Talk:Geopolitics

This article seriously needs some editing. --Colipon 23:43, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Note: Adding content to wikipedia is not a vandalism. However removing some of the content without any explanation, and respect for a people who contributed their time and efforts to make wikipedia a better place may be consider as such.

Please see :Policies_and_guidelines Vandalism

Key policies

Quote:"Respect other contributors. Wikipedia contributors come from many different countries and cultures, and have widely different views. Treating others with respect is key to collaborating effectively in building an encyclopedia. For some guidelines, see Wikipedia etiquette, Wikipedia:Writers rules of engagement, Wikipedia:Civility, Dispute resolution"

See also:Editing_policy

However if you would propose changing those rules and, in case of success, will get back to us with your proposal to remove al content we have added to this recourse we will consider it seriously.:

We consider that the images we offered to on-line journalism, Plato and geopolitics page contribute to those articles graphically. You have another opinion but you do not offer any other image to be considered. If you think those images don’t belong there please take your time to explain your opinion, we may find some compromise. When images have been removed from some other threads we politely asked why did it happen so we could negotiate some other solution, or even offer some other image, may be not Nick Gabrichidze's . For a time being here is no response. Well then your opinion is counted as your private opinion. Copy of this message will be posted at the threads where images are returned. If you will keep removing those images without any explanation the page protection request will be filed. If disputeabout removing the images illustrating the artickle only on the basis of someones personal taste will not be solved an arbitration for resolving dispute maybe considered. If you will bother to talk (and respect opponents arguments) about graphic content of wikipedia, about why you object this particular image(forget about author) we may find some reasonable solution. Otherwise we will keep our opinion and you keep yours. We appreciate your understanding. Authors of the artickle including user Gabrichidze(not Nick Gabrichidze the artist) 11:19 pm, Amsterdam June 20.

Terminology

As for the definition of geopolitics, there is a clarification that must be made. Geopolitics refers to the influence of PHYSICAL geography on the internal politics or foreign policy of a country. Alone, the term geography is inclusive of both major divisions of the discipline: physical AND cultural. --User: Jesse 17:03, 27 November, 2006

I had been under the impression that geopolitics was another word for international politics which I find is redirected to international relations. I would have thought that world politics would also have been redirected to international relations, but it is redirected to geopolitics. Is geopolitical the proper adjective to apply to contentious issues of international relations such as global warming?

C J Cowie 18:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

The redirect from international politics to international relations is correct. World politics should also redirect to international relations. Geopolitics is a specific branch of political science dealing with geography, political geography, and the distribution of power in the international system. I would find dubious an reference to global warming being a geopolitical issue, until perhaps the effects scale up significantly and recognizably.

—thames 18:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

In its current usage, geopolitics is the art and practice of using international political power. It is almost, but not quite, synonymous with international politics, which is not the same as international relations. International relations is a subset of international politics, but it is not the same thing. In its usage today, the "geo" does not merely refer to geography or demography, although these are important influences on geopolitical events. Rather "geo" refers to the global or international nature of politics and political power in a very broad sense.

Geopolitics is an art that is practiced by its practitioners. There are, in turn, people who study geopolitics, just like they study politics or calculus. But geopolitics is not "the study of" anything. House Speaker Tip O'Neill practiced politics, which is not a field of study in its own right. On the other hand, Richard Neustadt (Presidential Power) engaged in political science, which is a field of study.

A course entitled geopolitics would involve the study of geopolitics, but that is not the definition. Nixon and Brezhnev practiced geopolitics on its highest level but they did not engage in "study" for its own sake, although of course they relied for advice on those who did.

Jrgilb (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Kjellén

As far as I have been able to figure out, Kjellén coined the term "Geopolitics" in his "Staten som Lifsform" ("The state as an organism") originally published in 1916, and while important work on geopolitics was made prior to the publishing, it seems wrong to claim the term was coined in the end of 19th century.

