Revision as of 21:48, 23 November 2016 editFixuture (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users26,899 edits Assessment: International relations: importance=High, class=C; United States History: importance=High, class=C; Colonial Empires: class=C; +Economics: class=C; +Military history: US=y, class=C (assisted)← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:41, 26 November 2016 edit undo99.7.66.150 (talk) →Eliminate unnecesary subsection, change to fit new issues in articleNext edit → | ||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
* Agreed that this article is in bad shape and deserves to be much better. As for opinions and\or views - none really belong in the article. I can see possibly having opinions\views in the Talk page but not in the articles. ] (]) 04:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC) | * Agreed that this article is in bad shape and deserves to be much better. As for opinions and\or views - none really belong in the article. I can see possibly having opinions\views in the Talk page but not in the articles. ] (]) 04:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC) | ||
== |
== Gone too far == | ||
The American Imperialism page has actually gone too far in one direction. Whilst this talk page was initially created to speak regarding the softness of the article regarding the topic, the entire article has been revamped in the opposite direction. Thus, it is still not a neutral article. In most other professional and encyclopedic versions of articles I have read on Misplaced Pages, historians are cited occasionally to give a point of view, but in this article it is so cluttered with negative historical views of America's foreign policy, you miss out on the actual informative things. A standard middle school textbook does a better job than the current article, which desperately needs to be fixed. | |||
I know there is a general policy of not removing content from talk pages but I also believe there are exceptions to this policy\rule if embodied in nothing else than the ] rule. Much of what is in this talk page is garbage and nothing more than rant. At the very least, I suggest we move such verbiage to a separate section entitled "un-constructive rant\commentary" so then those of us whoa are interested in making Misplaced Pages better can focus on the meaningful discussion re: this page.] (]) <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 03:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: If it is of any help, this talk page is auto-archived - or at least, it's "supposed to" after a thread goes unanswered for 120 days. Something must not be right with the bot, because there are a few threads in here that are definitely older than 120 days. Getting that auto-archive fixed may help address your concerns. ] (]) 04:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
: @GabeIglesia: Great information - I will check into that. Thanks for the information.] (]) 04:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC) | |||
== American Base in Brazil == | == American Base in Brazil == |
Revision as of 22:41, 26 November 2016
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American imperialism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about American imperialism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about American imperialism at the Reference desk. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the American imperialism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Clean up plan
Judging by the talk page, it appears that this article is a source of some ideological disagreements, but I think the bigger issue here is its general non-encyclopedic approach. It starts off fine with a general overview and then a chronological timeline, but it just stops after World War I. Now I know there are American apologists that contend that the U.S. hasn't been imperialist since WWI, but the lack of explication on post-WWI allegations of imperialism makes the rest of the article pretty useless. The "Views of American imperialism" and the foreign-policy section are both critical analyses of recent allegations of American imperialism. But there's no discussion of the original allegations or their merits. Not even a reference to them. The U.S. installed dozens of right-wing puppet regimes during the Cold War. This is not debatable. The C.I.A. documents are declassified. And it's fine if you want to contend that those were not imperialist actions, but they form the very basis and foundation of anti-imperialist politics in Latin America today. How on Earth is someone expected to understand where Latin American anti-imperialist and, more generally, Leftist anti-imperialist rhetoric comes from if the very foundational incidents are blatantly ignored? I am going to work on providing a factual history of Cold-War incidents that led to allegations of imperialism, not in the interest of smearing America but in the interest of facilitating an understanding of the world, which is an encyclopedia's purpose. We can let the facts speak for themselves. If anyone wants to help me with this, that would be great.
The second problem with the article is (what I believe is) a dishonest method of referencing in the views and foreign policy section. The article references Ashley Smith's 5 types of imperialism from a conference apparently just called "Socialism" in 2006. 30 minutes of Internet researcg yielded nothing. Now, Ashley Smith is a fairly prominent journalist on the left and has dozens of articles published in the International Socialist Review and Socialist Worker journals. They are all online in their entirety. I don't know why those aren't referenced instead, as this is indeed his position, but the source makes it impossible to verify. I'll also work on cleaning up that sort of thing. There's also a pretty clear left-wing bias in the Empire section, although it's not even good at being a left-wing bias, it's terribly incoherent. The only right-wing "opinion" in the section is Hanson bellowing about "shaggy student protests", which is hardly representative of right-wing defense of interventionism. There's far better arguments than that. This section is critical to the article as well. I think we need some discussions of opposition to alleged American imperialism from outside the U.S. (there's some irony in there but anyway) as well as reciprocal discussion of the approval of American presence by people outside the U.S. I'm thinking at least Chavez and Morales for the former and Maidan/Ukraine for the latter. Events and people like these are, after all, what shapes the controversial policies in the first place. I don't think its possible to have a critical discussion of modern allegations of U.S. imperialism while just quoting Chomsky and other Western academics the whole time.
