This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations Mid‑importance 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.

A Chargé d'Affairs should be differentiated from a Chargé d'Affaires, ad interim. 'Ad interim' would of course denote in the absence of a regular ambassador or other permanent chief of mission.

What about pussy? I heard this was a rank somewhere. --Sobolewski 21:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the Roman Empire; it was administrative, not diplomatic. See the article. J S Ayer 01:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How did it appear? Is it used now? What does it mean? Can an ambassador be either extraordinary or plenipotentiary only? Samnikal 03:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term "extraordinary" has no real meaning. Years ago it was given only to nonresident ambassadors on temporary missions and was used to distinguish them from regular resident ambassadors. The latter resented others having this appellation, as it seemed to imply a lesser position for themselves. Eventually therefore, it was accorded to them as well. "Plenipotentiary" also comes down through the years. Today it simply means possessed of full power to do an ambassador’s normal job. 195.218.15.27 (talk) 09:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there any reason that the modern explanation of rank should not be at the top, with the historical ones relegated below? I know many references are to the historical versions, but the article should be about the most current explanation of the term. Sarcasmboy 12:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The United States does. The United States do not do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.167.130.245 (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They (and I do mean they) did until sometime after their civil war. Prior to that, they were spoken of as plural by their own citizens; they are a federation of separate states, after all. 64.60.100.162 (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Holy See appoints Nuncios where the British Commonwealth countries appoint High Commissioners and everybody else appoints Ambassadors. Shouldn't this fact be mentioned in the article? I don't find the word nuncio anywhere in it. Tom129.93.17.195 (talk) 01:18, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The third-to-last bullet under "Diplomatic_rank#Special_envoys" starts out by saying

The Secretary-General of the United Nations personally mandates special envoys for a particular field, including:

and then there are 5 sub-bullets under that, listing various UN positions, and the last one of those is

United Nations Special Envoy for Refugees

However, now I am wondering if that (that last sub-bullet entry) is old (obsolete) information. I have recently seen the phrase

"Special Envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees"

...which suggests that, either

1. The "United Nations Special Envoy for Refugees" is different from the "Special Envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees" -- which only makes sense if one's goal were to make it pointlessly difficult to figure out this stuff; or else, (more likely), that
2. the position [formerly] called the "United Nations Special Envoy for Refugees" -- (and which used to be "personally mandated" by the Secretary-General of the United Nations) -- has changed, and is now called the "Special Envoy of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees" ... which sounds like it means that the title is NOT for a "Special Envoy of the Secretary-General" ("personally mandated by the Secretary-General") ... but instead, is for a position that is mandated by or "via" someone else ("someone else" being the "UN High Commissioner for Refugees").

But, if "2." is true, then that last sub-bullet is wrong (/slash "misleading"), because being mandated "by" or "via" some other person is different -- (isn't it?) -- from being mandated "personally" by the Secretary-General.

((Source: this specific version (the "15:01, 9 August 2016‎" version) (last edited by 49.224.239.186 (talk)) of the article ["Diplomatic_rank"].))

Any comments?

--Mike Schwartz (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blymey. This article starts and continues to confuse dopes like me. HELP!Longinus876 (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just added two of these for Australia. The new Prime Minister has created two "special envoys" positions. Ive added links to media reporting this. Timeoin (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]