I've not excactly done a thorough research on the origins, I looked the term up in Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 before looking at wikipedia, and they say the term was coined in 1916 - if someone has information that I lack, I'd appriciate it if they could post it here or add a source in the original text. --Jakob mark 07:17, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You are correct that it was Kjellen who coined the term. —thames 14:52, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Kjellen coined the term in 1899 according to a Mamadouh article in the "Geopolitics" journal. -crafty bison

As for the definition of geopolitics, there is a clarification that must be made. Geopolitics refers to the influence of PHYSICAL geography on the internal politics or foreign policy of a country. Alone, the term geography is inclusive of both major divisions of the discipline: physical AND cultural. --User: Jesse 17:03, 27 November, 2005

Hello gentlemen. I appear to be alone in my argument that physical geography is the defining characteristic of the term geopolitics. Of course, politics and policies are cultural innovations, but geopolitics refers to the influence of PHYSICAL geography on such cultural matters as politics and policies; otherwise, any number of terms would suffice. In other words, the term foreign policy would then be synonymous with the term geopolitics. Put another way, to include cultural geography in the definition of geopolitics is tantamount to arguing that geopolitics partly is the study of the influence of cultural geography on itself. --Jesse 16:20, 29 March, 2006

I agree with your definition; a geopolitical angle can and will include references to cultural geography, however the defining issue is that geopolitics must include things like placement of natural ressources, mountains, seas and/or suchlike. Guess noone answered because you wrote it under a headline about Kjellén and whether it was end of 18th century or beginning of 19th :) --Jakob mark 11:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess your beef is with the inclusion of the Huntington thesis in this article? Well, it is geopolitical in the sense that it claims that current time geopolitics makes a clash of civilizations possible; access to ressources is no longer restricted and physical state of a country is not defining for where you can go. I don't particulary like the thesis, but I can see that it in a sense gives a geopolitical reasoning for threats such as terrorism being relevant. --Jakob mark 11:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Critical geopolitics suggests the influence of culture - that the physical environment alone has no strategic influence, but influences only through the values ascribed to it by culture. But this is not geopolitics, this is a newer discipline built to deconstruct it. Geopolitics considers purely physical geography. -crafty bison

Image

Too bad the image was taken down, it really buffed up the article. Ksenon 06:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs Seperation

This aritcle is focused almost completely on Mackinder's Heartland Theory, which has its own seperate article. Much of this information should probably be either moved or slimmed down to leave room for the many other geopolitical models/theories. Joshdboz 11:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that this article has not changed much since I last left the above message, I am going to soon try to remove the longer parts about Mackinder and add them to the Heartland Theory article. Unless someone has strong objections, it only seems logical. The Mackinder info. takes up a far too large percentage of this article, especially when compared to how long the Heartland Theory article is in its own right. I do not have much knowledge in the field, but from a few quick glances, it seems that he was only one of many other significant geopoliticians. Joshdboz 21:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge With Critical Geography

This is a rediculous suggestion, critical geography - to the extent to which it can be labeled - encompasses a wide range of geographical topics, not just the political. Geography is poorly written about on Wikipedia as it is, without removing an aritcle. Robdurbar 09:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Robdurbar, critical geography is a recent critique of a positivist direction in geography, whereas geopolitics is a quite old branch of international relations, and not necessarily particulary critical of positivism even. If this article should be merged with anything (and I don't think it should), it should at least be something that is part of the same academic tradition; critical geography is not particulary relevant for International Relations and vice versa. --Jakob mark 16:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a possibilty for a merge with political geography, which at the moment is crap, though I'm attempting to write a decent version in my sandbox, which may perhaps remvoe the need for two. The Geopolitik article is also in vast need of improvement (personal beielf is the geography is one of Wikipedia's worst areas) Robdurbar 18:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely and totally agree. And utterly absurd suggestion. Icundell 13:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If the two articles should be merged, wouldn't it be more logical to use this one as the starting point, since it does include significantly more information than political geography? --Jakob mark 01:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Geopolitics is the historical science and paradigm, and it makes me think of warfare, military strategy and alliances. Political geography is a sub-field within human geography that deals with power mechanisms, administrative borders and decision-making processes and their influence on (and by) the land. //Big Adamsky 01:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

