Talk:Idealism in international relations

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is mental...did someone run a German version through Babelfish, and post it here? -R.Gillette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.166.221.93 (talk) 07:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article's redirect is not correct[edit]

Liberal institutionalism should not redirect to this page. It should instead redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutionalism_in_international_relations

Idealism is most certainly not the same thing as liberal institutionalism. Can someone fix this? I got linked to this page from the Complex Interdependence article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.23.42 (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need merge / redefinition[edit]

Wilsonianism currently redirects to Idealism in international relations, which doesn't have that much to say about the eponymous Woodrow Wilson.

Wilsonian currently is a stub, but one which does mention Wilson's principles and policies.

We need to either

(1) Effectively merge Wilsonian and Idealism in international relations

or

(2) Make Wilsonian and Wilsonianism direct to the same page (I suppose "Wilsonianism" is the better choice), and make Idealism in international relations a separate page. (Of course, these pages may mention each other.)

Personally, I prefer option (2). -- Writtenonsand 20:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC) (sig added)[reply]

I think Wilsonian, as an adjective, ought to redirect to a noun. It would be Wilsonianism, but that would create a double redirect, so it should redirect to Idealism in international relations. Let's merge the Wilsonianism content into the Idealism article.—thames 01:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Idealism[edit]

Needs 'basic theory' explained


I would very much appreciate some literature references, connecting Liberalism as a descendent theory of Idealism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.91.116.210 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism would NOT be the descendant of "Idealism", as "Idealism" is defined in this article. Liberalism preceded this "Idealism", and the article identifies "Idealism" as containing both left-wing and NeoCon (right wing) philosophies.61.7.138.6 (talk) 03:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because this article defines Idealism as something that Wilson invented. But retrospectively, Kant, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham and the like were Idealists too. It is true that Neo-conservatism has nothing to do with Realism. Do people believe this just because Realism sounds tough, and neo-cons try to be tough?70.90.174.173 (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US-centric Tag[edit]

I think there ought to be a US-centric tag here. This article seems to be fairly US centric, with little mention of other points of view. 

  Which views would you add?

The main problem is that with the exception of a few UK centers IR is very US centered so it is hard not to be US centric when most of the thought on the whole subject area comes from US Universities.


When is "Idealism" not idealism?[edit]

Let's not name this article "idealism", or at least put in a disambiguation page or some sort of explanation at the top of the article. Merriam-Webster's dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idealism does not contain any reference to this political philosophy / political movement at all. I posit that the huge English speaking world has never heard of "Idealism" as a strange mishmash of liberal and neocon philosophies; we all, however, know "idealism" as a far, far more general concept not tied to a particular brand of political thought, or indeed not restricted to politics at all.

It's absurd that this page does not have at its head 

   This article is about the philosophical notion of idealism. For other uses, see Idealism (disambiguation).
   with a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism_(disambiguation)

as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism does.Sethnessatwikipedia (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cites, please[edit]

"This article does not cite any references or sources." Please add appropriate cites. (I will not be doing this myself.) " Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence[edit]

"Idealism usually refers to the school of thought personified in American diplomatic history by Woodrow Wilson,...." is such complete nonsense. Rewriting to stress that this applies, in the article at least, to international relations (but even then, I have my doubts). Emeraude (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism over Idealism[edit]

Most Literature I've read describes the two basic schools of thought as Liberalism and Realism. Idealism is a pejorative term, used by those of realist convictions. It's akin to describing capitalism on the terms proposed by marxists. I would suggest a major re-order so that the realist bias is removed. The category should be Liberalism, with a page dedicated to Wilsonian Idealism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.205.77.36 (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Idealism_in_international_relations&oldid=1202899635"