Talk:Diplomacy

message: Moved the initial entry about the board game to Diplomacy  (game). I think it would startle most users of an encyclopedia to find a board game description as the primary entry. :) Of course, now the primary entry needs to be written - what's there is just a stub.  -- April
:That makes sense.  I was just experimenting with creating an article, and had no idea where it would land.  Now I have changed the link from the board game page too.  My question is whether there is a general policy of putting the non-trademarked word as the primary entry.  For example to scrabble means to scramble or clamber, but maybe most people who look up Scrabble are thinking of the crossword game.
:Thanks for helping me out.  This whole concept is sooooo cool.  -Karl 
Welcome, Karl!  The Wikipedia naming conventions  suggest the most common use should be the "primary" entry, but there are sometimes disagreements as to what that should be. In case of serious confusion, disambiguating pages are used.  Hope to see you around! -- April
:excellent article, the resources are excellent! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.82.192.209 (talk) 23:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Diplomacy (game)]]

message: The article of the week, and no one's talking?  For shame.  Well, I'll start the chat by saying that I'd like to work in public diplomacy somewhere.  I'm not sure the actual word is used outside the U.S., but it's a useful concept and it's something many governments do. Isomorphic 14:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What, no discussion?

message: "Once concerned most prominently with...questions of war and peace, diplomacy now concerns itself more with issues of trade and culture."
I challenge the accuracy of this statement. If there's no convincing evidence to back this up then it'll be removed. Comments?
:This is true for the vast majority of countries, but perhaps not for the United States. - SimonP 14:15, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
:: Surely nearly every country in the world has had diplomatic activity related to war recently, not just the US (Western countries (whether to be a member of the 'coalition'), middle east countries, countless African countries etc etc?? I think original statement is naive. (original comment above is mine, forgot to sign) -- AdamH 15:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Haven't trade and culture always been a subject of diplomacy?  Maybe not as much as today, but it was an issue. I also disagree with the SimonP's implication that U.S. diplomacy today isn't concerned with trade - after all, there are those who say that the U.S. primarilly chooses its wars with economic interests in mind. Isomorphic 01:10, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll replace "Once concerned most prominently with...questions of war and peace, diplomacy now concerns itself more with issues of trade and culture." with something like "Diplomacy, international or otherwise, concerns itself with a whole manner of topics, including   war and trade." I suppose it's just the tone of the original statement. I don't like how it implies how war is no longer a diplomatic issue, which it clearly is. I mean, from the earliest cavemen, bartering a rock-hammer or something for a piece of bone, that's diplomacy involving trade right? And right now we have the US involved diplomatically with Iran over nuclear concerns, which is diplomacy concerned with war? I just can't see how that original statement stands up. I haven't had any replies disagreeing so I'll change the article. Incidentally I agree with most of Isomorphic's comment. AdamH 15:49, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Peace? questionable 

message: I don't think Sealand is a good example of an unrecognized country.  Much better examples are Abkhazia, Somaliland, Puntland, or Transnistria.  These are full-size de facto states that do not have diplomatic recognition. Isomorphic 14:52, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly feel Sealand makes for a better pull-quote/caption and image, though. It also may be slightly more well-known to a section of the readership. Undoubtably your examples (plus more) make for better text within the section- I simply don't know of as many unrecognized countries. --Rossumcapek 18:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Sealand

message: "Even in smaller posting ambassadors were very expensive."
There ought to be a word between 'smaller' and 'posting', but I'm not entirely sure what word was intended when this was written. Anyone have any idea? ---J. Passepartout
:I think it's "smaller posts." Chart123 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing word? 

message: Very little on non-western diplomacy here.  Mongols, and that's pretty much it.  Anything about diplomacy in the Ancient Chinese empires?  Japan, Korea?  What about among the Caliphates?  Is this just a modern phenomenon?  If so, should there be something about this?
Chart123 20:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There most definitely should be more. Though the "Diplomats as a guarantee" section also has some description of non-western practices.- SimonP 23:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In breaking the history section into "Europe" and "Asia", I have added a lot more information to the Asian part (including the Middle East and the Far East). The history of India should also be considered.--PericlesofAthens 16:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, one should consider Cold War diplomacy, especially with an expansion of Soviet-style diplomacy.--72.196.253.3 22:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-western Diplomacy? 

