Talk:International relations theory

message: I added a paragraph on constructivism (which had been shockingly missing - do I sense a realist plot?), but I'm not sure it's very clear.  Feel free to improve.  Nicolasdz 07:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the claim that "social-constructivism" is becoming main stream in IR Theory requires citation.  Many IR Theorists have little respect for constructivism, so it's move toward the mainstream is a surprise to me. 164.67.44.90 18:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Constructivism

message: I would suggest that Idealism becomes a subsection of Liberalism, the term is pejorative. It was coined at the start of WWII when the possibility of applying liberal values to IR obviously seemed idealist. It would be better to define the school as Liberalism because the school of Liberalism/Idealism is based around the extension of Liberal thought to an international environment. Wilsonian Idealism and other variants of liberalism are all based around the normative element.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.77.36 (talk) 20:54, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberalism over Idealism 

message: Why is this page separate from the entry on International relations?
:Theory about international relations is only a subfield of the larger study of international relations.  The international relations article needs a lot of work.  When it's brought up to shape, it will be clearer why the IRtheory page has its own article.—thames 17:10, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger?

message: I think someone needs to qualify the claim that realists believe states are inherently agressive, or at least specify that only some forms of realism adhere to it.  Structural Realists such as Kenneth Waltz don't subscribe to this view, because he believes it implies that nations are in a constant state of war. I don't want to debate whether that's true or not, but the article needs to be clearer to reflect Neo-realist differences with classical realism 164.67.44.90 18:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Realism "inherently agressive states" 

message: The link to the french version of this page goes to 'International Politics' instead of the (also existing) 'Théory des Relations Internationales'. I don't have any idea how to fix this though. Peerschouten (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has been fixed. Finnusertop  (talk) 21:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to French version 

message: I will be giving this article an overhaul over the next few weeks. When I started it contained 1 reference and omitted several key theories. Bear with me as I attempt to turn it into something useful. I would welcome some help on constructivism.  Francium12  01:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a number of core texts that form the basis of theoretical trends in IR, and Chernoff's book on meta-theory from several years ago describing the relationships with social science more broadly, to the additional reading section; I should have logged in before doing so, sorry. Michael Sheflin (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul

message: I am not familiar with the field so I cannot judge how marginal this position is, but Nicholas Guilhot claims in "Political Theology and International Relations" that the realist "tradition", including the use of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Thucydides, was invented in order to mask the influence of Carl Schmitt, whose work Guilhot refers to as the "reactionary canon of the interwar years". Can anyone comment on whether this is a singular claim or whether it should be included in the article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.230.124.194 (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Schmitt and Political Theology 

message: Theocracies are unique political theories that doesn't fit into any of these categories.
Or am i missing something here?
Thank you
--OxAO (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theocracies 

message: Our article on Orientalism is about a school of art, and it makes no mention of Orientalism being in competition with Realism or any other theory of international relations.  While I can see how Orientalism is at least somewhat related to this article, I'm not sure how it constitutes a full-blown alternative approach to the field.  -- SnarkyShark (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Orientalism under Alternative Approaches?

message: A few months ago, there used to be an article structuralism (international relations) but now its gone, and there is no evidence that there was any sort of deletion debate or anything. What happened? It seemed to actually contain plausible content.  Can someone find this article again? Can it be un-deleted, or some reason for deletion given?  
A google search reveals hits     -- this seems like a valid topic, so somebodies speedy-delete seems quite unfair.
67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Structuralism 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on International relations theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090317004530/http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199298334/dunne_chap04.pdf to http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199298334/dunne_chap04.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081121235514/http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199285433/jackson_chap06.pdf to http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199285433/jackson_chap06.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090705094843/http://auirtheoryspring2009.wetpaint.com:80/ to http://auirtheoryspring2009.wetpaint.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International relations theory. 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/20120328002625/http://asrudiancenter.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/krause_dornelles1.pdf to http://asrudiancenter.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/krause_dornelles1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: At the time of writing, the article's third sentence reads:
Ole Holsti describes international relations theories as acting like pairs of coloured sunglasses that allow the wearer to see only salient events relevant to the theory; e.g., an adherent of realism may completely disregard an event that a constructivist might pounce upon as crucial, and vice versa.
While I do not necessarily disagree with Holsti's analysis, nor deny that it is relevant, I must question if it really is relevant so early in the article. The lead section should, as per MOS:LEAD "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The reason for a topic's noteworthiness should be established, or at least introduced, in the lead...". Holsti's comment is not an important point of IR theory, nor does it establish or introduce the topic's noteworthyness. It is a somewhat cynical, opinionated statement, which I do not view as presenting a  neutral point of view. I have removed it for now. Remember, the lead section should be the most accessible part of the article. Erbeilas (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coloured sunglasses – does it ﬁt Wikipedias tone?