Talk:Public diplomacy

First use of the term public diplomacy
I always thought it was Woodrow Wilson in 1916, but I found this article: "‘diplomatie publique.’" http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/pdfs/gullion.pdf Gaintes (talk) 14:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

While the discussion on propaganda is excellent material, it leaves the impression that the term "public diplomacy" refers only to media arms, like Radio Free Europe. This is a large component of what's referred to as public diplomacy but it's not the whole picture. Things like meeting with foreign business leaders or academics, hosting seminars, and arranging student exchange programs are also considered public diplomacy by the State Department. The way I understand it, it's an almost perfect equivalent to "public relations".

I will attempt to make these points in the article. Isomorphic 14:20, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've made a bunch of changes to this article. There were alot of good facts, but many weren't sourced, so I tried to reformat and source much of what was in there. Also, it seemed necessary to give a thorough understanding of the changing definitions of Public Diplomacy and how it has evolved, as well as a discussion of what it is not. I think to advance this to a more thorough page a solid understanding is needed for the concept of PD. Much more can be added about its practice and methods, especially now as it is evolving with new media.Jrahaghi (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Remittances?
I'm snipping this:
 * The growth in remittances – money earned from working overseas that is returned home – is "spreading newfound wealth to the far corners of the developing world". Remittances have soared to more than $70bn a year world-wide, according to the IMF, which is greater than total government aid to developing countries and larger than all the foreign direct investment by US companies in emerging markets last year. More than $13bn a year is sent out of the US alone, making America the world’s largest source of remittances. Global migration and the gulf between the world’s rich and poor economies help fuel the remittance business. Large banks in Mexico, El Salvador and Turkey are taking notice and are selling "remittance bonds" or loans backed by cash that overseas workers deposit in the banks for their relatives.

Increasingly, "economists believe remittances can deliver far-reaching benefits to a country, even if there are social costs, e.g. families sending their best and brightest overseas. By pooling their money, overseas workers are funding larger civic projects and businesses." However, a study of 22 migrant communities in Mexico in the early 1990s, led by Douglas Massey of the University of Pennsylvania, found that families used less than 10% of the remittances for saving or starting new businesses; typically they spent more than half on daily living expenses, consumer goods and health care. Some argue that forcing people to leave the country for "high-paying" jobs is not real development and that remittances can limit a country’s growth, since governments learn to rely on the easy incomes as a way to avoid deeper reforms. Because unless I'm missing something, it doesn't have anything at all to do with public diplomacy. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Major Rewrite Required
It would be great if the Wikipedia community would take a serious look at revising this article. It is extremely poorly written and does not align with the editorial guidelines of Wikipedia. Plus, it seems as if there are a lot of promotional references made throughout the piece that contribute little to a general understanding of the topic. For example, it is completely off-topic to talk about a 2008 report about a very specific issue in American public diplomacy when one has yet to provide a comprehensive overview of public diplomacy. It would probable be best if American public diplomacy was broken off into a separate entry. StoicsNoMore (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2015 (UTC)db


 * removed the 2008 report passage. still more work to do I guess, but yeah. Dog-Patch Zero-Six (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Not much improvement since and the issue with lacking a global perspective as indicated in the tag still applies. W9793 (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Propaganda?
Does the recent intro edit make sense? I'm not editing it out myself because I want to know what everyone thinks about this. I believe the historical definition of propaganda isn't very common anymore and the article talks about something very different than what that word suggests. Should we keep it or not? Why? Double Plus Ungood (talk) 02:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)