Wikipedia talk:Diplomatic notability

The essay generally

I intend editing this essay but before I do please say where I am mistaken about things.

"Positions of Head of mission are relevant to an article about the foreign relations between two nations (example: Canada–United States relations)."

If I understand this sentence it is saying that heads of mission may be mentioned in "relations" articles. If so, this is not to do with WP:NOTABILITY ("The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."), but to WP:MOS. So, especially if it is to remain as the first sentence, it should be clear that this is not a notability issue.

"Furthermore, positions of Head of mission to international organizations (IGO) are also relevant articles about a nation's membership in an organization (example: Fiji and the United Nations)."

As written this seems to be saying heads of mission to IGOs are inherently notable. This would indeed be a matter of notability. However, I strongly suspect that there is a typo and that "relevant articles" should read "relevant to articles" in which case the same remarks apply as for the first sentence.

"Therefore, those articles can include (if it can be verified by a reliable source(s)) a list of Head of mission(s) between the two countries, or between a country and an organization, an embedded list per WP:LISTPEOPLE."

Guidance on how an article should contain an embedded list is not a matter of notability. WP:LISTPEOPLE links to the Manual of Style concerning stand-alone lists. The MoS about embedded lists is at WP:EMBED.

"If a 'relations' article has not yet been created, do to it being non-notable per established notability guidelines, one should not be created for the sole purpose of creating embedded lists of head of mission between two nations, or between a nation and an international organization."

Notability guidance concerning list articles (and embedded lists) is contained at WP:NLIST. To me, all the guidance there seems to relate well to diplomats.

"If an individual who is, or was, the head of mission, meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG, or any other applicable notability guideline, or well respected essay (such as WP:SOLDIER) an individual biography article can be created."

The first part seems to reiterate general notability guidance. I think we would need to say which essays are "well respected". I think diplomats would only be notable according to WP:SOLDIER if they had been soldiers so perhaps the criteria are meant by analogy. So, for example, "Played an important role in a significant military event", might read "Played an important role in a significant diplomatic event", if so, I suggest we copy, paste and appropriately modify.

"Otherwise, a redirect to the list is sufficient. (this would be similar to how some municipalities have a list of former mayors embedded within them, but the office itself doesn't automatically confer notability upon the office holder (see WP:POLOUTCOMES))."

I think it is very widely accepted that notability criteria do not apply to redirects but if there is doubt for diplomats it would be worth restating. Articles deleted for being about non-notable topics are frequently converted to redirects. The remark about automatic notability is odd in referring to WP:POLOUTCOMES because that says, to all intents and purposes, that some political offices are automatically notable.

"Other notable diplomats may include those who have received significant coverage in crafting a treaty or bilateral or multilateral agreement, or received significant coverage related to a notable diplomatic event (i.e. Trent Affair)."

I think this is merely rather loosely restating general notability guidance but it may be worth reiterating if some people consider that no diplomats are notable or that some especially demanding criteria apply. Since some people have criticised our attitudes to diplomats as being too US or UK centred, Trent Affair is a particularly unfortunate example.

I also think that a general copy-edit would be a good idea. Thincat (talk) 13:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Thincat: I can see the need for copy editing the article, but but I don't think this should be deleted from WP:BIO. As this essay was directly created as a replacement for WP:DIPLOMAT that was part of WP:POLITICIAN at one point. Now, ideally, if we can elevate this essay into being listed in WP:BIO that would be great. Perhaps we should ping editors active in that discussion regarding any more changes: (Stalwart111, James500, Necrothesp, LibStar, Stanning, Enos733, Herostratus, Student7, DGG, fdewaele, Pburka, Fiachra10003).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this essay is really two parts 1) What to do if a Head of mission does not meet other notability guidelines, and 2) When a diplomat is notable, and what criteria needs to be met.

