Template talk:International relations theory

message: How's it not included, how's not included idk...UN, many things lack. 
--2A01:E34:EC12:36C0:29E6:E7C0:560B:8451 (talk) 19:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: How's not pacifism included in this template?

message: Hi, I'm excited that you want to work on this template.  I have some issues with the changes you made.  First, non-interventionism is very close to Isolationism.  In cases where there were very similar ideologies (realism and neorealism, liberalism and neoliberalism, etc) I opted just to have a single link in order to keep the template small and relevant.  Protectionism and economic nationalism are also very closely linked to Isolationism, but are more economic than political in focus.  I'm not sure we should get into economic ideologies.  Finally, the institutionalism article is a red link for now, but the Institutionalism article is about domestic politics, whereas we ought to have one about Institutionalism in international relations (closely related, again, to neorealism and neoliberalism).
Perhaps you would like to help me improve the Isolationism article by including subsections with links to non-interventionism, protectionism, and economic nationalism.—thames 19:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll make a stub for Institutionalism as soon as I can.  Regarding the other edits and reorganization: my fear is that this template will become bloated and not focus on what are traditionally theories of international relations, but include every minor theory and every international relations concept.  For example: "free trade" is not really a theory of the interactions between states--it's not predictive or analytical in the way that realism, liberalism, or marxism is.  Free trade is really a normative goal, i.e. things ought to be this way.  Thus, it's not really a theory of international relations.  Same goes for "protectionism", "economic nationalism", "imperialism", and "non-interventionism".  These are more modes of international relations than they are theories of international relations.  For instance, an theory of imperialism is Leninism, in which his Marxist analysis of international politics led him to the conclusion that the world system was capitalist in nature and that "imperialism [was] the highest form of capitalism."  Leninism is both analytical and predictive--it's not a mode of international relations, but a theory of international relations.  Do you see the difference I am trying to illustrate?  Now, Leninism is not on the template, as it's covered under the link to Marxist international relations theory--I'm trying to link to the top level articles only, to keep the template parsimonious and germane.—thames 20:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Free trade is predictive - it predicts more peaceful relations and higher living standards. If you want only general theories, then you need to delete "isolationism" and "neoconservatism," too. Certainly there is lot more theory on free trade than either of these. Free trade falls under liberalism, while neoconservatism falls under realpolitik. Isolationism falls under ... neo-mercantilism.  Hogeye 21:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what I meant by predictive.  By predictive I mean: when faced with a particular situation with XYZ factors, what will this certain country (with its identity and resources) do?  "Free trade" is not a theory that would explain how a country would act faced with such a situation, whereas Realism or Liberalism or Marxism would.  Nor does mercantilism.  Those are normative models: if a country acts in this way, then it will become prosperous.  While I would dispute that neoconservatism falls under Realism (it's certainly closer to Idealism), I understand your point and would be willing to compromise with its removal.  Isolationism too. —thames 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mode versus Theory

message: I've done some thinking about the IR template, and I've come to the conclusion that it ought to be broader than I first thought.  In addition to predictive and analytical views of international politics, an IR theory is also a system of thought through which you view or evaluate your country's national interest.  Therefore, I think Neoconservatism and Isolationism might have a place in the template.
That being said, I am still hesitant to put solely economic theories on the template (protectionism, economic nationalism, mercantilism, etc).  Marxism is political despite its heavy focus on economic motivations.  Whereas "free trade" is solely economic, without political, cultural, or security aspects to it in the same way that Realism, Liberalism, Functionalism, or Marxism do.
But, I would like to collaborate on an "International economic theory" template, as I mentioned on your talk page, Hogeye, because I think all the articles you've brought up are important and need a schema of their own.—thames 02:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New view

message: :An IR theory is not a foreign policy theory! As neoconservatism and isolationism only explain foreign policies, they are removed. An IR theory is about explaining and predicting international relations. See Waltz, A theory of international politics (1979), pp. 121-122 for this crucial difference. Sijo Ripa 19:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Who put Neocon and isolationism up there? Have they taken an IR class?147.9.41.19 02:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neoconservatism and isolationism

