Revision as of 04:24, 11 September 2016 editGabeIglesia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,582 edits →Clean-up this talk page← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:31, 11 September 2016 edit undoVeritasSapientia (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users533 edits →Clean-up this talk pageNext edit → | ||
Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
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--> | 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) | : 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 04:31, 11 September 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: 4 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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
{{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: 4 months |
Clean-up this talk page
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 Ignore all rules 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.Aleding (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- 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. GabeIglesia (talk) 04:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
- @GabeIglesia: Great information - I will check into that. Thanks for the information.Aleding (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
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)
Why almost no discussion of actual imperialism?
This article doesn't even mention the Philippines, the Panama Canal Zone, and plenty of other places. The pseudo-imperialism of the US of the cold war and subsequently is definitely interesting and has a place in this article, but it is secondary in importance to the actual empire that the US built in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.28.88 (talk) 12:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, this article should focus on 1895-1945, the Mexican War, and perhaps a few other examples of military expansion. Post-WWII overseas military bases and military conflicts also deserve some mention, as does American cultural influence around the world, since this is sometimes referred to as cultural imperialism or soft power. (And Manifest Destiny, various peaceful land purchases, etc.) There's plenty of American imperialism to cover without the article being the propaganda piece it currently is.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- I think the main problem is that 18th and 19th century imperialism is randomly interspersed with information about Cold War imperialism. A distinction has to be made and the article must be broken up. KingHiggins (talk) 10:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
About the section "US foreign policy debate"
It immediately begins with a discussion of annexation sourced to a report by the US congress, and is followed by completely unconnected quotes regarding American imperialism. I don't even know where to begin with fixing this section. What are we trying to describe? A debate within the US of what it should do with regards to empire building? A debate from outside the US with regards to what it is doing? Are we describing imperial efforts throughout history? At inception? During the Cold War? After the Cold War? This section is completely directionless and seems to be a dumping ground for every anon and passing editor to add their favorite quote. I've added a rewrite template, and I don't expect any immediate action. This is only a justification for that template if anyone is actually watching. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Feverishly???!?!
Looking at this edit, the assertion elsewhere in the edited paragraph that the U.S. was feverishly seeking territories such as Hawaii and Latin America in the late 19th century caught my eye. My reaction was: "Feverishly???!?!". I see that this was added without comment or support in this December 2013 edit (one edit in this series of six).
I don't have the time to get into this now, and I don't have the background to do so without boning up a lot. I do want to flag it as possibly needing attention, though. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
What's wrong with this map?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:USAsphere.svg
I've tried to include this map in the article when it was entitled "US de facto empire".
Contributor SantiLak disagreed with the apparently subjective title of the map and removed it.
I've renamed the map as "USA treaties and military facilities" and the file as USAsphere instead of USempire.
I think this is enough to include it at least in the USA military bases subentry.
Please feel free to answer, I need consensus according to Mlpearc to include this map into this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nagihuin (talk • contribs) 01:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
- At first I thought there was nothing wrong with it, apart from being cluttered and ugly. And that it combines economic free trade areas with military ones without saying why. And that it repeats the military bases map at the beginning of the article.Mdw0 (talk) 03:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I've got a couple of concerns, one specific and one general.
- The specific concern is a star indicating "Military facilities and CIA locations" at Manila, Philippines. What does this represent? Does this represent something growing out of the US/RP Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement?
- The general concern is that the image essentially makes a large number of specific unsupported visual assertions about the article topic which are not visual depictions of supported or supportable assertions made textually in the article. This is more of a problem with some images than with others. I see this image and (many) others like it as being a significant problem in this regard. This has been discussed here and elsewhere but, as far as I know, it remains unaddressed.
- Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I think there is nothing wrong about this map and I support its inclusion into the article. About the concerns you propose:
- 1. I see the star in Philippines is directly shown in one of the sources linked in the map. https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/fo1029_usbases12001.gif There is a spot in Philippines and it explains it with a text besides it. It clearly says US military units continue using facilities there.
- 2. Wtmitchell, military and economic power are many times related to each other, so it's perfectly reasonable to sum all the treaties in a single map. And by the way, that is the best way to reflect the power projection of a superpower like the US, which fits perfectly with the main topic (American Imperialism). We wouldn't talk about imperialism without military nor economic projections, would we?
- LadyBeth (talk) 08:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- The main opposer here is an user named Santilak, which was invited to this talk but he prefered to avoid it and now he's conducting a "seek and destroy" policy all over my contributions, which is sad. He is still invited here to explain why he disagrees to include a map showing economic and military treaties in an American Imperialism entry, which is perfectly reasonable. Nagihuin (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- @LadyBeth: You must be a good friend of Nagihuin, seems you showed up just in time to help your friend. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- The main opposer here is an user named Santilak, which was invited to this talk but he prefered to avoid it and now he's conducting a "seek and destroy" policy all over my contributions, which is sad. He is still invited here to explain why he disagrees to include a map showing economic and military treaties in an American Imperialism entry, which is perfectly reasonable. Nagihuin (talk) 18:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- I thank everybody helping me in this stupid dispute, which never had to be born. There is also an interesting case of Misplaced Pages Administrators giving up a neutral position and acting actively against one of the parts in a dispute, which is really meaningful. Nagihuin (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2015 (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[REDACTED] 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)
- All unassessed articles
- Unassessed International relations articles
- Unknown-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Unassessed United States History articles
- Unknown-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
- Unassessed history articles
- Unknown-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- Misplaced Pages articles that use American English