Talk:Foreign Affairs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] On whether this article should be at Foreign Affairs or Foreign Affairs (journal)
See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Disambiguating by case?; it seems that having two articles differing only by case is generally considered a bad idea, and there's an article Foreign affairs we may not want to cause confusion with. -℘yrop (talk) 18:27, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
- When there is a link from one to the other it shouldn't be a problem. Also with since Foreign Affairs was simply a redirect to Foreign Affairs (journal) there was actually no disambiguation taking place, just a redirection. Leaving Foreign Affairs as a redirect has exactly the same effect as actually having the article at that name, but adds a needless redirection notice to anyone reading it. Moreover I personally think that foreign affairs should just be a redirect to its more common synonym international relations. - SimonP 18:56, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, i agree with you that foreign affairs should be merged into international relations. I think that solves the problem. -℘yrop (talk) 20:22, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Foremost?
Um, can we see a source for that statement? MC MasterChef 12:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Added some stuff
Yeah, I made some recent additions. I'll try and add some more later....tired right now...--Jersey Devil 08:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted info
An IP keeps on deleting info regarding Pillar's article in the "Post-Cold War" section of this page. I think, considering that Pillar has been interviewed on, the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, NPR's Fresh Air, etc... regarding this particular article that it is notable. And will revert the info back into the article. If any other community members have a problem with this please comment on this talk page.--Jersey Devil 02:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- Foreign Affairs articles are often prominently featured in many places; to go from Huntington to Pillar without talking about other articles that have achieved even greater note is misleading.
- The content about China banning Foreign Affairs is also quite notable. I don't see why this content should be left out of this article.--Jersey Devil 02:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Um, that's not Foreign Affairs, the American journal; that's a Chinese journal of foreign affairs. Read the article again.
Oh, yes you are correct. I only read the headline and that shouldn't be in this page. But with regard to Pillar's article, I do think that it is notable enough to be mentioned in this article and don't see an argument for not including it in the article. If there are other prominent pieces written in FA, well then add the information about that in the article. I'll wait for more comment from the community on this to avoid a revert war. P.S. Add this, ~~~~ to the end of your posts on talk pages to sign your comments.--Jersey Devil 03:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Perspectives, readership and authorship
I think what is dearly needed on this page is some information about the flavour of articles that you get on Foreign Affairs. I think the best way to give this to include a discussion of the primary readership and authorship with a goal to accounting for its perspectives and biases.
205.250.248.100 08:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
