Talk:Plenipotentiary

	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, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

WHY?[edit]

WHY?

Be more specific. Nagelfar 14:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Miscellaneous" sourcing and POV[edit]

The information about plenipotentiary powers in an intra-national context is interesting, but it's embedded in some fairly inflammatory language ("surrender"), vague statements of opinion ("liberal elites") and side remarks ("regarded by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan as being a terrorist organisation") which, as currently phrased, don't look relevant. (It might be relevant to the purposes of this article/section to note that the Conservative Party considered the ANC a terrorist organization, but it's not obvious what Thatcher and Reagan have to do with SA internal politics or the necessity for de Klerk to demand plenipotentiary powers.)

Plus, none of it's sourced.

Can someone who knows more about this history than I do make some improvements?

Chronodm (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has been tagged since May 2010, but may have been satisfactorily addressed by interval modifications. Unless there are objections, I will remove the tag in 10 days.FeatherPluma (talk) 20:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been cleaned up -- I removed the NPOV tag myself. Thanks for drawing my attention to it. Chronodm (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph - For the Nazi Reich[edit]

The term "Nazi Reich" sounds like a trivial expression from a cheap comic book.--196.207.47.60 (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translation[edit]

The section 'Translation' is unnecessary - there is no problem translating 'Plenipotentiary' to other languages. More useful would be suggestions for simpler, less obscure English words for the function, such as 'commissioner', 'representative' or others. This section seems to be above all an advertisement for the company mentioned. 185.5.217.145 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find the discussion about translating plenipotentiary slightly suspect. If German Bevollmächtigt(er)translates as plenipotentiary, does Dutch gevolmachtigde translate similarly? Remember that here a "gevolmachtigde" translates as mandatee, attorney in fact, authorized person, or in some cases proxy. Analysis of the roots shows that the word volmacht/vollmächt is a literal transcription of two Latin words plenum and potens (full and power). I have a feeling that the person who contributed this remark might have been slightly missing the point. Augusta2 (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over a decade and a half later, deleted in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plenipotentiary&diff=prev&oldid=1220314375. See changeset comment for pointer to the (brief) discussion. 2A0D:6FC2:6A90:4D00:0:0:0:5F9 (talk) 00:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

confusing tags[edit]

The later parts of the article have been tagged { { confusing } } since last year. I've added a tag at the top of the article, since I think the whole thing is confusing. I reads to me as though the whole thing was translated from another language.--76.93.42.50 (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at editing the page for general readability, I think it's a lot better now although could still do with more work and needs some references. Have not touched the section on the Nazi Reich as I don't have the historical knowledge. Magellan762 (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extinction[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that plenipotentiaries have been very rare since World War II? Almost all treaties go through a process of negotiation, execution, and finally ratification by some sort of legislature. Under the U.S. constitution, for instance, it is impossible to have a plenipotentiary. Adams, Franklin and Jay were all named pursuant to the old Articles of Confederation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomenclaturist (talk • contribs) 06:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomats[edit]

I think you mean the City State of Vatican City, not Venice?^[1] --Truthmonkey (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://ukinholysee.fco.gov.uk/en/our-office-in-holy-see/ambassador/previous-ambassador

Viceroy of India[edit]

I think it just be explained in the article that the last British Viceroy of India, Lord Mountbatten was given plenipotentiary powers in 1947 for his dealings with the Indian nationalist leaders. This is a rare example of the powers being used post 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald Trefusis (talk • contribs) 13:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://ukinholysee.fco.gov.uk/en/our-office-in-holy-see/ambassador/previous-ambassador

[1]