not necessarily throughout the encyclopedia as a whole. One way of presenting information may be as good as another, but consistency within articles promotes clarity and cohesion.). It is the first thing that appears in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. If you want to propose a whole new way of formatting the Diplomatic Missions by County, please raise it in the proper place, seek a consensus, and if accepted, make all the necessary changes.
Why is consistency important? Because it makes things look neat and professional? Yes, but there are other reasons. It prevents preceptions of bias and misinterpretation of other facts. If we say with bold writing that the Irish office in Not a diplomatic mission, but we then allow the Taiwan offices to appear in the articles of Diplomatic missions of Italy, Diplomatic missions of Vietnam, Diplomatic missions of New Zealand etc that will then imply (using RedKing7's position that diplomatic mission = diplomatic relations, rather than my position that de facto offices are included) that Italy, Vietnam and New Zealand recognise the Republic of China.
Readin suggested that the exclusion of Taiwan office on the Irish Ministry of Foreign Affairs website is a sufficient reason for its exclusion. So should this be the criterion we set to determining if it goes up? This may well be the most appropriate solution.
After all, if we do not list the IDA Ireland office in Mumbai or Atlanta as consulates, then why should we list IDA Ireland office in Taipei at all?
My recommendation - we exclude the representative office in Taipei. Kransky (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I am happy to go along with your recommendation - one of the two options I set out much earlier in the discussion... Regards. Redking7 (talk) 11:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Readin suggested that the exclusion of Taiwan office on the Irish Ministry of Foreign Affairs website is a sufficient reason for its exclusion.
I did no such thing. I suggested that there is a similarity between Ireland-Taiwan relations and China-Taiwan relations in that in both cases the fact of the relations between the governments continue even though the parties involved pay lip-service to a pretense that the ROC doesn't exist.
I certainly say the Taipei office should be shown here - it is a real relation even if not a "formal" one.
My statements are about how we call the office. Is the relationship with the ROC or with Taiwan? The Cross-strait relations article set a precedence to use the word "Taiwan" rather than "ROC". I'm fine with that. I'm also fine with using ROC so long as the Cross-strait relations article does also. I'm seeking NPOV through consistency. I'm not seeking the removal of information.Readin (talk) 23:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Readin, I beg your pardon - it was Pyl who made reference to the ministerial websites, not you. Sorry for the confusion.
If you are still not satisfied with Pyl's views, please consider my argument that we have not been listing the Ireland IDA offices in Atlanta and Mumbai, so there is no obligation to list the same office in Taipei.
I am opposed to undermining the self-identification principle, which can apply to all countries, by adopting precedents specific to certain issues.
If you would like to overturn this policy, and see a change put in place for all DMBC articles, please raise your suggestion at the International Relations project, and seek the views of regular contributors listed here. Kransky (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Since I am mentioned, I would like to make sure that my view was not misinterpreted. I said "I maintain my position that the Taipei Office should be listed here for the interest of the readers, but the official Irish government's POV should be stated at the same time." Given the apparent very literal interpretation of the One China policy by the Irish government, we have to be very careful how this Taipei office is mentioned (if it is mentioned at all) so we don't give the readers a false impression about the Irish POV.--pyl (talk) 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For me, it can be listed with the caveats and notes that were on it previously or it can be left out. Whatever is decided, the important thing is that accuracy is respected. Regards. Redking7 (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought we had a consensus in that we would leave out Ireland IDA offices. We should not include the office in Taipei because we are not including the offices in Atlanta and Mumbai - which certainly are not diplomatic missions. This approach is consistent with the Irish government's position. Does anybody have any concerns with this position? Kransky (talk) 10:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The Taiwan office is a mission even if it isn't a "mission". The same source that says Taiwan isn't recognized by Ireland also explains the duties the Taiwan office perform - which are those of a mission. The fact that Ireland has decided to call it something else for diplomatic purposes does not change what it is.

Someone coming to this page may only be interested in the offices that Ireland formally lists as "missions". More likely, they are interested in information about how Ireland deals with external governments and places, and perhaps even practical knowledge about where one should go to get travel documents to specific places. Leaving out Taiwan is a serious omission. And for those who just want the official list, Taiwan is clearly marked in the article as not being a formal mission.

Kransky, at the moment there are three people saying leave the Taipei office in there, with only one objecting. For now, please leave it in as while we continue the discussion. Readin (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there were other contributors to this debate who were against a wholesale change. Anybody coming to this article, where half the introduction is concerned with why we have listed Taipei, would think that this issue is the most dominant matter about Ireland's diplomatic missions. The histories of various contributors on this matter is very much weighted towards China-Taiwan relations - nothing wrong with this of course, but how we consider the mission on Taipei is not the most dominant issue concerning Ireland's diplomatic missions.
Can you explain why the IPA Ireland Office in Taipei should be included instead of the office in (say) Atlanta? Otherwise, are you proposing that all DMBC articles should list trade offices?
Let me see if you like this comprimise. Kransky (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)



Comment - If this discussion is kicking off again, I would note once again the following quote from the Irish Government, which states that Ireland:

  • quote "recognises the Government of the PRC as the sole legitimate government of China";
  • quote "does not maintain diplomatic relations with Taiwan";
  • quote "[there is] no inter-Governmental contact between the two sides [Ireland and the Taiwan Authorities]"; and
  • quote "[considers that] Taiwan’s official status is that of a Province of China".

Regards. Redking7 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen - can we leave the article to be what Redking has just reverted it to? Kransky (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)