Talk:Realism (international relations)
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Globalize tag
editOf all the authors mentioned in the article who were born after 1700 there isn't a single one who is not American or British. You'd think due to the nature of the topic there'd be a bunch of realists outside of the US (in the former Soviet Union, in China, in modern Russia), but alas the article avoids talking about them ALLTOGETHER Openlydialectic (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Addressed concerns by adding contemporary authors and politicians from France, Russia, Japan, and China — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.169.89 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, not mentioning Otto von Bismarck and Cardinal Richelieu is inexcusable. No The Art of War, laughable criticism section Brtbng (talk) 16:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Etymology
editHow did this particular approach to international relations come to be called "realism"? The name suggests that it is the correct approach to international relations, based on the actual, factually-correct understanding of players' motivations and goals. But of course, every other approach to international relations presumably takes a similar view. So presumably someone (presumably a "realist" wanting to make their theory harder to challenge) decided on this name, and others went along with it. I think that this deserves at least a mention in the History section. Iapetus (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that this is needed. On a slightly different note, I think the title and bolded part of the text could be changed to "Realism in international relations" to clarify that it is the name of this doctrine inside international relations, rather than a universal realism. -- Rauisuchian (talk) 22:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- I think more than just that is needed, since the notion that this particular approach to international relations is at all "realistic" even limited to the specific concept of international relations is hardly some incontrovertible fact. It's merely the self-aggrandizing name that this school of international relations choose for themselves. — Red XIV (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Political science
editCritically evaluate the realistic theory in international Relation 116.206.222.163 (talk) 12:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)