message: Sijo Ripa: I'm not sure it's terribly useful to put all the derivates on the template.  Each of the main articles discusses its derivates.  Meanwhile, it could lead to tremendous template bloat if we include all the derivates of each school (Realism, defensive realism, offensive realism, liberal realism, neo/structural/institutionalist realism, etc.).  Meanwhile, you've removed critical theory, which, while I think is academia's po-mo cruft, is still legitimately discussed.  Institutionalism, also, I believe is a valid worldview, which spawned both neorealism and neoliberalism.  Just because it's article isn't good right now doesn't mean it doesn't belong on the template--it means we ought to work to improve the article.—thames 19:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I understand what you mean, I think that a template can and should offer the most important derivates. The added derivates are much more widely debated, researched and had more real-life impact. Therefore it also states: main IR theories. Sijo Ripa 19:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but where do we draw the line?  What's to prevent other editors from creating a drawn out edit conflict because their favorite derivative got left off? My concern is that we have no standard for inclusion/exclusion.  Further, I find the new template to be aestheticall unpleasing--too wide and too much whitespace compared to the previous compact version.—thames 01:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A template is always about making choices: what should be added, what shouldn't - and why. A consensus could be reached about what the main theories and the main derivates are by discussing them. Personally I disliked the old template format a lot. If I recall the old form correctly isolationism, neoconservatism were part and constructivism wasn't. Furthermore, neorealism and neoliberalism which are quite different from classic realism and liberalism and are much more important in the current theoretical debate, were completely neglected. Remember however that these classic theories are not really "theories" (in the real sense of the word), rather modes of thinking that got (wrongly) the name of a theory (see among others: K. WALTZ, Theory of International Politics for this conclusion, most important difference is that theories can be tested, made the relationship between variables explicitly, etc). Therefore, neorealism and neoliberalism are more "IR theories" than their  classic roots, which were included in the "IR Theory template". Additionally, why was liberalism added in this old form as it is a direct direvate of Idealism? Even more, should constructivism be added in the first place, as some (like Jack Snyder) consider it a derivate from Idealism (social idealism). Nevertheless constructivism is (in my humble opinion) quite different from idealism and one of most important theories of IR at the moment. Don't get me wrong however. I don't say that my changes should remain, I'm willing to accept changes, but I think that the current template (although not perfect) is a lot clearer and easier to use that the former one. Sijo Ripa 02:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not terribly distraught if neoconservatism and isolationism aren't on the template.  Constructivism wasn't simply because Critical theory was, and critical theory served as a kind of umbrella article for constructivism, marxism, feminism, post-colonialism, etc.  All of them are valid worldviews, but few are major at all in practice.  You can see here where I originally had neorealism and neoliberalism on the template, but removed them because there are so many "neos" that the template might devolve into an absurd state: neo-realism, neo-liberalism, neo-marxism, neo-constructivism, neo-institutionalism, neo-functionalism, etc.  My usual idea for templates is to link to the highest level overview articles: hence just "realism" or "liberalism", and letting the user drill down to the specific article they're looking for.  That keeps the template tight and relevant, rather than bloated and eclectic.  Finally, I disagree that Liberalism is a subset of Idealism.  To be sure, the two are closely related, but Liberalism shares a good number of basic theoretical assumptions with realism (e.g. an anarchical world system).  As far as the aesthetics, it's the bullet-points that are really killing me.—thames 19:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Sijo: good solution to the whitespace/bullet points.  Looks much better now.  I added Critical theory, otherwise I'm inclined to keep the current version.  You're just going to have to help me out when random contributors come along demanding a special place for their pet theory on the template...  Otherwise, it's been good working with you.—thames 16:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derivates 

message: Should we not include Rationalism in this template?
Flipper24 (talk) 05:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Rationalism? 

message: I had to take Dependency theory out of the Marxism category because not all dependency theorists are Marxian. The large Latin American structuralist school, for instance. The dependency theory article has more on this; and especially relevant is Venengo's paper cited in the references. --Ong saluri (talk) 02:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dependency