message: This article did not go through the standard GA nomination process. In reviewing the article as is, there is a serious lack of citations of sources (see criterion 2b). Concerning prose, some assertions are made which use weasel words which should corrected and cited, for example: "Modern diplomacy's origins are often traced to the states of Northern Italy". "Diplomacy was a complex affair, even more so than now" sounds like an opinion and requires a citation or and a rewording.
In regards to coverage, the history section is rather Europe-centric. One could just brush it aside with the statement that the rest of the world were not interested in diplomacy, but that would not be quite correct. China at times in its history did send diplomats abroad.
The lead section should be a summary of the article. Currently the lead is in fact a section in itself. The portions that introduce new information should be part of the main sections and only a standalone summary should be included in the lead.
Please correct these items before renominating the article. RelHistBuff 11:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Europeans more or less shaped and crafted modern diplomacy to what it is today so of course it's going to be more "Europe-centric". China sent out diplomatic missions but not as extensive as the Euro nations during their craze for colonies and constant warring with one another a few centures ago. Shadowrun 06:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisted GA

message: Shouldn't there be a section within the article that at the very least links to the most common schools of diplomatic thought: Realism, Rationalism, Liberalism, etc.?--A Parallax View 18:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomatic Theory? 

message: Oppose merge. -- Petri Krohn 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Legation]]? 

message: In the section on diplomatic recognition the Kingdom of the Netherlands was mentioned as a country that was not recognised by even its closest allies for decades after independence. This situation however pertains to the Dutch Republic, the predescessor state of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. I changed this.Gerard von Hebel 21:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomatic recognition of the Netherlands 

message: This section appears to be a POV excuse for Iranian behavior and should be removed. It has no basis in diplomatic law, and certainly, the Islamic Republic regime was no shining example of honest diplomacy.Scott Adler 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The Iranian action was a gross breach of diplomatic norms and is recognized as such by essentially everyone besides Iran.  Mgunn 07:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like this was added by SimonP back in 24 September 2004. If someone wanted to they could see if he had any resource for this by asking on his talk page. (PsychoSmith 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to read about the development of diplomatic immunity, and its divergence from the diplomatic norms established in the Middle East, a good source is The Rise of the Great Powers: 1648-1815 by Derek McKay and H.M. Scott. Specifically see pg. 202 to 204. Most of the history in this article is based on that book. It used to be listed as a reference for the article, but has for some reason disappeared. - SimonP 22:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV Section "Diplomats as a guarantee" 

message: This article needs something on diplomatic expulsions ('e.g.' see Alexander Litvinenko poisoning) linking to a list of expulsions 'etc.' Cutler 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expulsions 

message: I have removed all of the citation links to the so-called "article" entitled "A Brief History of Diplomacy" .  This "article" was cited 4 or 5 times in the Diplomacy page, but on following the link, I found a page which was almost word-for-word the wikipedia article.  Furthermore, at the bottom of the page, it acknowledges that it uses materials from the wikipedia Diplomacy page as a source.  Citation in this fashion is misleading, and a more reputable source should be found.  dynam001 10:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Removal 

message: Further extend the discussion on digital diplomacy and eDiplomacy. Make reference to open diplomacy, as advanced by the Open Diplomacy Group (http://opendiplomacy.blogspot.com), and eDiplomacy (http://edip.diplomacy.edu/).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.121.56 (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Diplomacy 

message: "Small states are particularly affected by developments which are determined beyond their borders such as climate change, water security and shifts in the global economy"
This line makes it fairly clear that climate change has been caused by national policy and not of natural causes. Climate change itself is an issue that many disagree on if it is happening or not. The line violates Wikis neutrality stance twice in that statement.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.114.227 (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias line should be reconfigured. 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 
;What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Indian Diplomatic Personnel.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: A discussion is ongoing at Talk:List of sovereign states under the Bundling of "UN observer states" and "member states of UN Specialized Agencies" subhead about things like:
*Should Kosovo and Holy See really be bundled together?
*Should permanent observers (i.e. Holy See) have its own category?
*Should the list be amended so it does not incorrectly say that the Vatican City is a UN observer....its not, the Holy See is.
*if Kosovo is listed with the Holy See, must Niue and Cook Islands also be so listed.
Not many editors are involved and there is a desire to broaden the participation. Hope some of you wish to contribute. Just click there and give your views. Thanks. NelsonSudan (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Talk: List of sovereign states]] 

