Talk:Diplomatic corps

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject International relations  
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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Status of the Papal Nuncio[edit]

"In many countries the papal nuncio (officially known as the apostolic nuncio) serves as the Dean of the Diplomatic Corps and the corps spokesman on formal occasions. By virtue of Article 4 of the protocol of June 9, 1815 of the Congress of Vienna, the nuncio is dean of the diplomatic corps in the country of appointment. This is generally the case for countries that have Roman Catholicism as the official or main religion." How can the nuncio be dean by virtue of a 1815 Congress when the Vatican State did not exist until the Lateran Treaty of 1929? According to Geoffrey Robertson QC in The Case of the Pope, "This practice grew up in certain obsessively Catholic countries as a mark of religious respect, and at their insistence the 1961 Vienna Convention provided that no rules on diplomatic relations should be without prejudice to any practice accepted by the receiving state regarding the precedence of the representative of the Holy See (See article 16(3)) This was merely a saving clause, but has been cleverly spun as if it were a universal endorsement of this utterly unmerited practice..." (p 88) --Hugh7 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The Papal States did exist in 1815 - but the nuncio is actually the ambassador of the Holy See to a certain country and the Holy See also continued to exist between 1870 and 1929. The State of Vatican City and the Holy See are two different entities. --Usquam (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Diplomatic corps image[edit]

The image attached to the page appears to be a commercial image linked solely to a commercial webpage. I see no reason to include - it may look official, but as far as I can tell, it's an official image only of a company. It would also appear to violate wp:coi.--Gregalton (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I've removed the image. This seal is not used by any real country's diplomatic corps. Anyone wanting to re-add this image will need to find reliable third-party sources showing that this image is used by actual ambassadors as part of their diplomatic work. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I work with protocol in the FAO and have personally seen this image hundreds of times. You are obviously not working in the diplomatic arena Mr Flopsy. Palacehistorian (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN: Can more examples be supplied? Removed for the mean time. I have no reason to say that it's not used in the CAR, but to make such a bold claim about the image is clearly not something which will go down well (with everyone else). (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
If this is real, there would be multiple third-party references that would prove your statement. Since you don't have any, and since three editors have been unable to find them in the last year, this is clearly unlikely to be real. Pretty much the only thing you've done on Wikipedia, Palacehistorian, is to add in this logo over and over even though three editors have removed it as either a hoax or unproven bunk. Please provide several reliable third-party references since single-purpose editors are very unreliable in my experience. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I will look for some more examples, the Diplomatic Corps is a very closed group, so it is hard to find the emblem published in places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Palacehistorian (talkcontribs) 19:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Diplomacymatters tried that argument, too, but Diplomacymatters stopped posting after Gregalton was unconvinced by his unsubstantiated arguments. (And then you started posting the seal instead. Hmmmm, I wonder what that could mean.) Please prove your statements or else that seal can't be used here. Several editors have looked into this and determined that it's an image being used by a commercial organization and not by any diplomatic organization in the world. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 19:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I suggest you re-read what I said Mr Plopsy. I said I am searching for other examples before this is put back up. I will find them, how do I know this? I am a diplomat my friend and have encountered the identical image many times. However, Wikipedia is about VERIFIABILITY and not TRUTH. One embassy using this image is not enough for you, but I will find another using this sooner or later and then the image will go back up where it belongs. Palacehistorian (talk) 01:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Palacehistorian[edit]

Okay, situation finally resolved.

The image is clearly referenced as in use by an embassy

and also at Palacehistorian (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The site is registered in the WHOIS for the .info top-level domain to "Diplomatic Domains Inc"[1], a private corporation that exists NOWHERE outside of that one site.[2] Therefore, no, that's not an embassy site. The article you link to is discussing "Commercial Diplomats", someone who negotiates for pay, and again has nothing to do with embassies. (Heck, the image itself looks photoshopped.) Also, don't blank this page and replace it with your own text as you did. This isn't allowed. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)