They are certainly seperate things, but its also true that well written articles on the two would repeat info quite a bit, at least in their history sections. And unfortuntely geopolitics is still very much alive, if only in the military... Robdurbar 08:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I have been taught, current meaning of geopolitics extends to both cultural (human) and physical geography. As has already been said, the term was created in the early 1900s. The inclusive meaning of the term began in the late 1960s as physical geographical factors and cultural geographical factors became causally related (i.e. Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War) Today, the term is used to include the historical context, legal modifications/implications, spatial location, and information distribution over a given area. Thus, this includes geography-related legislation, geography-influenced or related legal precedents, lobbying, and policies. Effectively, geopolitics is the relationship between the physical and cultural environment of an area and political motives, legal precedents, and domestic and international policy. The use of the word geopolitics is far more encompassing than it used to be, and is often used in combination of other information to distinguish precise meaning. From my experience, it seems military campaigns, campaign maps, international policies that are geography-related (The Kyoto Protocol), the United Nations, and other examples are included in the currently used meaning of geopolitics. I think that these articles should remain separate. Geopolitics is an accepted term in is own right. Mappychris 06:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)mappychris

Excellent - I've removed the merge tag, as it seems like none of us want it. Robdurbar 09:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Critical Geopolitics

I have expanded the article on Critical Geopolitics, and was wondering if people think Critical Geopolitics should be mentioned in the "other theories" section and/or the "see also" section? In any case, it would be good if any geographers amongst you would take a look at the Critical Geopolitics page as it stands. Thanks Andrew.boulton 21:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Cirtical geopolitics should be part of the article; its why I put the expansion tag on the page! --Robdurbar 09:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It deserves a link, but is separate from Geopolitics itself as it's essentially a postmodern critique of it. -crafty bison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.219.196.212 (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Definition

The definition of geopolitics is contested and largely impossible since it is also popularly used to refer to action taken in pursuit of territorial control. We need to use the tripartite definition introduced by critical geopolitics. Also astounding there's no section here on contemporary geopolitics - Uzbekistan, Global war on terror etc. -crafty bison —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.219.196.212 (talk) 11:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

'Geopolitics' in lower case, please

This is not a proper noun. It is the name of a discipline and so, like the names for the disciplines of economics, sociology, history, literature, chemistry, etc, should be in lower case except when other contexts (appearing as the first word of a sentence, etc) require upper case. Interlingua 02:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geopolitics/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jetstreamer (talk · contribs) 17:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC) I'm quick-failing this nomination on the basis of the article being poorly-sourced, i.e. failing point 2 b) of WP:GACR. I suggest the nominator to carefully check that the article follows the good article criteria before nominating an article again. Good articles cannot include paragraphs that are completely unsourced. Please fix this issue and re-nominate the article. By the way, a GA nomination is not a way of getting feedback for any article.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 17:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm just a passing outside opinion, but I wanted to point out that the statement "Good articles cannot include paragraphs that are completely unsourced" is actually not correct. Nothing is mentioned in the GA criteria about having a certain number of sources per sentence or paragraph, and the supplementary essay WP:GACN (linked from that page) specifically lists this as a common mistake to avoid:

Asking for inline citations beyond those required by the criteria, in particular, asking for "more" inline citations even though all statements in the required categories are already cited. (Inline citations are not decorative elements, and GA does not have any "one citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rules.)

Still, given that some of the unsourced material does seem to verge on interpretation/analysis, and the outstanding refimprove tag, my first impression is that this one would benefit from more development before renomination. Thanks to everybody for their work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Good living example of geopolitics - Plombieres, Belgium - it's surrounded by German placenames

There is probably an underhint of geopolitics everywhere but a good 'living example' from Europe of geopolitics is (amongst other abodes in Belgium) the abodes of Plombieres...

Check it out on a map, Plombieres (Bleyberg/Bleiberg) was so obviously a German-speaking area targeted for 'frenchification'

So obviously renamed with a French name and annexed into Walloonia.

So obviously there to cut-off the German-speaking communities from the borders of Dutch-speaking community of both Flanders and The Netherlands itself.

So obviously there to give French-speaking (constantly annexing and expanding) Belgium an artificial economic border with Germany.