Talk:Diplomatic history

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

History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[decolonization#Cold War|decolonization]] Anchor decolonization#Cold War links to a specific web page: Cold War. The anchor (#Cold War) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

On 20 January 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to history of diplomacy. The result of the discussion was not moved.

First comment[edit]

"diplomatic history" is the conduct of relations between nations. I'm sorry but I don't understand the what is on the article page at all. Thx Nobs 02:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Queries[edit]

It is the study of the conduct of international relations between states or across state boundaries.

Many would regard "the history of international relations" as something different to diplomatic history, such as John Charmley (a self-proclaimed diplomatic historian). Does anyone feel able to create two separate ones.

This is the most common form of history and is often the classical and popular belief of what history should be.

Surely the history of the development of a state, its high politics and constitution, is the more "traditional" form? Is there any evidence one way or the other? Timrollpickering 20:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly would like to contribute, and some division is necessary; but I can't really commit the time to begin either from scratch, cause they both would be half-assed. But this article right now is almost an embarassment. nobs 20:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political history[edit]

IMO this article says the almost exactly the same things as the article on political history. i think the distinction between diplomatic and political history should be made more clear.--Greece666 02:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Documents of Diplomatic History[edit]

The link at the bottom of the page titled 'Documents of Diplomatic History' — what are its credentials (as a selection of documents presumably selected for some interpretation of importance)? Njál 23:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Diplomatic history[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Diplomatic history's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kershaw":

From Andreas Hillgruber: Kershaw (2000), pp. 9-10.
From Adolf Hitler: Kershaw, Ian (1998), Hitler: 1889–1936: Hubris, City of Westminster, London, England: Penguin Books, pp. 8–9 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Westphalian system?[edit]

I wonder why there is no mention of the 1648 Peace of Westphalia, which according to some historians was more or less the foundation of the modern diplomatic system as we know it today (see also Westphalian sovereignty etc.)... -- AnonMoos (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Diplomatic history. 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/20130929214421/http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/tcr/2007/00000014/00000001/art00006 to http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/maney/tcr/2007/00000014/00000001/art00006

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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} 00:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Diplomatic history. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 02:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need more about pre-20th century history[edit]

This article is missing discussion of, well, history. Early diplomacy through conquest, first diplomatic missions and embassies, development of international organizations... PS. Britannica [1] does it better, sigh .--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article you want is readily at hand at Diplomacy#History. In addition all major countries have appropriate long articles, such as History of French foreign relations. Foreign policy of Charles de Gaulle, Foreign relations of France, French Third Republic#Foreign policy, Second French Empire#Foreign policy. etc etc Rjensen (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic history → history of diplomacy – history of diplomacy redirects here. But our naming standard is usually for "History of fooconcept", not "Fooianconceptish history". I suggest renaming it to the more common variant. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 20 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: had not seen this discussion before, I object. They are two separate topics and the article we currently have is for diplomatic history (as in a field of history) and would have to be substantially re-written in order to be a history of diplomacy (which is covered by a number of different fields, not just diplomatic history) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of diplomacy should be a redirect to Diplomacy#history not to diplomatic history. My apologies for not seeing this earlier. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: Reverting close and relisting, per request from Horse Eye's Back; previous closing statement was "Moved, as an uncontested technical request. Any objection within a reasonable time frame should see the move reverted." BilledMammal (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Horse Eye's Back. The article's topic is a subfield of the study of history, not the history of diplomacy. Dekimasuよ! 12:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is a field, like "Economic history" or "Military history". It is not referred to as "History of the Economy" or "History of the Military". Walrasiad (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – It is a field of study. Graham (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.