Diplomacy was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 19, 2005 Good article nominee Listed January 29, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 19, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of July 17, 2004. Current status: Delisted good article

This  level-3 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

International relations: Law Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject International law. Politics High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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).[reply]

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I once saw a poster which read, "Diplomacy is the ability to tell someone to go to hell and have them look forward to the trip." H2O 23:35, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Will Rogers: "Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock."

Ambrose Bierce's Devil's Dicitonary defines diplomacy as "The patriotic art of lying for one's country."

--Rossumcapek 17:44, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Diplomacy is rather the act or relationship between two entities Ekom James (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the following sentence: "States were normally ranked by the title of the sovereign, for Catholic nations the emissary from the Vatican was paramount, those from the kingdoms, then duchies and principalities and republics were considered the lowest of the low" to this: "States were normally ranked by the title of the sovereign; for Catholic nations the emissary from the Vatican was paramount, then those from the kingdoms, and duchies, principalities and republics were considered the lowest of the low."

I'm not sure if I preserved the original meaning, but the old sentence was very hard to understand.

saturnight 16:17, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It seems that someone tried to address this concern, but the information about the Ottomans in particular that is included right now is particularly biased and uncited. Lumping Ottoman and Chinese diplomatic practices and views together is not only Orientalism at its finest, it's also wrong. I don't know much about the practices of Chinese dynasties, but I do know a bit about Ottoman practices, and will be revising soon. Anyone else have thoughts about this? dynam001 (talk) 04:45, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oppose merge. -- Petri Krohn 17:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• see article Persona non grata Mikebar (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed all of the citation links to the so-called "article" entitled "A Brief History of Diplomacy" [1]. 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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dynamo152 (talk • contribs)

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

	An image used in this article, File:Indian Diplomatic Personnel.jpg, 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)[reply]

• The graph seems non-sequitor in this article. For what year is it and what is the definition of Professional vs. non-professional? What is the basis/source for the data? Unless it is made more clear, I would move to delete the image. Mikebar (talk) 14:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Maybe Finland and Iceland, depending whether they existed in the period this refers to. Japinderum (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After extending diplomatic recognition to each other the entities involved often proceed with establishing of diplomatic relations and exchange of diplomats representing them. Those representatives are certified as one entity's official representative to another trough the process of diplomatic accreditation where their credentials are presented and accepted by the host. Diplomats of highest rank are most commonly titled as Ambassador, but other titles are utilized in some cases depending on the different institutional setups of the entities involved (e.g. Nuncio and others).

As of 2011 the following entities extend diplomatic recognitions or engage in diplomatic relations of highest rank:^{[note 1]}

• sovereign states controlling permanently populated territory: 193 UN members,^{[1][2][3][4][5]} Abkhazia,^[6] Cook Islands,^[7] Kosovo,^[1] Nagorno-Karabakh Republic,^[8][9][10] Niue,^[11] Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic,^[12] Somaliland,^[13][14][15] South Ossetia,^[6] Republic of China (Taiwan),^[4][16] Transnistria,^[17][9] Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,^[18]
• sovereign state whose territory is under foreign occupation: State of Palestine,^{[3][note 2][note 3]}
• sovereign entity with statehood over the Vatican City: Holy See,^[4]
• sovereign entity without statehood: Sovereign Military Order of Malta,^[32]
• supranational union of sovereign states: European Union.^{[33][32][4][note 4]}

I added the above section, but it was reverted by Night w claiming WP:SYNTH and "poorly sourced". This is just a list of entities conducting diplomatic relations - there are no "conclusions reached by combining multiple sources" and there is a source supporting the addition of every entity listed, so I agree neither with WP:SYNTH nor with poorly sourced allegations.

Do you agree adding this section?[2] Japinderum (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph is unsourced—entirely. That's already the definition of "poorly sourced". The sources you've given don't support the claims they're attributed to. None of them say anything about "rank" or "recognitions", from what I can see. In fact, the claims seem to rely mostly on the word "ambassador" in the sources given—so does the Arab League belong on this list? I don't think it's as simple as you're trying to make it. If it was, I'm sure there'd be a book somewhere you could use as a source instead. These are insufficient.

And, by the way, if you truly wish to keep up the façade of being a new user, you should try to avoid pushing the exact same crap you did with your last account. Using the the same language on talk pages, the exact same sources and content, the same style of editing—you've even made the exact same grammatical errors! What, you saw this in the archives somewhere? I don't know why you're choosing this route (your old account is in good standing), but I will continue to call DUCK. Nightw 11:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we here to discuss accounts or content? What I understand from the above comment all accounts are in good standing (e.g. not blocked or whatever), so there is no point in discussing that. You already gave the link to the archives were PART of this is taken from, but this is irrelevant. Call it however you wish, but I'm more interested in discussing the content.

