Talk:Plenipotentiary

message: WHY?
:Be more specific. Nagelfar 14:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHY? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  "Miscellaneous" sourcing and POV 

message: :: 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)
thread_title:  Paragraph - For the Nazi Reich 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Translation 

message: 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)
thread_title: confusing tags

message: 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)
thread_title: Extinction

message: I think you mean the City State of Vatican City, not Venice?http://ukinholysee.fco.gov.uk/en/our-office-in-holy-see/ambassador/previous-ambassador
--Truthmonkey (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomats 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Viceroy of India