I think the reason why there is not a presumed notability for a Head of mission, is due to the lack of consensus that such a presumed notability exists.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

A few points:

1. I'm glad this essay has been written, because it seemed to be the only way to get WP:DIPLOMAT removed from WP:POLITICIAN where it should never have been put!
2. "If an individual who is, or was, the head of mission, meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG [etc.] an individual biography article can be created" needs to be stated, although it's a statement of the obvious: if any individual meets notability guidelines, whether diplomat or not, an individual biography article can be created.
3. Redirect to list seems problematic to me, because any head of mission who approaches notability is likely to have held more than one such post, so will appear in more than one list.
4. WP:POLOUTCOMES is not relevant because diplomats are not politicians. Some diplomats may have held political offices before their diplomatic appointment, and (especially from the US) they may have been appointed as reward for political service, but a head of diplomatic mission is not a political position in the normal sense of the word 'political'. No head of mission position that I know of is an elected office.
5. As a general statement it's correct to say "the office itself doesn't automatically confer notability upon the office holder". However, in my opinion a head of mission office above a certain level is at least an indication of notability, just as academic, entertainment, military and, yes, sports positions are considered notable above a certain level. But I'm aware that some people here are strongly opposed to this idea; and neither I nor anyone else has managed to define the "certain level"!
6. By the way, anyone with an open mind about diplomats may wish to read What Diplomats Do by Brian Barder.

Stanning (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Re. heads of missions to supranational organizations, there's two situations: (a) major supranationals like the UN and EU - for these, countries almost invariably choose their ambassadors ("Perm. Reps.", in the lingo) from the ranks of their most senior ambassadorial staffers - in fact, there's a pretty strong argument that the COREPER actually runs the EU; (b) minor supranationals like the Council of Europe, where the permanent representatives are usually either up-and-coming mid-level diplomats or are ambassadorial level but close to retirement. Being head of mission to any supranational should not bring a presumption of notability (UN and EU are the possible two exceptions). That said, I'm delighted that we're coming to a reasoned conclusion for this WP:DIPLOMAT problem once and for all. Fiachra10003 (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Fiachra10003 & @Stanning: I can see some of your points, however the essay is a consensus of the editors who were involved at the time of its creation. Before I start, I think everyone who has been involved in this discussion in the years that reached to this being spun out, my position has been stated before, but I will reiterate it.

1) I share the opinion of others, but which do not appear to have a consensus of the whole Wikipedia community, that a Head of Mission are generally notable, just as Flag/General officers are per WP:SOLDIER.

2) I am on the fence as to whether diplomats are or are not politicians.

1a) Due to the lack of consensus by the Wikipedia community, I have come to a intermediate position where I think I differ with many. That is, I view the office of that head of mission being notable, and not necessarily the individual holding it themselves as being presumed notable due to holding that office. Therefore, while an office maybe notable that it exist, relevant to the relations between nation X and organization Y or nation Z, the individual who held that office may not be notable outside of holding that office.

