Talk:Diplomatic correspondence

A fact from Diplomatic correspondence appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 May 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the customary salutation used in letters from one president to another is "My Great and Good Friend"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/May. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Diplomatic correspondence.

Wikipedia

International relations High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Sir My Sister"

I do not have access to the source used in the Letters section which describes the salutation and closure of a diplomatic letter, but the section currently suggests that the female version of "Sir My Brother" is "Sir My Sister", which seems odd to me. Is "sir" really used for female monarchs, or is this an oversight? ~Mable (chat) 11:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mablestrip thank you for catching this, it is an oversight (by me). The correct form is "Madame My Sister". I'll correct it. LavaBaron (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I helped ^_^ ~Mable (chat) 04:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An another question regarding the differences in salutations when the corresponding monarchs are not of "equal rank". I doubt that there should be a differentiation made between monarchs like King and (Sovereign) Prince. First of all, yes, king/queen is a higher title than grand duke, duke and prince. However, in terms of diplomatic protocol and common thought, assuming that the position of a monarch comes from his/her position as sovereign, all sovereigns (and republican heads of state by the way) are equal to each other. Precedence of monarchs is also not determined by their titles but their term of office (date of assuming office, thus kings are not always before princes). Here in this video (a documentary about Prince Albert II of Monaco) you can see a letter of crecedence for HBM's Ambassador to Monaco, in which she addresses the Prince as "Sir My Brother and Cousin" and signs herself as his "Sister and Cousin". I don't think she really personally considers herself a cousin of the Prince, it is purely a matter of custom. Cheers, my brothers and cousins of common African origin Kowalmistrz (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Letter of protest" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Letter of protest and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 7#Letter of protest until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Letter of protest" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Letter of protest and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 6#Letter of protest until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hildeoc (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Letters of protest" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Letters of protest and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 30#Letters of protest until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Letters of Protest" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Letters of Protest and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 30#Letters of Protest until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:06, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes after See Also

It seems that there has been an oversight. In most articles, the "notes" section contains notes about the article, and typically (always?) follows the "see also" links. In this article, the "notes" section gives information about diplomatic notes. It seems incorrect that "see also" should come before this "notes" section, since by doing so it appears in the middle of the article, rather than the end. Most probably, this should be corrected so that "see also" appears at the end of the article. 71.127.47.81 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]