Talk:Twitter diplomacy

Article issues
I've removed the "primary sources" clean up template because there are now a variety of reliable news sources cited (even if they are not as fully used as they could be). I've also removed the "essaylike" template. The original article was very much like a piece of college writing, with too much preamble and too many off-topic tangents. However, much of it has been removed. I also removed today the long section about Twitter use by other organisations - this is nothing to do with Twitter diplomacy, is it? Sionk (talk) 12:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The section you deleted about civil society's contribution is a unique point about Twitter diplomacy. Diplomacy has always occurred between diplomats, leaders, and intergovernmental organizations. Twitter allows instant, two-way interaction between governments and foreign civil societies; which is the main facet of the concept's uniqueness. d.a.kelm 15:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You were not wrong in deleting it for now, though. Civil society's connection to the overall topic and therefore the significance of sub-section was not adequately explained as written. I (or someone else) can go back and beef it up some other day. d.a.kelm 15:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Civil society's contribution to Twitter can go in the Twitter article (I'm sure it will already be there). As far as I can see from the news sources, Twitter diplomacy is a term that describes the use of Twitter by diplomats and members of governments. Sionk (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, by diplomats and governments... but for civil society. Twitter diplomacy is most useful for public diplomacy, which engages civil society. When, say, Michael McFaul tweeted, he wasn't talking to the Russian government--he and other diplomats obviously have long established methods and channels through which to do that--he was talking to ordinary citizens.  That's why world leaders and diplomats are on Twitter: not to talk with each other, but to everyone else. Twitter also allows 'everyone else' to easily reach people like Mike McFaul. That's why Twitter diplomacy changes things... and I did a poor job of conveying that in my write-up.  Don't worry about it. d.a.kelm 18:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by D.a.kelm (talk • contribs)

issues flag - sources
The box at the top has a notice that says "This article needs additional citations for verification. (February 2017)". I looked through the article, and it looks well-cited to me. I'm removing this notice. Eatthecrow (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, it certainly could use more citations, especially academic quality. Here are some academic quality secondary sources (not just news reporting like the majority of citations here) I could find:
 * 
 * And this page had a LOT of broken citations. Trying to fix the promotional content as best I can. Darcyisverycute (talk) 10:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Use of "Twitter" Branding
Much of this page has not been updated for the new branding of X (formerly twitter). I'm proposing that this page should be updated, be a past tense page to refer to the former platform that is Twitter, or be removed entirely. AstralNomad (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with this statement should the pages name be changed to x diplomacy. I think not. However, at this point there is not Twitter so how can there be Twitter Diplomacy. Many be content should be moved to an article with a name such as social media diplomacy. Or possibly the name could be changed to X Diplomacy, or it could be deleted but it cannot stay as it is. ￼ Casper king (talk) 02:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Do either of you have any policy or guideline which you believe supports your position? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can understand the page for Twitter getting renamed to X, because that is its new notable name and there are many reliable sources reporting that. However, all of the sources about Twitter diplomacy refer to it as that. WP:NAMECHANGES is the relevant policy, which says that the title of the page and references to the concept should match the commonly recognised name and that matches what the reliable sources use. For the time being, I do not think a rename is appropriate because there is a paucity of reliable sources to back up the change of this particular term's use. That is besides that this article still needs significant cleanup, which I have not got around to doing yet. Darcyisverycute (talk) 01:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree re: NAMECHANGES; it has been known as Twitter for most of its history and through most of its events, which is reflected in the literature and sources. I feel it is more likely people would be confused by 'X' throughout the article than continuing to refer to it as Twitter, at least for the time being. Most news articles that refer to X do so in a similar manner to the article (i.e., "X, formerly known as Twitter". Nonovix (talk) 20:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)