message: "Representatives from republics were ranked the lowest (which often angered the leaders of the numerous German, Scandinavian and Italian republics)". This seems little odd: which Scandinavian republics would these be?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.151.227 (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Finland and Iceland, depending whether they existed in the period this refers to. Japinderum (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scandinavian republics 

message: unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.
Have applied tag. There are no citations that support any of the claims made. There is also an odd correlation in content to other wiki pages - Cultural_Diplomacy and Institute for Cultural Diplomacy with concerns as to Advertising - WP:SOAP etc.
If as claimed "Cultural Diplomacy (the science/study of diplomacy between cultures) has existed as a practice for centuries." there should be many independent sources to substantiate that claim and illuminate the subject. lack of citation and suitable reference is an issue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Media-hound- thethird (talk • contribs) 17:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Diplomacy? Clean Up Needed. 

message: Copy and paste with minor additions from either the page Cultural Diplomacy or the source identified.
Whole section removed until a proper wiki entry can be made. 10:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Diplomacy - section removed - copyright violations 

message: Here is the "Ms Nicholson" of Ottoman Turkish diplomacy. We could use her works to make a better contribution to this article on Ottoman imperial diplomacy practices. --E4024 (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ottoman Empire as a major diplomatic power 

message: What is the graph of Diplomatic Personnel actually showing? Improving it with a more in depth description underneath would be nice.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billgates2 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Diplomacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090304003519/http://www.history.com/schedule.do?action=daily&linkDate=2008-05-141100&timeZone=EST to http://www.history.com/schedule.do?action=daily&linkDate=2008-05-141100&timeZone=EST#
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131212044341/http://www.folkebernadotteacademy.se/en/Competences/Political-Affairs/Order-Download-the-Political-Advisers-Handbook/ to http://www.folkebernadotteacademy.se/en/Competences/Political-Affairs/Order-Download-the-Political-Advisers-Handbook/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Substituted at 13:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Diplomacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714174920/http://www.army.mil/professionalWriting/volumes/volume5/september_2007/9_07_2.html to http://www.army.mil/professionalWriting/volumes/volume5/september_2007/9_07_2.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518172340/http://houseofprotocol.com/ to http://www.houseofprotocol.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140404080529/http://www.hnkcnews.com:80/ to http://www.hnkcnews.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I added a short description to this page as part of a run through all the remaining level-3 vital articles that still lacked them. Per WP:SHORTDESC, the target maximum length is 40 characters and the goal is to help users understand what this page is about when they're making searches, not to comprehensively define the topic (for instance, at pages like History of music we just use ). The Wikidata description for this page was  (87 characters), which I shortened to  (a little shorter at 77 characters), going off of the lead sentence, which began  (Diplomacy (disambiguation) also concurs).  reverted and added "and groups" to the lead sentence.
I'm not a diplomacy scholar, but it seems like there may be a bit of an unaddressed question about whether or not it's okay for the page to cover the colloquial definition of diplomacy ("the art of dealing with people in a sensitive and effective way" from the dictionary) or only the professionalized definition ("the profession, activity, or skill of managing international relations, typically by a country's representatives abroad" from the dictionary). Currently, the page seems basically the latter, and my initial thought is that that's reasonable, since the colloquial definition can be covered by other pages like negotiation (we could add a hatnote ). If we go with that, there's then the question of the short description to use for the professionalized definition. If we can find a way to keep it within the 40 character guideline or closer to it, we ought to. At first glance, "state" seems sufficient to me, since the term is broader than most people realize — we define it as "Organised community living under a system of government" in its short description. But I'd like to hear from everyone here: how necessary is mentioning non-state groups to the essence of the topic, and is there any other way to communicate the essence in as short/simple a way as possible?  talk 17:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont think expanding to groups is expanding to the colloquial. I am an international relations scholar, but thats neither here nor there. Groups also includes the supranational, for instance the EU’s diplomacy. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I added groups because thats whats in the body, if we want to change what the article is about we’re gonna have to take a lot of stuff out. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add back the wikidata description (including "groups"), since the most important thing is that the article have some shortdesc rather than none. Beyond that, it's a matter I'm fine leaving to those of you who watch this area more closely than I do, so long as you all keep conciseness/clarity for a general non-specialist audience top of mind.  talk 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short description 

message: Diplomacy 116.204.241.8 (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomacy 

message: Perhaps this article can be expanded, or a companion article can be written to address diplomacy as a social skill. Lbeaumont (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diplomacy as a social skill