Talk:Defensive realism

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

offense-defense theory doesn't explain WW I. Have a look at Zuber, Lieber, Davis

Political essay[edit]

Large additions in 2014 included a lot of interesting details. However the article reads more like a political essay or a journal article than an encyclopedic text. A few quick examples: "This does not mean however", " If the elites realise their mistake, it is incredibly difficult to rectify their grand strategy", "It is important to note", etc. Also, gaps in referencing make it difficult to decide, if some of the drawn conclusions are based on the sources or on WP:OR / WP:SYNTH of the contributor. Several parts of the article sound like the author is analyzing the sources, instead of presenting their facts from an uninvolved point of view. Unfortunately that topic is above my paygrade (way above to be precise) - so I am just tagging it here with a summary of concerns. GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the topic[edit]

I think it would be clearer for a first-time reader to start with the basic idea "what it is".

The current text starts with: "that is derived from the school of ... foundations ... encourages ... ". But I do not yet know what "it" is. Eventually, it says "Defensive neorealism asserts that ...". Finally, after a while, somebody says _what 'it' is_!

My concern is many first-time readers might never read that far. After "derived ... foundation ... encourages ... etc." many may quit. Too bad! The introduction is a chance to get many new readers interested to learn more.

I think it would be clearer (and more readable/engaging) to say first: what is the idea. The current text says the core "eventually", but does not say it first. So say the core idea sooner. "Defensive neorealism asserts that ..." Say that _first_ and then say more about how/why: "foundations ... derived from ... encourages ...".

What is there is all good stuff, my suggestion is write the intro first for readers who want an introduction. The current text starts with compare/contrast, so looks written for readers who are already experts. Better: an introduction, and then compare/contrast. 2600:1700:3EC0:AEE0:6438:CB1B:6BB0:200B (talk) 05:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]