Talk:Diplomatic corps

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Status of the Papal Nuncio

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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). 118.90.57.67 (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Diplomatic corps image 

message: Okay, situation finally resolved. 
The image is clearly referenced as in use by an embassy http://www.centrafricaine.info/flags/index-english.html
and also at 
http://www.gds.ro/Economie/2010-01-12/Trade+Commissioner+-+Colin+Evans+%E2%80%93+outlines+crucial+diplomatic+strategies
Palacehistorian (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The centralafricaine.info site is registered in the WHOIS for the .info top-level domain to "Diplomatic Domains Inc", a private corporation that exists NOWHERE outside of that one site.  Therefore, no, that's not an embassy site.  The gds.ro 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)
thread_title: Comment by Palacehistorian