Talk:Letter of credence

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

Lowercase

Please stop moving this page to Letter of credence (sic). Lowercasing it like that is as illiterate as writing Queen elizabeth ii or President of the united states. Wikipedia correctly lowercases things that belong in lowercase but there are names, titles, formal references, proper nouns, etc that have to be uppercased. If you lowercase Letter of Credence you get something that actually means something totally different. Uppercased it means formal letters between heads of state accrediting diplomats. Lowercased it means simply an accreditation letter, which could be to the bank, an employer or whomever. It is the same when people lowercase advice everywhere even though it is uppercased for a reason - Advice = binding instruction from a government to a head of state, whereas advice means simply advice from anyone to anyone else about anything which they don't have to obey if they don't want to. Casing in diplomatic and constitutional topics is done for a reason. Please stop screwing up articles on constitutional and legal topics if you don't know what you are doing. Things are uppercased for a reason not because whomever wrote it just felt like it. FearÉIREANN 01:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A bit Commonwealth-centric

The current article seems to assume that all states issue and accept Letters of Credence on behalf of the head of state but on advice of the government, which is not universally true. For example, the King of Jordan does both of his own accord, not on advice of his National Assembly; the President of the United States, meanwhile, takes the (binding) advice of the Senate when issuing a Letter of Credence, but whether to accept one from a foreign state or not is solely his decision. --Delirium 08:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does refer to "parliamentary democracies" in the paragraph to which you refer in order to distinguish these Heads of State from Heads of State who exercise authority in their own right.--Visagrunt 22:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic Immunity

The article is incorrect with respect to diplomatic immunity. The conferral of immunity is a matter of the municipal law of the Receiving State (and so it varies from State to State). However, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations sets out in Article 39 that a diplomatic agent is entitled to privileges and immunities from, "the moment he enters the territory of the receiving State" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visagrunt (talk • contribs) 22:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Ossetia?

Isn't is a bit odd to include South Ossetia in an example? That 'state' is at the moment only recognized by two states: Russia and Nicaragua (oh and Abkhazia, but that one has also minimal international recognition). Showing the meeting between the South Ossetian envoy and the Russian president is in that way very political and not NPoV. I propose to delete the example and image from this wikipedia entry. 80.127.58.65 (talk) 14:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

As most of the article is unsourced, I've removed the two sections that have zero sourcing, as noted since 2014. While some of the material is entertaining, it falls into the realm of original research, and without any sourcing, it cannot remain. --Pete (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]