1b) As their term of office is notable I am of the view that per WP:BIO1E, unless the individual is independently notable for some other reason (as defined by other notability guidelines), that they should be redirected to the article about the office.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: That's fine. You pinged us for comments, and we commented, but if the essay is a consensus of the editors who were involved at the time of its creation (I dropped out of the discussion, despairing of a consensus) then I'm content; I agree to disagree on some points; and there's little more to say.
Actually I think your view (your 1a above) makes sense, that the office of head of mission can be notable, and not necessarily the individual holding it.
I also agree that it can make sense for a non-notable diplomat's name to be redirected to the article about the office, but I have a practical problem, which is that a diplomat may appear in more than one such article. To get round that purely practical problem, I propose that in such cases a minimal article under the diplomat's name might be permitted, simply listing the offices held. Having hunted for such a diplomat who doesn't meet notability criteria, I've made an example of such an list at Richard Wildash. Or is that an innovation too far? Stanning (talk) 08:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not bad Stanning. And if an editor finds significant coverage it gives an article which that information can be placed in.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm supportive of this. @RightCowLeftCoast:, on the politician point and just as a matter of information, in most countries almost all diplomats are NOT politicians but instead career civil servants, hired with a newly-minted degree and trained from that point on. In general, in the English-speaking countries other than the US, Ambassadors have the same rank and the same pay (ignoring overseas allowances) as Assistant Secretaries i.e. the level directly reporting to the most senior permanent civil servant in a government department. Very occasionally, political appointments will be made e.g. James Callaghan's 1977 appointment of his son-in-law Peter Jay as HM Ambassador to the United States (sounds like nepotism but Jay was a very good choice). Jay, however, is the exception that proves the rule - generally only the US appoints people who aren't career Foreign Service officers to ambassadorships. Fiachra10003 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This discussion seems to me a whole lot better than some that have taken place previously. I am going to make some edits which will not be intended to change the meaning but to lay out more clearly the various aspects. I will do individual edits so if anyone wants to revert me I'd be glad if they could do this per edit rather than a whole lot at once. I'll maybe spread out my editing in time to help on this. Thincat (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have finished for now, certainly for the next few days. I have left the previous text pretty much as it was with minor copy editing but I have changed the order to separate stand-alone biographies from other types of article. I have addded a bit (more than I had expected) to set the scene for all this. I'd like to change the detailed wording of the individual criteria but I'll leave that for a later stage. Thincat (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I have started (and shall continue later) to make substantial changes to the wording of the individual criteria. I am trying not to change the meaning but only to explain things more clearly. I have however made some new statements referring to existing policy and guidelines concerning notability. Where this essay has been referring to guidance on matters of style I have tried to make the distinction clearer. I have said that some criteria in WP:Notability (people) should be applied to diplomats by analogy (the essay was already suggesting this).

I think in due course it would be good to provide an actual list of criteria directly relevant to diplomats. For example, in WP:SOLDIER (which although it is only an essay is referred to in WP:Notability (people) as if it were official guidance) "5. Played an important role in a significant military event" could be adopted here as "Played an important role in a significant diplomatic event".

Can we make us of Fiachra10003's remark that "in the English-speaking countries other than the US, Ambassadors have the same rank and the same pay (ignoring overseas allowances) as Assistant Secretaries i.e. the level directly reporting to the most senior permanent civil servant in a government department". Although we have notability criteria for politicians, military people, academics and so on we don't seem to have anything for civil servants (or business people). The "default" criterion in WP:ANYBIO "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field" seems to me much more demanding than any of the specific criteria. However, "received a well-known and significant award or honor" will often apply in the UK. I know knighthoods generally count and I think CBE as well, but not OBE or MBE. Thoughts? Thincat (talk) 09:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but there's a catch. UK Ambassadors get an automatic KCMG after a certain period of service in that rank. I've forgotten the exact formula but it's exactly analogous to a Vice Admiral or Lieutenant General's automatic KBE. Therefore being HM ambassador and having a KCMG generally simply means you're a senior ambassador and doesn't really signify notability by Wikipedia's established standards. However, a handful of ambassadors get NON-automatic honours such as, for instance, Arthur de la Mare who had a KCMG but who the Queen also made a KCVO, a knighthood in her personal gift. Fiachra10003 (talk) 14:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know anything about this sort of thing. However, at AfD, I'd go in to bat with KCMG being notable (Orders of precedence in the United Kingdom) and, not being inherited, it is a "well-known and significant award or honor". I don't see it being automatic as a disqualification. Thincat (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

There's the rub. Almost all UK ambassadors are CMGs, KCMGs or GCMGs. It goes with the job quite automatically. By a literal reading of our current rules, the individuals in question aren't deemed notable because they are ambassadors but they ARE notable because they have a major gong from the Queen that came with the job. We're not being consistent. (Sigh). Anyway, I'm happy that this process is, at last, ironing out this whole issue. Fiachra10003 (talk) 01:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's see where we get to. Thincat (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how automatically 'gongs' are awarded to UK diplomats in reality, but I observe that the current UK permanent representative to the United Nations, a top post whose holder is very likely to become notable, is only a CBE. I haven't counted, but I wouldn't say "almost all" today's UK ambassasors are CMGs or above; it was probably more like that in the past, I do agree. As Fiachra10003 says, KCMG tends to indicate seniority (GCMG is rarer, indication of success not just seniority). Stanning (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Following up further Fiachra10003's remark, I see at WP:OUTCOMES that "Sub-cabinet officials (assistant secretary, commissioner, etc.) are usually considered notable". This is under the heading "Politicians". Are these sort of people politicians in the US? Anyway, this would equate to ambassadors being (usually) notable. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The analogy with WP:SOLDIER is apt: it says individuals are likely to be notable if they "held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer". A career ambassador ranks with a flag, general or air officer according to US military guidance (via militarywives.com). Stanning (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Notable event