This deserves to be a good article, and its pretty sad in its current state. I hope some other editors can agree and set aside the unproductive ideological battles in the interest of actually improving the factual content of the article. Alexmunger (talk) 04:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed that this article is in bad shape and deserves to be much better. As for opinions and\or views - none really belong in the article. I can see possibly having opinions\views in the Talk page but not in the articles. Aleding (talk) 04:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Gone too far
The American Imperialism page has actually gone too far in one direction. Whilst this talk page was initially created to speak regarding the softness of the article regarding the topic, the entire article has been revamped in the opposite direction. Thus, it is still not a neutral article. In most other professional and encyclopedic versions of articles I have read on Misplaced Pages, historians are cited occasionally to give a point of view, but in this article it is so cluttered with negative historical views of America's foreign policy, you miss out on the actual informative things. A standard middle school textbook does a better job than the current article, which desperately needs to be fixed.
American Base in Brazil
There is no american base in Brazil. The map is inaccurate, so I deleted it until a edition on it can be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.96.4.93 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
The previous statement appears to be correct. The lists of American bases that I have seen make no mention of any base in Brazil. If someone wants to claim the United States does have a military base in Brazil they should say where it is located and give a reference. This whole article in general appears to be extremely biased and should either be deleted or completely rewritten. Edknol (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
too few information and only positive aspects,better to translate spanish version and put it here.
This page has so little information it looks as an attempt to hide bad things done by the United States and only show the good aspects wich are actually fewer than the the bad ones that the spanish article shows. Seems USA doesnt want their children to see what they do on other countries, the Spanish article is much more complete and has much more information. It seems that American imperialism extends to Misplaced Pages by hiding information to their own people.
http://es.wikipedia.org/Imperialismo_estadounidense
Talks about much more than what is in the current page. And has better references. This one doesn’t talk about things after world war one, and has almost no completely talks on things like the enmienda platt, the united fruit company or or support to dictators in the forms of money weapons inteligence and in some case soilders in Latin America such as Pinochet or Rios Montts , the Bay of Pigs Invasion against cuba, the contras in nicaragua.and destabilization of not alike governments during and after the cold war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Latin_America%E2%80%93United_States_relations
Or the school of the americas which trained and still trains Latin American armies to counter insurgency and teaches them torture tactics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation.
Or atrocities committed during the cold war such as the my lai massacre in Vietnam:
https://en.wikipedia.org/My_Lai_Massacre
And other countless things that could be considered as imperialism. William M.hijo (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC) William M.hijoWilliam M.hijo (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- The Spanish article has a lot of un cited sections that looks like a lot of just personal opinion, there are things that can be added to this article but just adding a lot of pov into the article doesn't improve it, also you need to relate things to actual american imperialism, you can't just be say that all the bad things America has done have been because of imperialism, there actually has to be some relation. Also lets remember this is not a forum. - SantiLak (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
SantiLak
there are things after ww1 but they are inside other parts,and not enough mentions of meddling in latin america. besides,this are alot of references to the main things,just see them. and if you say that invading countries to change their goverments directly for their resources,using mass media such as cnn as propaganda to help in a coup or to get a positive view of an invasion,financing counter revolutionaries and oposition persons and dictators that have commited genocide is not imperialism then what is it?
you also have not said anything about the united states training counterrevolucionaries and dictators in the school of the americas ive left a link to the english wikipedia article,training other countries troops to keep dictatorships in power in exchange of favour for american companies is not imperialism?William M.hijo (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)William M.hijoWilliam M.hijo (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
- This is seriously just you using the talk page as a place to spew your POV, constructive suggestions would be welcome, your personal POV isn't. - SantiLak (talk) 19:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- I don't speak Spanish and have not looked at the Spanish WP article spoken of above. To the extent that this article might overlook mentioning "invading countries to change their goverments directly for their resources", "using mass media such as cnn as propaganda to help in a coup or to get a positive view of an invasion" (this item in particular strikes me as questionable -- it brings to mind a picture of master manipulators in the U.S. Government controlling CNN and other parts of the U.S. news media from behind the scenes, which I very much doubt is happening), "financing counter revolutionaries and oposition persons and dictators that have commited genocide is not imperialism", "the united states training counterrevolucionaries and dictators in the school of the americas", etc., perhaps there should be mentions, or more mentions, or more prominent mentions relating to those areas here and WP:SS links (or more links, or more prominent links) to detail articles on or fitting with those sub topics.
- The question of whether this article gives due weight to the viewpoints expressed by some reliable sources that the U.S. has acted and still does act in an imperialistic manner probably does deserve some consideration. Perhaps the Views of American imperialism section could use some expansion and balancing. See, for example, the POV expressed beginning at the bottom of page 38 in Lendman. Stephen; J. J. Asongu (July 2007). The Iraq Quagmire: The Price of Imperial Arrogance. Greenview Publishing Co. pp. 38-. ISBN 978-0-9797976-1-3. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
- I've never been impressed with editors whining about an article and then suggesting other people do things to improve it. The suggestion here is that someone else do some translating and editing. That's just lazy. Nothing is stopping you from making edits yourself.Mdw0 (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on American imperialism. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917073455/http://homepage.mac.com/mgemmill/Nexon_Wright_Empire.pdf to http://homepage.mac.com/mgemmill/Nexon_Wright_Empire.pdf
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/barsaid.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- C-Class International relations articles
- High-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- C-Class United States History articles
- High-importance United States History articles
- WikiProject United States History articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class history articles
- Unknown-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- C-Class Economics articles
- Unknown-importance Economics articles
- WikiProject Economics articles
- Start-Class military history articles
- Start-Class North American military history articles
- North American military history task force articles
- Start-Class United States military history articles
- United States military history task force articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English