Talk:National interest

what is ntional interest?

National interest v. self-interest

I think this article should discuss the disagreements that often arise over just what a country's national interest is and whether a foreign policy is really in the national interest as it's supporters claim or simply serving the self-interest of a few (such as increased power or wealth) at the expense of the countries national interest. --Cab88 15:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

POV/OR

Rainborough, please do not try to overwrite the entire article with your "critical assessment" of "national interest". This is considered vandalism.

You can most certainly write about this, and we appreciate your contributions, but please do so in an encyclopedic fashion. That is:

• append an separate section, do not overwrite the article
• write from a neutral point of view. That is, say "Researcher X says that national interest is problematic because ..." and not just "National interest is problematic."
• you must cite reliable sources, or anyone may delete your work as original research.

Please have a look at the links above before continuing to write. The text you wrote is still in the page history, you can copy it from there if you want to work on it. Best, Sandstein 05:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Sandstein from Rainborough.

What do you mean, vandalism? I originally appended a modest final dissenting paragraph to an existing article (= "append a separate section"). It was deleted. Vandalism or what? So I embarked on a more radical revision (since also vandalised) of the (in my humble opinion) notably flabby "national interest" entry.

I don't see what's to be gained if I write (tautologously) that "Researcher Rainborough says that the concept of the national interest is problematic". Does anyone seriously propose that it is unproblematic? And what counts as a reliable resource, and in whose opinion anyway?

What moreover is "a neutral point of view"? There is no view from nowhere. All that can be done to avoid bias is to admit commentaries from a variety of viewpoints. I added mine from my viewpoint. It was deleted.

Finally, "anyone may delete your work as original research". So much the worse then for originality; not that I'd make that claim for my piece anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainborough (talk • contribs)

Hello, Rainborough. I'll try to answer your questions by referring to the appropriate sections of consensually accepted Wikipedia policy. Note, though, that you should sign your comments like this: ~~~~. Indent your comments for ease of reading by prepending the appropriate number of colons.

• What do you mean, vandalism? As per WP:VANDAL: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." Although I will accept that you probably acted in good faith (and I apologise if you took it otherwise), you did so by overwriting the existing article with your contribution, which did not meet encyclopetic standards, as we will discuss below.

• I don't see what's to be gained if I write (tautologously) that "Researcher Rainborough says that the concept of the national interest is problematic". You misunderstood - I should have been clearer. Do not refer to your own opinion, as that would be original research, which is forbidden by WP:OR. Instead, you must cite reliable sources (see WP:RS).

• Does anyone seriously propose that it is unproblematic? I could imagine quite a few (e.g., any hardline nationalist politician), but that is not the point. I used "...problematic" as an example of any assertion thats needs to be verifiable. Everything on Wikipedia must be verifiable, as per WP:V.

• And what counts as a reliable resource, and in whose opinion anyway? In the opinion of the Wikipedia community, which is what counts, it's the policy WP:RS. Please read it.

• What moreover is "a neutral point of view"? It's described in the Wikipedia policy WP:NPOV. It says: "All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly and without bias." Please read it. It is one of Wikipedia's founding principles.

• All that can be done to avoid bias is to admit commentaries from a variety of viewpoints. I added mine from my viewpoint. The first part is good. The second part is not. Wikipedia does not want your point of view, I'm sorry to say. It's that WP:NPOV policy again. It wants viewpoints from people whose views on the matter have found wide recognition, e.g. notable political scientists or national leaders.

• It was deleted. Because it was not cited, it was also original research (WP:OR again). WP:V says: "Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed." And that's what happened.

I hope that I have answered your questions. Of course we still welcome your contributions. I think you could write an excellent paragraph in this vein (I'm making the names up): "The notion of national interest, or the weight that should be given it, has always been controversial. Confucius already said that ... in his book, a thought echoed much later by Mao, who noted that .... In the West, leaders such as Charlemagne and later Churchill have expressed the view that ..." You get the drift (but you should also cite sources in Wikilinks, Weblinks or WP:FOOTNOTES). Have fun! Best, Sandstein

Hello Sandstein

In his Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions for The Second Congress Of The Communist International, 5 June 1920, Lenin wrote that "the general concept of national interests as a whole... implies the interests of the ruling class". I do hope that wouldn't be regarded as too "extreme" a source to quote. Especially as what is "extreme" is ineluctably a subjective judgement, depending on the standpoint of the commentator.

Why anyone should regard the Socialist Workers' Party (offered by Wikipedia guidelines as a paradigm case) as more "extreme" than, shall we say, Winston Churchill who urged the RAF to drop poison gas on Iraqis, rather escapes me. Though neither a member nor a supporter of the SWP, I'm not aware of its proposing any terroristic outrages.

Rainborough ~~~~.

Well, I think you're off to a good start with old Vladimir Ilyich, though you should complement his ideas with those of other thinkers, too. As to the relative merits of Churchill's and the SWP's policies, and their effects on their relevance as a source, you are free to talk about this (and propose policy changes) on Wikipedia_talk:No_original_research. On this page, we don't make the policies, we just apply them. PS, don't use <nowiki> when signing, just type the tildes. Best, Sandstein 20:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oxford dictionary definition is different

Oxford dictionary defines it as: a purely political reason for action on the part of a ruler or government, especially where a departure from openness, justice, or honesty is involved. Where as, this article talks about realist pursue of interests in international relations. Is there anything wrong with this article, these two convey very different meanings. Msec109 (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Political science

National interest 42.106.175.148 (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Major updates needed

This is a very important topic in IR but there appears to be a lack of sources reflecting more recent scholarly and policy discussions (over the past two decades) - I think there should be substantial updates to the content (perhaps adding sections breaking down theoretical variations by country, e.g. democracies v. autocracies, relevant policies implemented and their impact... other ideas?) W9793 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)