There is already a sentence that gives guidance on those notable related to a notable diplomatic event:

Other notable diplomats may include those who have received significant coverage in crafting a treaty or bilateral or multilateral agreement, or received significant coverage related to a notable diplomatic event (i.e. Trent Affair).

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Presumed notability

I had a hand in crafting WP:SOLDIER. There is a presumption that there are sufficient reliable sources on and WP:OFFLINE that a flag or general officer would be there to have the individual meet WP:ANYBIO. Although it is a criteria in SOLDIER, those who write it off as "just an essay" of a MILHIST, often demand that the reliable sources presumed to exist are produced. If this essay makes a presumption of notability, than unless we are fairly certain that such reliable sources exists, than to including a presumed notability might weaken the strength of this essay, and its future possible elevation to guideline status.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

another point about significance

One thing I notice in searching for info on ambassadors is they get a lot of articles based on something they say. For example, the Canadian ambassador to Cuba makes a comment about the school system in Cuba, and five newspapers suddenly carry the story. If your average guy on the street or random professor had that opinion, nobody would care. Ambassadors, because of their role and their prominence, meet GNG. I don't know exactly how to phrase it but it seems to me, if a newspaper headline is based purely on your opinion, you have established some notability. —Мандичка^YO 😜 14:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There has been ongoing debate and disagreement whether being an ambassador gives a presumption of notability. Expect a rousing debate on that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind, though, how diplomats and the press work. Foreign service departments have press sections. Decent-size embassies also have press attaches or at least a first secretary charged with dealing with the press. Similarly broadsheet newspapers, even in these days of cutbacks, have diplomatic correspondents (or at least someone who takes the title because it gets them invited to embassy parties). Often the reporters won't actually attend the function at which the ambassador speaks but merely get emailed or faxed the text of the speech, which they then report or not, depending on how busy a news day it is. Meeting GNG in this way is largely a function of one's power relations with the major media in the country in question (but I don't want to be undermining our whole approach to WP:SECONDARY now, do I?) Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Embassies have press people? Surprise ... So does everyone who routinely appears in the media. Actors, sportspeople, politicians, entertainers have their agents to get coverage for themselves (top ones have their own press staff). Governments, political parties, corporations, etc., have whole departments to deal with the media. The difference between diplomats and 'celebrities' is that with celebrities the media message is about themselves – that's what they live by. But if media coverage of a diplomat is about her personally, then she's failed in her job, which is to present her government, not herself (adjust gender pronoun appropriately). That's why WP:GNG works differently for people for whom getting themselves covered in the media is part of the job, than for people whose business isn't about themselves. Stanning (talk) 08:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOLDIER mention

At the article we read:

If an individual who is, or was, the "head of mission" meets the criteria in a well-respected essay (such as WP:SOLDIER) (!) an individual biography article can be created.

But if you click to it, you got:

The notability guidance previously provided by the WP:SOLDIER essay has been deprecated as a result of this discussion. It is no longer considered by WikiProject Military history to be useful guidance on the notability of military people, and its use in deletion discussions is actively discouraged by the project. Deletion discussions regarding biographical articles should refer to WP:BIO.

So I believe we should not leave it that way. I wasn't confident enough either to simply delete the mention or to replace it with a link to the historical essay. So I hope to attract more experienced contributors to this confusing thing. Suitskvarts (talk) 20:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)