The first paragraph is taken from the linked Wikipedia articles - reword it if you want. And about the "rank" or "recognitions" - do you claim that having established diplomatic relations doesn't show that both entities have extended diplomatic recognition to each other? Do you claim that having an Ambassador and Embassy of one state into another doesn't show that they have established diplomatic relations? Do you claim that Ambassador (or the corresponding title adopted in the Commonwealth, by the Holy See, SMOM, EU and some other states like Libya under Gadaffi) is not the highest diplomatic rank? Actually "diplomatic recognition" and "diplomatic relations" have sufficiently restrictive meaning even without the "highest rank" clarification, but it's added in order to avoid unnecessary disputes. The Arab League is a regular intergovernmental organization and you wouldn't find it in any list of diplomatic relations or diplomatic recognitions and it doesn't have "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary". The word "ambassador" is utilized in many different contexts, including for representatives of IGOs, but in those contexts it isn't related to diplomatic relations or diplomatic recognitions.

The sources supplied show for each of these entities that it has established diplomatic relations with or extended diplomatic recognition to at least one of the others. Do you question any of that? If you do we can find sources about "established diplomatic relations with" or "extended diplomatic recognition to" for those entities that you find to require better sources. Japinderum (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The word "ambassador" is utilized in many different contexts, including for representatives of IGOs, but in those contexts it isn't related to diplomatic relations or diplomatic recognitions." — And this is why you cannot put this stuff down to merely the presence of the word "ambassador" in your sources. An ambassador of the Arab League does indeed have plenipotentiary powers. What you are claiming isn't claimed by your sources. For example, instead of citing a source that states, "Ethiopia has upgraded its mission in Somaliland from a Trade office to a Consulate", the source should explicitly back up what you're claiming—that it "extend[s] diplomatic recognitions or engage[s] in diplomatic relations of highest rank". I'm not disputing all of your claims, but definitely some of them and your method of sourcing. Somaliland and NKR currently do not engage in relations of the highest rank, nor do your sources say they do. Most of the sources you've used don't backup your words (some of them are even dead) so it would be better to leave them without a source. Nightw 07:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you are correct about Arab League having "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary" somewhere. And I haven't seen the AL in any list of diplomatic recognitions or diplomatic relations.

Dead sources or such that don't support what's written should be corrected, of course. You mention Somaliland and NKR as these that need better sourcing. Are there others?

The second source for Somaliland says "Ethiopia has a Trade Liaison Office in Hargeisa, headed by a diplomat with the rank of Ambassador," The third source shows Somaliland recognizing South Sudan at its inauguration ceremony (older states recognize newer ones). Do you have any information whether South Sudan will establish diplomatic relations with it?

The NKR, South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria recognize each other - that's what the sources show. There is also [3] about the possibility to establish diplomatic relations between NKR and Abkhazia.

If you deem all of those insufficient we can remove Somaliland and NKR until another source is found - but I find it strange to object listing those - both are well established states even if they are some of the least recognized internationally. Japinderum (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are insufficient. The link I gave above shows a representative from the Arab League with the rank of ambassador. As we've seen from sources we've previously reviewed together, the Arab League and the OIC also "recognised" the State of Palestine. So why should I or anyone else distinguish this from the Somaliland ambassador, or its recognition of another state? How would we? You're relying on something that isn't present in your sources.None of them say what you're trying to say. They just use the word "ambassador" or "recognised". So what's to stop me adding a whole list of other entities (such as the Arab League) to that list? It wouldn't be any less true to the claim that they "extend diplomatic recognitions or engage in diplomatic relations" than others on the list. The level of sourcing would be the same, relying purely on the words "ambassador", "recognised", etcetera. Nightw 12:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link you gave is not about "Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary". AL and OIC recognized Palestine, but this is not "diplomatic recognition" - it's a decision of a particular institution of an intergovernmental organization.

OK, so what I understand from your comment is that we should look for sources more explicit about "established diplomatic relations with" or "extended diplomatic recognition to". I'll look trough the sources already presented (some of them say that already) and will try to find more for those entities that lack such better source. Japinderum (talk) 08:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This article or section may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please review http://www.scribd.com/doc/25418458/Institute-for-Cultural-Diplomacy (Copyvios) and remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Wikipedia mirror.

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Diplomacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Diplomacy/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Last edited at 17:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 13:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Aspect of history). The Wikidata description for this page was Art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of groups or states (87 characters), which I shortened to Art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of states (a little shorter at 77 characters), going off of the lead sentence, which began Diplomacy is the art and practice of conducting negotiations between representatives of states (Diplomacy (disambiguation) also concurs). Horse Eye Jack 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 For further information on diplomacy in an informal sense, see negotiation.). 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? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomacy 116.204.241.8 (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]