This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 11 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Rules-Based International Order. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Irresponsible Stakeholders? The Difficulty of Integrating Rising Powers by Stewart Patrick Foreign Affairs November/December 2010; excerpt ...
A major strategic challenge for the United States in the coming decades will be integrating emerging powers into international institutions. The dramatic growth of Brazil, China, and India -- and the emergence of middle-tier economies such as Indonesia and Turkey -- is transforming the geopolitical landscape and testing the institutional foundations of the post- World War II liberal order.
99.19.44.155 ( talk) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure who to discuss this with. This topic title, is, I believe, a "disinformation" artifact. The topic name is A) undocumented, and B) politically inflammatory, and C) it seems to me to be politically motivated. It seems less like an "article" than a plant to support usage of this undocumented title. It is reminiscent, to me, of the John Birch society international conspiracy theory junk.
A) Undocumented: there is no reference that indicates actual usage of this title. There is no reference to indicate the FREQUENCY of usage. It is simply put out there as a de facto name for something. B) This name, given to a real set of international trends, uses two very politically inflammatory techniques. First, use of the word "liberal" tied together with the phrase. This would seem to indicate a direction for a set of international economic trends. It also implies that there is a subset of politicians and people who are somehow involved in setting the agenda of the "international economic order". Secondly, use of the word "order" implies the same thing - there is a subset of people who are involved in setting or controlling the agenda of international economic policies. C) The combination of A and B indicates to me that the term is intimately biased, and not worthy of inclusion as a Wikipedia entry at all - at least, not without a great deal of research into where it entered the lexicon, IF it has actually entered the lexicon of English usage. And, into the political backgrounds and motivations of those people who are using it.
I really think that this entry violates the principles of an encyclopedia.
I wish I had time to research it further, but I don't. In the meantime, I think the article should be deleted entirely. I am going to flag it for my attention, and depending on the feedback I receive, I will give it some time before I simply delete the whole entry. Mbuell72 ( talk) 00:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liberal international economic order. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~cstern/A%20Stain%20in%20Ecuador.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Our democracy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 27#Our democracy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 14:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Liberal international order → Rules-Based International Order – is the more common name. 210.210.162.226 ( talk) 10:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Any criticism? Many non-western people oppose it because they oppose US and Western interventions and double standards, not because they like "crazy dictators". 2A00:1FA0:341:5B21:17D6:6CE0:E732:2544 ( talk) 14:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 11 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Rules-Based International Order. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Irresponsible Stakeholders? The Difficulty of Integrating Rising Powers by Stewart Patrick Foreign Affairs November/December 2010; excerpt ...
A major strategic challenge for the United States in the coming decades will be integrating emerging powers into international institutions. The dramatic growth of Brazil, China, and India -- and the emergence of middle-tier economies such as Indonesia and Turkey -- is transforming the geopolitical landscape and testing the institutional foundations of the post- World War II liberal order.
99.19.44.155 ( talk) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure who to discuss this with. This topic title, is, I believe, a "disinformation" artifact. The topic name is A) undocumented, and B) politically inflammatory, and C) it seems to me to be politically motivated. It seems less like an "article" than a plant to support usage of this undocumented title. It is reminiscent, to me, of the John Birch society international conspiracy theory junk.
A) Undocumented: there is no reference that indicates actual usage of this title. There is no reference to indicate the FREQUENCY of usage. It is simply put out there as a de facto name for something. B) This name, given to a real set of international trends, uses two very politically inflammatory techniques. First, use of the word "liberal" tied together with the phrase. This would seem to indicate a direction for a set of international economic trends. It also implies that there is a subset of politicians and people who are somehow involved in setting the agenda of the "international economic order". Secondly, use of the word "order" implies the same thing - there is a subset of people who are involved in setting or controlling the agenda of international economic policies. C) The combination of A and B indicates to me that the term is intimately biased, and not worthy of inclusion as a Wikipedia entry at all - at least, not without a great deal of research into where it entered the lexicon, IF it has actually entered the lexicon of English usage. And, into the political backgrounds and motivations of those people who are using it.
I really think that this entry violates the principles of an encyclopedia.
I wish I had time to research it further, but I don't. In the meantime, I think the article should be deleted entirely. I am going to flag it for my attention, and depending on the feedback I receive, I will give it some time before I simply delete the whole entry. Mbuell72 ( talk) 00:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liberal international economic order. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www-scf.usc.edu/~cstern/A%20Stain%20in%20Ecuador.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:01, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Our democracy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 27#Our democracy until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 15:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky ( talk) 14:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Liberal international order → Rules-Based International Order – is the more common name. 210.210.162.226 ( talk) 10:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal ( talk) 08:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Any criticism? Many non-western people oppose it because they oppose US and Western interventions and double standards, not because they like "crazy dictators". 2A00:1FA0:341:5B21:17D6:6CE0:E732:2544 ( talk) 14:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)