Talk:Great Debates (international relations)

Myths
I was wondering why wikipedia keeps perpetuating myths. No historian of the discipline I am aware of would still claim there were REALLY three debates, they are purely post-hoc constructs to legitimise certain approaches. The only people talking in these terms are practitioners with a very tenuous grasps on their disciplines own history. Would changing that be legitimate or is there some kind of editorial consensus here? (For what I am talking about, see for example Brian C Schmidt, The Political Discourse of Anarchy: A Disciplinary History of International Relations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998.) 178.103.52.90 (talk) 09:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A criticism section outlining the viewpoint that we should not view the history of IR in terms of a series of 'debates' would be useful. Feel free to write it! Francium12  18:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Great Debates (international relations). 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100130082353/http://www.allacademic.com:80/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/9/4/3/p179436_index.html to http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/7/9/4/3/p179436_index.html

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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)