Talk:International community

message: Not sure why you're referencing ICBUW's story about the NAM supporting a vote on depleted uranium weapons (http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/a/144.html). It has bugger all to do with Iran's nuclear programme. Suggest you link to a different story. ICBUW (talk) 10:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAM and uranium enrichment 

message: On the issue concerning international community we should start when man inhabited the world. At first life was easy due to vast and plentiful food, but things went wrong when the population increased and there was a need for territories between the different clans. Now the need of interdependence comes in and it was the birth of international community where people want to satisfy their endless wants by using the scarce resources. The question of international community stays as the matters of continents therefore Europe was the dominant continent encouraging the community such that it started with the empire systems e.g. Ottoman Empire, Roman Empire. Up to 19th century the community was good after the idea of liberalism came in under the influence of European writers such as Locke, Bentham. At first it included all the sovereign states and Africa was left due to the issue of colonialism but again it was in after all the countries go their independence. The leading issues in the community now are collective security, trade and political awareness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by an unspecified IP address 
:I agree with some of the points made and have written a brief history of group dynamics that started the notion of an international community. Edit: 2010-11-21. — RW Marloe (talk) 13:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: I have intended for a while to add more references to the History section, I will list some here for anyone to check and suggest others;
* Imagining the International Community from the European Journal of International Law
Searching Google with "international community" brought up 581,000 results which is quite a lot. Any help with this would be much appreciated. Thanks.
— RW Marloe (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History referencing

message: I have removed the "Context and trends" section again as it was obviously original research. It was entirely unreferenced and was just unsourced opinion. If any of it, or something similar, can be referenced, it would be useful but it should obviously not be restored without good quality references.
Similarly, the "History" section was not a history of the term or of the concept in modern history, just one editor's interpretation of human history, which has no real relevance to the subject here. If good sources can be found dealing with the concept of "the international community", or detailing the history of the term in political discourse, they would be really useful and we could put together a useful History section. --92.26.96.140 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup, original research etc 

message: I understand that the term is politically charged, but such a strong argument would need, at the very least, a citation. The old text, "to refer to all peoples, cultures and governments of the world or to a broad group of them. The term is used to imply the existence of common duties and obligations between them", may be better.Bernardotrejos (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to the US 

message: RT, in Nov'13, did a fairly long show specifically on the term 'international community'. Pretty detailed discussion of the term in that show - would be quite useful to add the meat from it here.
CrossTalk: Who is 'International Community'?
http://rt.com/shows/crosstalk/international-community-enemy-west-522/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCmQB-pKjFs
Rishabh Singla (talk) 04:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to include a long analysis by RT on "international community" 

message: Hello. I noticed significant POV issues in this article, so I’ve reverted it to this version from almost a year ago, and was surprised to find that the sources cited in the lead didn’t support the cited text even when they were added in 2017. So I rewrote those lines to better reflect the sources.
*Page 30 of United States Hegemony says nothing about how individuals use the phrase, and says nothing about repression. It discusses the use of the term in UN resolutions, and in othering enemies in general. I assumed the latter is what  intended, and moved the citation in front of the example.
*Page 204 of Law-Making says nothing about general use of the term, and does not say it gives extra weight to what the UNGA passes; it actually says the opposite, using the term to explain why UN resolutions have the weight they do.
—96.8.24.95 (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issues and failed verification