Talk:Internationalism (politics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Cobden
Was not the Free Trade movement on the 19th century "internationalist" e.g. Richard Cobden. I think the use of "internationalist" in this article is debatable.
I agree. I've added information about Cobden.--Johnbull 16:09, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Socialism
The article needs enhancing to make it clear whether internationalism doctrine is essentially non nation-state socialism, or whether the objectives of internationalism are sought by many means, depending on the adherants points of view: i.e. some believe that internationalist aims may be met purely by socialist means, whilst others perhaps believe that those aims may be met by more "right-wing" policies (ignoring the issue that some people may claim that right-wing style policies are by their nature nation state focussed, a point that is no doubt itself of some debate). --jrleighton 09:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Washington?
George Washington may have been opposed to internationalism, but I don't think that this point should be stressed as much as it is in the article. It seems heavily biased toward the American perspective.
I agree- especially considering tha this is about internationalism rather than anti-internationalism. --khello 01:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, the reason it it is "biased" towards the USA is because this encyclopedia is run by an American company, on American designed servers with most internet users being American. If you have a problem with it, take it up with your own **** country.--MAP
[edit] Peer review request
Editors interested in this topic might like to take part in peer review on a new version of Global justice I've been working on. Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Removed some sections
I've removed some sections which made some POV claims.
"...as well as to strictly economic globalization movements which deny the value of other nations' culture and differences."
Until this has a source, it should be removed, as it contradicts the section on British internationalism below.
"Contemporary free market globalization is not internationalist. It promotes purely economic integration, while ignoring the political and social aspects. In addition, it promotes a very different economic system than the one advocated by internationalists. The Left speaks more and more of a "globalization of solidarity". The modern anti-globalization movement is internationalist in nature, and often advances the notion of alter-globalization."
Again, blanket statements which are probably incorrect. I am almost certain that you can get capitalist internationalists.--Nydas 06:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] UN section extremely biased.
This goes without saying: the United Nations section of this article is beyond biased. The entire thing is a diatribe against the UN and saying how miserably it has failed at nearly every political mission. Plus, the US funding issue does not belong in this article, especially considering its status as a talking point for many anti-UN people, especially anti-UN conservatives in the US (not that conservatives using that as talking point is wrong, but it doesn't belong in an unbiased encyclopedia).
This section is a disgrace to Wikipedia and to the many UN supporters and internationalists on this website.
Lmao, how much we fund the UN is a matter that is relevant and needs to be discussed. that fact is unbiased. The rest of the section is biased, but true. Add to it if you think its one-sided. Talk about how (expletive) perfect it is, how much of a sucess it has been, or lack thereof. Everything I said about the UN is true and confirmable, just not via the "internet". This is blackspy47, standing by every single word he said.
Post Script--Try the following link---http://www.jbs.org/, There are many sources there, but the URL doesn't change every page, making citations imposssible... And I have no books on the matter yet. Lol, just wait.............
[edit] Quality of article
I think we all can safely say this article is crap. There are too many contradicting articles, it has no order, it makes no sense, someone obseses about the British, why? We also need to diversify it, make a controversies & criticisms section & make it a little less biased in all respects. this is blackspy47, still standing his ground, but requesting a reviewing of the article. For now, m8s, LMAO O o Nubs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.249.161 (talk) 04:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
